Catholicism WITHOUT POPERY.
An ESSAY to Render the Church of England a Means and a Pattern of Union to the Christian World.

NO Arguments against the Protestant Religion have been Improved with equal suc­cess, to those which are drawn from the Unity of the Roman Church, and the Innumerable Divisions among Protestants; and although each Point in Controversie between us and Rome [Page 2]hath been so discussed, as to set the Truth of the Protestant Cause in the clearest Light, yet the Popish Dra­goons, and the Protestant Divisions, still pervert the World. 'Tis true, that there is no Argument in Dra­gooning, and I hope it will appear in a short time, that there is as little in the other Topick; yet the same Men who scarce know how to sub­mit their Senses to Transubstantiation, are by those very Senses induced to Popery, while they see Divisions, or feel Dragooning.

The last of these Popish Argu­ments, is not to be Confuted by a Pen in its Practice, and needs no Confutation in the Theory; being not Defensible otherwise than by main force.

But the former requires most Se­rious Consideration, not so much to evince that nothing can be con­cluded from those Divisions against the Truth of Protestant Religion, as [Page 3]to take away the very Topick it self.

The great and substantial Divi­sion of England is taken to be, into Church-Men and Dissenters; and again, Church-Men are sub­divided into High Church and Low Church, and many will be called Church-Men, who are in­deed of no Church: and these last having nothing but the Name, are not the Subjects of Christian Ʋnity: But yet, ne­vertheless, through the Iniquity of the late Reigns, the best mark of a Church-Man was never to come to Prayers, and the most scandalous Life the surest Evi­dence of a true Son of the Church. All Sober Men were called Presbyterians, and no Man was supposed able to observe his Baptismal Vow, and the Oath of Allegiance both together; as if, in this Sense, it were impossible to serve God and Mammon. This, [Page 4]and some other things, seem to have put the true Notion of the Church of England out of Mens Heads, and to make it obnoxious to the Romanists for its Invisibi­lity: And hence, upon the Hap­py Revolution, it was a Que­stion between a very Eminent and Learned Prelate,Vox Cleri, P. 68. and the Pro­locutor of the late Convocation, What it was that distinguish'd the Church of England from other Protestant Churches? The Bishop rightly affirming, That the Church of England is an Equivocal Ex­pression, and was not distin­guished from other Protestant Churches, but by its Hierarchy and Revenues: And the Prolo­cutor asserting, That the Church of England was distinguished by its Doctrine, as it stands in the Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies, as well as by its Hierarchy. And although since His Majestys hap­py Accession to the Throne, His Pious and Princely Care of the [Page 5]Church hath fill'd the Archi-Episcopal and Episcopal Seats with Men of Consummate Piety, Learning, and Moderation, where­by, and by giving the Royal As­sent to the Act for Indulgence, He hath been our Deliverer from Tyranny in the Church, as well as in the State; yet it cannot be forgotten, how during the Pre­valency of the High Church Par­ty in the late Reigns, not Kneel­ing at the Sacrament, not Bapti­zing with the Cross, Hearing in Congregations which are Chur­ches of Christ (within the Defini­tion given by the Articles of the Church) were Prosecuted with the greatest Violence, and Men cast out of the Church for those Rea­sons; while Men of the most Profligate Lives, Swore D—n them, they were for the Church of England; and were admitted to the Sacrament without reserve; That great Numbers of the sober Serious Subjects of England, were [Page 6]kept out from that which was called the Church, for Consci­ence sake; and all the Prophane and Vicious let in, that were willing to enter: That those things that would make a Man Holy on Earth, and prepare for Heaven, yet would not let him into the Church; and that he might be a beloved Member there­of, who was not fit to live on the Earth, and made most visible haste to the Devil! These, and the like considerations, made me wonder, that no Man had con­cerned himself to tell us plainly, What the Church of England is. And since the Cant of that Party is still, The Church! the Church! I will, like an Honest Lay-Christi­an, that is not any way infected with Priest-Craft, return a short Answer to the Question, which may be at least of use, to put some Body upon explaining it better.

The Articles of the Church, to which all the Clergy have Sub­scribed, and to most of which (since His Majesty's happy Ac­cession to the Throne) the Dis­senting Ministers have also sub­scrib'd, expresly Teach us; ‘That the Visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of Faith­ful Men,Article XIX. in which the Pure Word of God is Preached, and the Sacraments be duly Mini­stred, according to Christ's Or­dinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.’

Now, whether this Descrip­tion be meant of the Universal Church, or of a single Congre­gation; 'tis thence an easie Con­clusion, That the Church of Eng­land is that Part of the Universal Church which is Compos'd of all the Congregations of Faithful [Page 8]Men in England, in which the Pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly Ministred, according to Christ's Ordinance, in all those things that of neces­sity are requisite to the same: And if this Description be allowed, 'tis impossible to exclude the Presbyterian, Independant, and Antipaedobaptist Churches, from being Part of the Church of Eng­land. Of the Antipaedobaptist may be the greatest doubt, because they deny Infants to be capable Sub­jects of Baptism; but neverthe­less, that Error excludes them not out of this Description; for to the Subjects they allow to be capa­ble, and of which their whole Communion consists, the Sacra­ments are duly Administred, ac­cording to Christ's Ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. It is therefore a wonderful thing to hear Men on one side loudly de­clare, in the Presence of God [Page 9]and the Congregation, That they Believe the Holy Catholick Church; and yet calling their Brethren that go under those several De­nominations, Phanaticks, Hypo­crites, and other odious Names, and Excommunicating them out of the Church. And it is no less wonderful on the other side, to hear some under those several De­nominations, accusing those that conform to the Establisht Ceremo­nies with Antichristianism, and denying the Church of England to be a True Church, when they themselves have Subscribed to that very Article, and Five or Six and Thirty more of their Thirty Nine, and are really Part of the same Church. And this one Con­sideration Justifies the Practice of those who condemn the Impo­sition of unnecessary things, by Communicating with the Mode­rate Dissenters, and condemn the Separating, Censorious, and Schis­matical Humour, wherever sound [Page 10]amongst the Dissenters, by Com­municating with the Conformable Part of the Church. And indeed, it seems to be little considered by the Generality of Protestants, how great the Agreement is between all the said Parties: They have the same Rules of Faith, Manners and Devotion; for they own the same Scripture to be of Divine Autho­rity, and a perfect Rule of Faith and Life; the same Creeds are Pro­fest by them all; the same Ten Commandments are acknowledged by them all, as the Divine Law; and they agree to our Saviours Ex­position thereof, and to all the Precepts, and the Ordinances, and Sacraments of the Christian Reli­gion; they have the same Object of Worship, the same Mediator, the Inspiration of the same Holy Spirit; they have the same Objects of their Hopes and Fears, they fly from the same Wrath, and expect the same Glory.

Again, these several Parties do condemn the Twelve new Arti­cles of the Roman Faith, all the Idolatries of the Mass, Image-Worship, Praying to Saints and Angels, and for the Dead, Mon­kery;1 Tim. 4.1, 2. with all the Doctrines of Demons invented by the Hypo­crisy of those Lyars, nor do any of them retain any thing substan­tial in Doctrine or Practice in­troduc'd by the Apostacy of the Latter Times.

The Disagreement among them lies only about Imposing and Re­fusing Circumstances of Worship, Observation of Days, the Use of Habits and Gestures, of Forms and Ceremonies, and Unscriptural Forms of Church-Government; and about Subscriptions, and Oaths, and Laws made to enforce Mens own Inventions: All which I shall briefly touch, when I have in the following Propositions, [Page 12]endeavour'd to shew what are the true Terms of Union for the whole Christian World; and how all the above-mention'd Parties may enjoy this their Unity in the Church of England.

When our Saviour condemn'd the Jewish Divorce, he grounded his Sentence upon this Founda­tion, From the Beginning it was not so; and to discover the true Terms of Christian Unity, we must look back to the Rise of Christian Religion.

CHRISTIANITY came into this World Pure and Free, without the Jewish Yoak of beg­garly Elements, without the Hea­then Niceties of painful Rights and Ceremonies. It taught to Worship God in Spirit and Truth; bound Men to no City or Moun­tain; prescribed no Postures, nor Dresses; it threw down all In­closures, and was a Gospel sit to [Page 13]be Preach'd to every Creature: Our Saviour taught in Syna­gogues and in Mountains; and in a Coat woven from the top throughout. The Apostles wore the Habits of the Places where they dwelt, and taught in the Sy­nagogues that were built: Both Christ and they used the Septua­gint Translation, and complied with the Customs and Hours of the Jews. And in short, the A­postles Rule was to become all Things to all Men,1 Cor. 9.22. and to com­ply with the innocent Usages of all Places; but when those Cu­stoms, or Usages,Gal. 2.3, 4, 5. Gal. 5.1, 2. were added to Christianity, or impos'd, they always rejected them with Abhor­rence.

Thus were Matters left by the Apostles, and the Disciples of the First Age followed their Ex­ample; and hence the Christians among the Jews, complying with their Customs, and the Christians [Page 14]among the Gentiles with theirs, the Christian World might with­in one Age, be distinguish'd into the Judaizing and Gentilizing Christians. Paul Circumcised Ti­mothy among the Jews: And Church-History tells us, That Fifteen Jerusalem Bishops were Circumcised; And the Empire of Habbasia, which was Discipled by the Aethiopean Eunuch, a Jewish Proselyte, continue Circumcision to this Day, (though as no Reli­gious Rite.) On the other side, the Roman Christians, and others among the Heathens, used several of their Customs, by that General Rule, of becoming all Things to all Men.

But as in the Apostles Time, some used their Liberty for an Occasion to the Flesh, and this Charitable Principle occasioned Differences among the Apostles themselves; (for Paul withstood Peter to the Face at Antioch, for [Page 15]withdrawing from the Gentiles to please the Jews) so in the follow­ing Ages,Gal. 2.11, 12. when the Power of in­ward Religion grew more cold; the Customs which were taken up as convenient, such as keeping Days in compliance with the Jew­ish and Heathenish Festivals, di­stinguishing the Clergy by Habits, as both Jews and Heathens used to do their Priests, became at last to be accounted Sacred; and the Days were taken for Holy Days, and the Clothes for Holy Gar­ments.

But the greatest Depravation of Christianity, came from the A­greement that was between Jews and Gentiles, in their setting up of High-Priests: The shew of Order, and Unity,Mark 8.27. Luke 9.18. that appear'd therein, was very tempting. When our Saviour had told Simon, Mat. 16.13. to 24. that he should be call'd Cephas; and that the Church should be built on his Confession of Faith; it is [Page 16]probable that the Apostles began to think of his being the Chief; for the Question was soon after started among them,Matth. 18.1. Mark 9.33. Luke 9.46. Ibid. and Mat. 20.25. Luke 22.25. Mark 20.42. Heb. 7.23, 24. which of them should be greatest; that is to say, the Pope. And had not our Saviour Positively and Cata­gorically resolved the Question, both on that Occasion, and in Answer to the Ambitious Sons of Zebedee, Hierarchical Dominati­on in greater and lesser Popes might have been thought Justi­fiable from the Example of the Jews, whose Hierarchy was of Divine Institution; But that our Saviour is our only High Priest, is most evident. That by that Rule of his [It shall not be so done amongst you,] he hath taken away all colour of Domination among his Ministers, on Pretence of his Institution, seems a reasona­ble Opinion, for the several Evan­gelists do so expresly agree in that Prohibition, that it is impossible to evade it by the common Di­stinction, [Page 17] viz. That our Saviour there forbids Tyranny and Am­bition, but not Superiority, espe­cially since the Evangelist Luke speaks not of the Authority exer­cised by Tyrants, but Benefactors.

It doth no where appear that the Apostles were the Governors of the Seventy, nor is any Diffe­rence in Order to be found in Scripture between Bishops and Presbyters; for the Difference be­tween the Apostles and the Seven­ty appears to be this, that the A­postles were Persons chosen to be Witnesses of all that Jesus did or taught, and of his Resurrection and Ascention; they were of the Family of our Saviour, and Pri­vy to his whole Conversation in which Respect they neither had nor can have Successors: No more than the Evangelists,☜ whom no Man pretends to have had Succes­sors, as Evangelists.

And it seems most reasonable to believe, that whereas Dr. Ham­mond, and others hold, that the Presbyters mention'd Acts xx. were also Bishops: So they were Apo­stles also in the sense of St. Chry­sostom, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and others; and Luke x. 1. and di­vers other Places, the same word is used concerning them, viz. [...], from whence [...] is derived: And if we say that A­postles, Bishops, or Presbyters, and Deacons are Officers of Divine Institution to continue in the Church, surely we are right, for such only do we find in Scripture, and of such did the Governors of the Church at Philippi consist.Phil. 1.1.

Some indeed, in Ecclesiastical History, are said to have succeed­ed the Apostles, but they succeed­ed them not as Matthias did Judas, for he succeeded him in the Extra­ordinary Work of the Apostolate, [Page 19]and therefore was chosen out of those who had accompanied with the Apostles all the Time, that the Lord Jesus went in and out a­mongst them, beginning from the Baptism of John, unto the same Day that he was taken up, and was added to them to make twelve Witnesses of his Resurrection;Acts 2.21, 22. but the Nature of the Succession was as Apostles, Bishops and Pres­byters in their several Sees; where­as Apostles, in the strict Sense as Apostles, were not confin'd to any See, but were Ministers of the whole Catholick Church, and on whom, (as St. Paul speaks of himself) was the care of all the Churches; and unless it can be made appear that the Apostles have such Successors, and also such as were Witnesses of what our Sa­viour did and taught, as Matthias was the Apostolate, as to so much of it must be Temporary from the Nature of the thing.

The Arguments for a Superio­rity of the Order of Bishops, drawn from the Precedency of James at Jerusalem (who there seems to be Superiour to the Apostles, tho' he was none of the Twelve) concludes only for a Bishops Power in his own Church where he is fix'd, but nothing for the Superiority in Order of Bishops above Presbyters, as of revealed Institution. If Ignatius, who tells us that St. Stephen was a Dea­con to St. James, had told us also of his Presbyters of a distinct Or­der, no doubt but his Testimony had been concluding; but a [...] and a Bishop are all one in Anti­quity: And although at first the Twelve Apostles, who had the Infallible Direction of the Holy Ghost, did ordain those President Bishops perhaps then, but certain­ly afterwards they were made by Election. The Epistles of St. John to the Angels of the Seven Chur­ches [Page 21]of Asia, prove not this Di­stinction of Order, nor any thing more than shall be hereafter ac­counted for in this Discourse. And however the Epistles of St. Ignatius stand Irrefragably defend­ed from the charge of being Spu­rious, I cannot see but that al­lowing the Bishop to be [...], is sufficient to comply with the full Sense of those Epistles, especially if it be consider'd that the Bishops of which he speaks were made so by the Apostles themselves, and no doubt were chosen by infalli­ble Direction, and must therefore deserve a most singular Respect.

But allowing Men to think as they see Evidence concerning this Difference of Order, certainly the Practice of the Church may be such as may allow of Different Apprehensions, without occasion­ing either Tyranny or Schism, the Method whereof is attempted in this Discourse.

However it is plain, that both our Saviour and his Disciples did wholly reject all Temporal Juris­diction, and applied themselves entirely to their Spiritual Admi­nistrations; and that there was no Distinction Causes into of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical, and Temporal or Civil in the Christian World for above Three Hundred Years after Christ. Indeed, while the Empe­rors were Heathens, and the Judges too throughout the Empire, the Christians (according to the Advice of St. Paul) forbare to go to Law,1 Cor. 6.5, 6. and referred all their Differences usually to the Bishops or Pastors of the Congregations, of which they were Members. And when Constantine came to the Empire, his mistaken Zeal confirm'd the Custom, (though the Apostle's Reason for it ceased:) And where­as the Civil Power ought to have been reassum'd by the Christian Magistrate, and the Clergy eased [Page 23]of Secular Business, his Edict set up the Clergy's Domination; and from Arbitrators they became Judges, and Christian Magistrates might not Judge unwilling Chri­stians.

This Corruption grew so fast,Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 11. that about the Year 430. in the Popedom of Celestine, the Patri­archs of Rome and Alexandria, did Degenerate from an Ecclesiastical, to a Secular Ruling and Domini­on: And when I consider, how positively that Degeneracy is for­bidden by our Saviour,Matth. 20.26. Luke 22.25. Mark 10.43. who up­on all Occasions reprov'd it in his own Disciples. When I consider what Miseries the Clergy Domi­nation has caused more than Twelve Hundred and Sixty Years, since that Degeneracy; how it has turn'd the Church into a meer Worldly Kingdom, and the Laws thereof into Humane Politicks; I cannot but rejoice, that by the Laws of England this Degeneracy [Page 24]is or might be cured (were the Laws put in Execution) and the Supremacy restor'd to the Civil Power. And whether the Pope of Rome by this Degeneracy did com­mence the Apocalyptick Beast en­tring into the Seat of Daniel's 4th Beast, and so the time of his Reign be expired, may be worth the Consideration of those that study the Apocalypse. But certain it is, that in England the Bishop of Rome, before the Norman Conquest, had no allow'd Jurisdiction; but the Conqueror coming in under the Pope's Banner, gave him leave to send Legates into England: From William Rufus he attempted to gain Appeals to Rome, which occasion'd the Banishment of An­selm, Archbishop of Canterbury, during the Reign of that King. Upon Henry the First, he Usurp'd the Donation of Bishopricks. On King Stephen, Appeals to Rome. On Henry the Second, the Ex­emption of Clerks from the Se­cular [Page 25]Power. And from King John he got the whole Kingdom.

I shall not trace the Steps, by which the Kingdom recover'd it self out of the Hands of the Cler­gy; but (notwithstanding the Pope held our Ancestors Consci­ences in Slavery, till the Reign of Henry the Eighth) many Acts of Parliament were made to uphold and maintain the Sovereignty of the King, the Liberty of the Peo­ple, the Common Law, and the Commonweal, as appears by the Statutes of Edward the Third and and Richard the Second, Henry the Fourth and Henry the Fifth, being Laws of Premunire, and Provision, by which the Civil Power was preserv'd, and the Body secured against the mon­strous pretended Foreign Head: And upon the whole, the Civil Power of England kept it self out of the Hands of the Priests in all Matters and Causes, except Causes [Page 26]Testamentary, and of Matrimony, Divorce, Rights of Tythes, Ob­lations, and Obventions; for as the Emperors, out of a Zeal and desire to Grace and Honour the Bishops, allow'd them Jurisdiction in Causes of Tythes, because they were paid to Priests; in Causes of Matrimony, because Marriages were Solemniz'd in the Church; in Causes Testamentary, because Testaments were many times made in Extremis, when Priests were present. So the Kings of England, before the Reformation, did all along derive Jurisdiction in these Causes, to the Bishops, though the Right remain'd in them as the Fountain. But herein England hath been more unhappy than the Empire; for whereas the Bishops, when Christian Emperors granted them this Jurisdiction, proceed­ed in these Causes, according to the Imperial Law, as the Civil Magistrate did proceed in other Causes; our Bishops introduced [Page 27]the Imperial Law, and (since it came into the World) the Canon Law also into England, and en­deavoured all they could to de­stroy Caesar's Image and Superscri­ption. They call'd their Courts, Courts Christian, as if the Civil Courts were but Courts of Ethnicks, and their Causes Spiritual, as if Civil Causes were Carnal: And yet if an Honest Man Examine the Matter, he will probably find as much Christianity in Westminster-Hall, as in Doctors Commons, and Adultery a Crime no more Spiritual than Murder.

Since the Reformation began, the Civil and Pretended Spiritual Authority have been wresting, and they are not yet fully agreed. It was Enacted by the Statute, 24 Hen. VIII. Cap. 12. That all these Spiritual Causes should be Judged within the King's Autho­rity, and not elsewhere. By the 26 Hen. VIII. Cap. 14. The Par­liament [Page 28]took upon them (even in those Popish Times) to Create new Bishops, Suffragans, and to appoint their Sees. And this mul­tiplying of Bishopricks is no new thing, for if you will believe Giraldus Cambrenses, he tells us, (in a Writing which he presented to Pope Innocent the Third) That in Britain there were in the time of the Romans Five Provinces, and accordingly Five Arch-Bi­shopricks; under each of which was Twelve Bishopricks; so there were Threescore Bishopricks at a time, when the Island was not wholly Christianized. Nor is the Translation of Sees any Novelty; for in the Year 604, Pope Grego­ry did, for the sake of Austin the Monk, procure the Translation of the Archiepiscopal Seat from Lon­don to Canterbury, where it remains to this Day, notwithstanding the endeavour of Gilbert Folioth, Bi­shop of London, in the time of Henry the Second, and the endea­vours [Page 29]of other Bishops of London since, to recover the Archiepisco­pal Dignity.

But (to proceed) by Statute 1. Edw. VI. Cap. 2. The Writ of Conge delire was ousted, and it was Enacted, That none but the King by his Letters Patents should collate to an Archbishoprick, or Bishoprick; That all Process Ec­clesiastical should be in the King's Name, and the Test in the Name of the Person having Ecclesiasti­cal Jurisdiction, and the Seal to be the King's Arms. And though this Act was Repealed by the First Marie, Cap. 2. yet that Act was Repealed again, by Primo Jacobi, Cap. 25. And some think that the Statute 1 Edw. 6. Cap. 2. is revived thereby, and those who are Enemies to the Church, are ready to enquire, What Penalties our Bishops are liable to, by Is­suing Process in their own Names, [Page 30]and using their own Seals. For notwithstanding the Cant of The Church! the Church! their Courts are the King's Courts, and their Law, the King's Ecclesiastical Law; and this is acknowledged by the Oath of Supremacy, and all the Laws made to this purpose, are but in Affirmance of the Com­mon Law; notwithstanding the Author of Vox Cleri, Vox Cleri, P. 1. was so fond of Loyalty to the Church.

This indeed was an Expression which explain'd the Carriage of the High, Church-Party to His Present Majesty; for though they talk'd loud in behalf of the Pre­rogative, it was only that the Prerogative might pay them Tri­bute; and they were willing it should rob the Lay-Subject, if it allow'd them to possess what they had filch'd from the Crown; The King and Queen must first Swear Allegiance to the Church, [Page 31]before they should be Crown'd; and then they thought they had catched them, and refused to Swear Allegiance to them, as the Law requir'd; but if instead of that horrible abuse to which the Sacra­ment was exposed in the Late Reigns, a Test were Compos'd, renouncing Transubstantiation and Common-wealth Principles, and ob­liging to maintain the Govern­ment of England, by King, Lords and Commons, as it is now Esta­blished; the King and Kingdom would be secured, beyond all possibility of Danger, and the just Rights of the Arch-Bishops, Bi­shops, and other Clergy, would be maintain'd, though those Ja­cobite Church-Men were sent out to the French King, whom they were not able to bring in to them. And it is observable, That as in the Late Reigns, all the Champi­ons for the Hierarchy, strove to prove that it was the Duty of [Page 32] Dissenters, to submit to the Church Establish'd by Law, in those things which they acknowledg'd to be in themselves unnecessary Impo­sitions, because they were impos'd by Authority; but they common­ly left the Government to shift for it self, and to Answer for those Impositions to God, Conscience, and the World: So now the same Party left His Majesty, and all concern'd in the Late Revolu­tion, to Answer for it to God, their own Consciences, and the World; for they wash'd their Hands, and said, They were Inno­cent of being concern'd therein; but they were under the force of Providence; and if His Majesty would uphold the Power of the Church, and take care to sit fast, they would pay Him Allegiance; otherwise they were ready for the next that came, if he had the good luck to get the better. And this is the Substance of the late [Page 33]Writings of that Party. How much better Friends are they to His Majesty, who believe Him to have an undoubted Right to his Crown, and to Govern the Church as well as the State; and that they are bound not only not to Resist Him, but to Assist Him with their Lives and Fortunes, against all Op­posers.

The Church of England rightly understood, is Lovely and De­sirable; but that which hath con­founded and divided the Church is the Jumble and Mixture that hath been made, between the Bi­shop's Power, which is of the Essence of his Office as a Presby­ter, the Power which he has as President of the Presbytery, and the Power which he has by Dele­gation from the King. A Primi­tive Bishop (as is clear by innu­merable Testimonies) had no more under his Charge than he could [Page 34]Personally know; and when Churches grew larger than one Bi­shop could Personally inspect, they had more Bishops, yet so as that one Bishop had the Preceden­cy; and in a short Time he only ingrost the Name, and the others were called Presbyters; from among whom, upon the Death of the Bishop, another was chosen to succeed him. But the Truth is, as is most evident, and parti­cularly by the Testimony of that Incomparably Learned, and Pi­ous, Arch-Bishop Ʋsher, That every Presbyter hath a Right of Governing his Church, and Ad­ministring Discipline,Vid. Ʋsher's Reduction. and thence hath the Name of Rector; and is in the English Office of Ordina­tion, commanded to Administer Disciplinam Christi, the Discipline of Christ; and he expresly avers, That the omission of the Exercise thereof in England, is only from the Custom receiv'd in England; [Page 35]and that, that Impediment may be remov'd by Law: So that the Relation a Bishop hath to a Par­ticular Congregation, is no more than as a Presbyter; the Prece­dency of a Bishop to the Presby­ters in a Diocess, is of Pure Pri­mitive Practice, grounded on the General Rules of doing all in Or­der, though it be no part of Re­vealed Institution: All Societies are taught by the Light of Reason to keep some Order; and for convenience of Regular Converse, the Person of a certain Number, whom they agree to be First in Honourable Qualities, hath a Na­tural Right to be President, though still of the same Order: Thus the President of a Colledge of Phy­sicians, is no more than a Phy­sician to his Patients, but he is a President to the other Physi­cians; and it would be a strange Fancy for such a President to claim a Right of being Physi­cian [Page 36]to all the Bodies in London, and alone to administer some sort of Physick to all within the Bills of Mortality; I doubt such an Usurpation would increase the Number of the dead, and be just­ly reckon'd horrid Tyranny over the Living.

But there is a third, piece of an English Bishop, and in that he is plainly the King's Ecclesiastical Lord Lieutenant, in such a com­pass of Ground, call'd a Dio­cess; and this he has by positive Humane Law; and in this respect is not a Church, but a State-Officer, entrusted with part of the Civil Power: His Courts are Civil Courts, and he sits in the House of Lords, with respect to His Temporal Baronage.

If the Distinction aforesaid were well understood, how easie were it to end the Controversie [Page 37]about the JƲS DIVINƲM of EPISCOPACY, and the JƲS DIVINƲM of PRES­BYTERY and INDEPEN­DENCY; about the Delega­tion of the Bishop's Power to Lay-Chancellors, and the Bishops Lording it over God's Heritage: And how easie would it be to Rectifie abundance of Matters complain'd of in the present Practice of the Church? For Example, If the Bishops were made by the Delivery of the Ba­culum and Annulum by the King,Staff and Ring. as they were before the Conquest, or by Letters Patents; and were he made President of the Presby­tery by their Election, especially if the King did usually give the Staff and Ring, or grant the Let­ters Patents to the Person first chosen by the Presbytery; they might with the greater Assurance Pray for the Assistance of the Holy Spirit at his Election. Were [Page 38]his Lay-power understood to be Delegated to his Lay-Chancellor, (according to the good Example of Sylvanus of old) who would find fault? And the Legislators would soon think of giving their Courts a Civil Process, in­stead of their horridly abused Spiritual Weapon Excommunica­tion. Were the Presbyter restor'd to his Just Right, we might soon see some good Effect of Disci­pline, which can never be exer­cised to any purpose, till Parish-Communion be made more pure, and the Pastor's Power be restor'd. One Physician may as well take the Charge of all the Bodies in London, as one Bishop of their Souls; and the Congregations that are gather'd from the several parts of great Cities, cann't have the personal Inspection, nor rea­dy Access to the Pastoral Help, nor enjoy the Advantage of that Article of the Creed, Communion [Page 39]of Saints, which ought to be provided for in a well Disci­plin'd Church. And this is what my Soul longs for, and not with­out hope; For he that will im­partially consider the late Wri­tings for Episcopacy, particularly those of Doctor Maurice, and Doctor Scot, and the Writings against it, particularly of Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Clerk son, will, as I conceive, find these things true.

First, That the Roman and English Prelacy, as now Exerci­sed, are wholly dropt in the Scuffle, and no Foundation found for either in Scripture, or Primi­tive Antiquity.

Secondly, That Independency, if it be meant only of the Rela­tion between a Pastor and his Flock, and his Independent Right of Exercising the Power of the [Page 40]Keys over them, it is plainly Jure Divino; but if taken in a Sense excluding. National Churches, taking away all the common or­dinary Means of Communion among Christian Congregations, and leaving the Power of Ordi­nation, and Admission to the Lord's Supper, in the People, hath as little Foundation in Scripture, or Antiquity.

Thirdly, That Councils are for Advice, not Legislation, for Con­cord, not Domination, and have no Power to make Laws for the Universal Church. They can no more Alter, or add to the Laws of Christ, than the Jewish Priests could Add to, or Alter the Laws of Moses: And as there never was, so there never can be a Ge­neral Council; and that a Visible Head of the Universal Church on Earth, Monarchical or Aristocra­tical, is a meer Chinera, never de­sign'd [Page 41]by GOD, nor of Use to Men.

Fourthly, That the Episcopacy which within a certain compass of Ground, provides a Person chosen by the Presbytery, to a Su­perintendency, to preside in Con­ventions of the Clergy, within his Precinct or Diocess, to be con­sulted, and principally join in the Ordination, and Confirmation of Persons, who desire to be ad­mitted to the Lord's Supper; to be advised with by every Presby­ter within his Precinct, where any Difficulties arise concerning the Exercise of the Keys; but which destroy not the Power of the Presbyter, nor the Primitive Church Species, has good war­rant in Scripture, Antiquity, Rea­son, and the Nature of the thing; I say, chosen by the Presbytery: For even Mr. Dodwel, (that un­accountable Bigot to Prelacy) ac­knowledges,[Page 42]that Bishops were first made by Election.

Fifthly, Episcopacy thus stated is Jure Divino, as all things a­agreeable to right Reason are Jure Divino, (that is to say) Reason teaches such Things without Re­velation; and if Reason had not been sufficient to this End, he that spent Fourty Days on Earth after his Resurrection, instruct­ing his Apostles in the Things concerning the Kingdom of God, would not have Omitted to di­rect them herein: He that was faithful only as a servant, gave Rules for every Pin in the Tabernacle;Hebr. 3.5. and the very Colour of the Rib­bons used by the Priests. And our Lord, who was Faithful as a Son over his own House, would not have Omitted a Matter of such Importance. So when Christ had Instituted the Office of Presby­ters, or Bishops; and the Apostle [Page 43]given an Account of, and Instru­ctions for their Office, there was no need to Institute the Method of their Concord, which right Reason taught Men of all sorts of Learn­ing, as Philosophers, Physicians, &c. Again, Presbytery, if it mean only an Equality of Gospel Ministers, by the Institution of Christ, it is Jure Divino, as plain as Words can make it; if it be meant, the Form of Government so diversify'd, as is usually meant by that Word, it is not Jure Di­vino, having no Reveal'd Institu­tion: And Reason taught all the Christian Church to appoint a President Bishop for Life; and nothing but the Rise of Popish Prelacy could make the other Me­thod seem Reasonable; and Cal­vin himself (as I take it) fell in­to it, out of Necessity, and not out of Choice: But surely this Part of Church Government, is no more determin'd by Revela­tion, [Page 44]than the Form of Civil Go­vernment.

Sixthly, While under the No­tion of CHƲRCH GOVERN­MENT, the Clergy encroach on the Prerogative of the Civil Pow­er; whether it be in an Episcopal or Presbyterian Form, neither God nor His Majesty will have the Obedience paid them which is due; and the only way to sup­port both Civil and Ecclesiastical Government, is to keep them en­tirely distinct, and unconfound­ed, to give to Caesar the Things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods. To own the Di­vine, as the Vicegerent of Christ, in his Prophetical and Priestly, and the Civil Magistrate, as his Vicegerent in his Kingly Office. Particularly the Civil Power is to appoint the Bounds of Bishop­ricks; and so is the Twelfth The­ses of that clear headed and ac­curately [Page 45]Learn'd Dr. Isaac Barrow. ‘By the Laws of God, and ac­cording to Ancient Practice, Princes may Model the Bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, Erect Bishopricks, Enlarge, Diminish, or Transfer them as they please.’ Thus he; where by Princes he ne­cessarily intends the Legislative Power, where-ever 'tis placed, by the Respective Constitution of Christian Kingdoms.

Seventhly, Were these things well consider'd, the Controver­sie between the Episcopal and Presbyterian, would be certainly reconcil'd, and even the Indepen­dent and Antipoedobaptist, would probably be folded, if the Terms of Union, which the Church prescribes, did not keep them out: Which will come next to be con­sider'd, after I have premised the few following short Proposi­tions.

First Proposition.

When God, bringing his First-begotten into the World, com­manded all his Angels to Wor­ship him;Hebr. 1.6. Luke 2.14. their Song was, Glory to God on High, on Earth Peace, and good Will towards Men: But while Christians have join'd with the Heavenly Host in the First Clause of that Song, they have neglected the two other Parts thereof, and for want of Peace on Earth, the former and latter Clau­ses have made us yet but little Har­mony.

Second Proposition.

The Eternal Father hath call­ed himself The God of Peace, Rom. 15.33. the Blessed Jesus is The Prince of Peace; Rom. 16.20. the great Legacy which he left be­hind Him,Isai. 9.6. was, His Peace; and The Gospel of Peace, John 14.27. is the great [Page 47]Instrument of Erecting that King­dom, of which Peace is one of the greatest Glories. Till God give his People the Blessing of Peace, we can't expect that Hap­py Time when all the ends of the Earth shall fear him; Psal. 67.7. and his Name will never be Hallow'd to purpose,Mat. 6.9, 10. nor his Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven, till this Kingdom of his be come.

Third Proposition.

The Methods which Men have taken to attain Peace, have been various. Conquerors have en­deavour'd it, by making Man­kind Slaves, and reducing the World under an Universal Mo­narchy.Mark 9.38. Luke 9.49, 54. The Apostles themselves began to be Tempted by the Anti­christian Spirit, and were for bringing all under their Master, by Silencing first, and then by Fire from Heaven. Popes have at­tempted [Page 48]it,The Reason of this is Plain, if the Pope be An­tichrist, and his Reign extend­ed to 1260 Years. by pretending to In­fallibility; and Councils, by ma­king Canons. Some Places have labour'd to attain it, by an Inqui­sition; and others, by Penal-Laws, concerning doubtful Mat­ters of Speculation: And of them all (except the Apostles, who were afterwards better Instructed) we must conclude with the Apo­stle, The way of Peace they have not known; or, at least, not pra­ctised to walk therein.

Fourth Proposition.

Ever since the Fall of Man, this Lower Creation hath been a Stage of War;Gen. 3.15. the Seed of the Wo­man, and of the Serpent, have been in constant Action:1 John 3.8. Our Sa­viour came to Destroy the Works of the Devil,Eph. 2.2. whilst the Spirit that works in the Children of Dis­obedience, keeps up his Works with all Diligence; and there­fore [Page 49] there is no Peace, saith God,Isai. 57.21. to the Wicked. Peace without Holiness is impossible, and the World seeks it in vain: The Apo­stle Instructs us to follow Peace with all Men, and Holiness; Hebr. 12.14. and the Prophet assures us,Isai. 32.17. That the Work of Righteousness, shall be Peace; and the Effect of Righteousness, Quiet­ness and Assurance for ever. And that when God hath wrought all our Works in us,Isai. 26.12. He will Ordain Peace for us.

Fifth Proposition.

It is therefore Impudent Folly, for men to Apprehend that they can have Peace with one another, while they are at open Enmity with God. He that hath all Mens Hearts in His hand, will ma­nage them so, that his own Word shall be Establish'd; if Men will not join in the Practice of Things, in the Theory of which they all [Page 50]agree, they will be still the In­struments of Divine Vengeance on one another. And therefore if Magistrates would labour for Peace, they must lay the Founda­tion thereof in the Reformation of Manners; and be very Cau­tious of making Laws, about Matters of Speculation: For our Saviour hath told us,John 1.17. That if any will do his Will, he shall know of the Doctrine; the way to know more, is to Practise what we do know. Otherwise,

Sixth Proposition.

While Men Dispute with Ve­hemency, and turn Divinity into the most Abstruse and Exquisite fine Notions, they make Christi­anity unintelligible, and distin­guish all Religion out of the World. They Impose on the Credulous, confound mean Capa­cities, divide Christians into Sects, [Page 51]and every Sect Adores its own Distinguishing Character, till if the Question be, what Religion a Man is of? 'Tis Answer'd, A PAPIST, A CHƲRCH OF ENGLAND MAN, A PRES­BYTERIAN, AN INDE­PENDENT, AN ANTI­POEDO BAPTIST: But no Man does, and who can truly an­swer, I'm a Christian!

Seventh Proposition.

True Religion is the Bond of Union.Isai. 11.9. When the Earth shall be full of the Knowledge of the Lord; as the Waters cover the Sea, Isai. 2.4. Mich. 4.3. then Men shall beat their Swords into Plow-shares, and their Spears into Pruning-hooks: Then Nation shall not lift up Sword against Nation, nor shall they learn War any more; then nothing shall hurt or destroy in all God's Holy Mountain. And since it is evident, that although Acti­ons [Page 52]are, Belief is not within the Power and Reach of Humane Law; and that the Generality of Mankind never will, without a Miraculous Power, and Extraor­dinary Revelation, agree on the Matters so hotly Disputed even a­mong Protestants, 'tis worth the while to consider, what are the probable Means which the Scrip­ture hath Reveal'd, and which it is our Duty to Use, for attain­ing an Universal Peace among Christians.

There is a Rock on which our Saviour promis'd to build his Church, that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it: So solemn a Promise requires a Se­rious Consideration; for as the Papists taking it to be the Person of Peter, and his Successors, have by that Mistake concerning this Rock, laid the Foundation of the Antichristian Kingdom; so the [Page 53]Kingdom of CHRIST ME­DIATOR, is truly and surely built upon this Rock, which our Saviour intends in that Pro­mise; and that is,Matt. 16.18. That JESƲS CHRIST IS THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

Ye believe in God, John 14.1. believe also in me, was the Substance of our Saviour's Doctrine, and the Apo­stles Creed. I believe that Je­sus Christ is the Son of the living God, was Martha's Creed.Mark. 16.18. John 11.17. And he that Confesseth, That Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh, God dwelleth in him, and he in God: John 1.4. It is the end of Writing the Go­spel; and this (saith the Apo­stle) is the Word of Faith, That if we confess with our Mouth the Lord Jesus, John 20.31: Rom. 10.8, 9. and believe in our Hearts, that God hath raised him from the Dead, we shall be saved: And accordingly, upon his Pro­fession of the Creed;Acts 8.37. I believe [Page 54]that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Ethiopian Eunuch, who be­fore believed in God, was Bap­tised, and the words of Baptism instructed him as they do us, in the Foundation of the Christian Church.

And before any other Creed was made, the Effect of this Creed was Miraculous, both with re­spect to the Holy Lives of those that profess'd it, and the great Encrease of the Number of such.

Now what was sufficient in the first Ages, was so to after-Ages, and is so now;1 Cor. 3.11. For other Foun­dation can no Man lay, than that which is laid already, was a Truth in St. Paul's Time.

The Apostles Creed, and the other Creeds, subscribed to by the Church of England, are not Additions to, but Paraphrases of [Page 55]this Creed, or Truths which ne­cessarily follow from the Belief thereof, and many of the Arti­cles thereof were added in After-Ages, in contradiction to the se­veral Heresies which rose at seve­ral Times to the endangering that Foundation.

For Instance,Iraeneus Adv. Haeres. Lib. 1. cap. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, &c. all the Hereticks mention'd by Iraeneus, where­with the Devil vext the Church for the first Three Hundred Years, were for a Plurality of Created Gods, whom they held also to be Creators; and for this reason it should seem were those Words, MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH added, which were not in the Creed, called the Apostles for many Years; as ap­pears in the Symbol recited by Marcellus Ancyranus, in the Con­fession of Faith which he deli­vered to Pope Julius, with the Exposition of the Apostles Creed, [Page 56]written by the Latine Doctors: The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were further Explications of this Creed, in Opposition to Arrius, who struck at the very Founda­tion, even the Godhead of Christ. And the Second Councill of Con­stantinople, enlarged the Nicene Creed, in the Article that con­cern'd the Holy Ghost (in Oppo­sition to Macedonius, who denied the Godhead and Personality of the Holy Ghost) and in the Articles concerning the Catholick Church, and the Privileges belonging there­unto; and when the Roman Church (after the Days of Charles the Great) had added the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, in Opposition to the Greek Church; the Council of Trent it self hath recommend­ed it to us, ‘Council. Tre­dend. Ses. 3.As that Principle in which all that Profess the Faith of Christ [Page 57]do necessarily agree, and the firm and only Foundation a­gainst which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail.’ Thus out of their own Mouths may we judge those pretended Ser­vants of our Saviour.

His Blessed Promise hath been perform'd to a Tittle; his Church hath been preserved in spight of the Gates of Hell, and the Rock hath been like the Foundations of the Earth, unshaken by all Assaults of Hell; of all that are there already, and all that are hastning thither. And it is to me a most Important Observa­tion, which is made by that Pro­phet, and Apostle of this Latter Age, Archbishop Ʋsher, Usher's Ser­mon, June 20. 1624. pag. 27.

This is a Consideration of the greatest Weight, and discovers the Foundation of Christian Ʋnity, and of the Peace of the Univer­sal Church.

And even J. W. (in his Con­test with the Right Reverend and Learned Doctor Stilling fleet, Stilling. Answ. to sev. Treatises 68.70. now Lord Bishop of Worcester) proves the Ʋnity of the Roman Church, by this Argument: ‘All those who Assent unto the Ancient Creeds, are Undivided in Mat­ters of Faith: But all Roman Catholicks Assent unto the An­cient Creeds; Ergo, all Ro­man Catholicks are Undivided in Matters of Faith.’

These, says the Doctor, are the most Healing Principles that have yet been thought of: Fye, for shame, why should we, and they of the Church of Rome quarrel thus long! We are well agreed in all Matters of Faith, which, saith he, I shall demon­stratively prove, from the Argu­ment of J. W. drawn from his two last Propositions.

‘All who Assent to the An­cient Creeds are Undivided in Matters of Faith: But both Papists and Protestants do As­sent unto the Ancient Creeds, Ergo, They are Undivided in Matters of Faith; and though this way of Arguing was only Ad hominem, it is great Pity that the Major Proposition of the last Syllogism, was not pro­nounced out of the Infallible Chair.’

But certain it is, That the Pa­pists, notwithstanding their great Boast of Ʋnity, are much more Divided within themselves, than any Protestants from each other; for the Rent goes through the main Foundation of their Faith, Their Church's INFALLIBI­LITY: For where to place it they can by no means agree; but (as among that Party which calls it self the Church of Eng­land) though some are Socinians, Note, If that Notion be true, viz. That the Vaudois and Albigeois are the Two Witnesses, 'tis Demonstration that Hie­rarchy and Liturgy are no proper Terms of Uni­on: For although they have been pure Churches ever since the Apostles Days, they have always been without both. some Calvinists, &c. yet all agree in the Hierarchy and Common-Prayer: So there are two things in which all Papists do agree, viz. the Hierarchy under the Bishop of Rome, and the Sacrifice of the Mass: Upon these two Poles the Antichristian World stands firm, though al­most [Page 63]all others are controverted. Fas est & ab hoste doceri. And therefore why may not the Go­vernours of the Church of Eng­land fix upon those Terms of ƲNION, wherein all Christi­ans in the World are agreed, which are few and plain, and restore them to their Primitive Right of being the Foundation of the Peace, and Unity of Chri­stians? Terms of Divine Institu­tion will as certainly Unite the Christian World, as Terms of Hu­mane Institution have done the Antichristian. And since it is not a Matter at present practicable, to bring all sorts of Christians toge­ther, to agree on those Terms, it will be the Glory of the Church of England to set an Example which will be follow'd by all the Christian World.

There are (in a Word) some Truths which are the First Prin­ciples of the Oracles of God; Heb. 5.12. and these are the Truths which ought to be the Terms of Union. But I would not be misunderstood, as if I thought no other Truths necessary for a Growing Christian. There are the Principles of the Doctrine of CHRIST (or as the Original) the Word of the beginning of CHRIST which are necessary to Unite a Man to the Christian Church, Heb. 6.1. and which are suited to the Unlearned, as well as the Learned, and ought to admit him into its Communi­on: But there is also a going on to Perfection, which becomes all Men that live in that Communion, the degrees of which are various, and the highest degrees most de­sirable; but yet he that hath but two Talents, ought not to be cast out of the Church, because he [Page 65]hath not Five: Nay, he that hath but one, may improve it to Salvation, though he never un­derstood School-Divinity, nor the Power of the Church in De­creeing Ceremonies. But though I might, I will not presume to name those Truths or Terms of Union; the Moderate of all the aforesaid Persuasions, will easily agree therein. And to the Con­sideration of the Sons of Peace, I leave the Particulars; though I think I may say, That the Arti­cles of the Church to which the Dissenters do Subscribe, contain them all.

But it will still be Objected, That though an Assent to those Doctrinal Articles, to which the Dissenters have Subscribed, and which include Scripture, as the Rule of Faith and Manners, and thence Collect Rules of Faith, Practice and Devotion, were [Page 66]made the Terms of Admission in­to the Church of England; yet there remain many things in Point of Practice, which keep up Differences, and divide us in­to Parties; as,

• I. Forms of Prayers.
• II. Habits of the Clergy.
• III. Presentations.
• IV. The Cross in Baptism.
• V. Kneeling at the Sacrament.
• VI. God-fathers and Godmo­thers.
• VII. Holy-Days.
• VIII. Ordination of Ministers, Subscription, and Oaths on one Hand.

Objections, Antipathy, and Pre­judices against all these things, and some Indecencies on the other hand. [Page 67]And I will shortly touch on all these Heads, when I have pre­mis'd,

First, Indifferent Things used in Religion, or by Religious Men, and suffer'd to remain ac­cording to their Nature, were never the occasion of Division; and Indifferent Things enforc'd by Laws, have ever caused Divisions in the Christian World. To in­stance in the Church of England, kneeling at the Sacrament is im­pos'd, and keeps out Thousands of Good Christians out of the Establish'd part of the Church: whereas sitting when we sing Psalms is not commanded, but the Posture has obtained in all Assemblies, as well of the Church, as of the Dissenters: We have had abundance of Paper spoil'd in Writing for, and against Kneel­ing at the Sacrament; but not a Page for or against Sitting when [Page 68]Psalms are Sung: And yet we may Argue as strongly against Sitting when we Praise God, as against Kneeling at the Sacrament, abstracted from the Imposition. We do not pretend to an Unifor­mity in Time; but in some Chur­ches the Parish meet at Nine, in some at Ten, in others not till Eleven; yet the Church of Eng­land never received any prejudice by the want of Uniformity there­in. The Surplice has even divi­ded the Martyrs among them­selves, being an indifferent thing impos'd; wearing black Cloaths is used by Conformable Men, and the Teachers among all the Dis­senters indifferently; and yet one may prove the Unlawfulness of the Clergy's wearing Black, with as strong Arguments as any Man can use against wearing White. But when Men will be giving Re­ligious Significations to Insignifi­cant Things, we see what comes [Page 69]on't: Imposition is warring a­gainst the Nature of Man: Adam in Innocency fell by the Breach of a Positive Law, concerning a Matter in it self indifferent, ab­stracted from the Sanction of the Law, although it receiv'd the San­ction from GOD Himself: And it must be highly unreasonable for Men to expect from fallen Man that Obedience which was not paid by Adam to GOD Him­self, except, at least, their Pow­er to Command were as Evident as His.

The Right Reverend Prelate, Doctor Jeremy Taylor tells us, in his Liberty of Prophecying, That he that makes an Article of Faith, or a Term of Church-Communi­on, without a Divine Authori­ty, chalks out a new way to the Devil. The Incomparable Chil­lingworth, and the Excellent Hale of Eaton, have fix'd the Name [Page 70]of Schismaticks on the Imposers of unnecessary things: And cer­tainly, he that in Matters of Re­ligion makes indifferent things necessary, Usurps Power Superi­our to Christ and his Apostles, yea, to GOD Himself, for they thought fit to leave them indiffe­rent;Job 40.12. And shall he that con­tendeth with the Almighty in­struct Him? If it was not well done, he that reproveth GOD let him answer it. As for the Appointing of Churches, and Places, and Times for Assembling, and Circumstances of the like na­ture, Reason makes such Appoint­ments necessary, but still without Restraint, as to other Places or Times, and such Appointments, fall not under the Notion of In­different Things. 'Tis an absurd way of Arguing, That the Church may command Indifferent Things, because Things Good are Com­manded, and Evil Forbid by God, [Page 71]and they have no other way of Exerting their Power; Would they be Greater, or Wiser than their Master: Our Saviour died to bear witness to the Truth, and the single Truth, that he immedi­ately died to bear witness unto was, That He was a King. And I know no Man, or Church, that has any thing to do to mend our Saviour's Institutions: Their Power in Religious Matters is to enforce what He has commanded, and to restrain from what he has forbidden, and accordingly to Administer Rewards and Punishments. This is Power and Work enough for Souls that are sincere; and wherever any Power on Earth hath been found making such Ad­ditions, they have also been found entirely negligent of what is com­manded, or forbid by God; and their whole Zeal hath been em­ploy'd, in enforcing their own Innovations: Christians as well [Page 72]as Jews, have made void the Com­mandments of GOD, through Mens Traditions.

But to Reflect a little upon the several Particulars above-menti­oned.

CATHOLICISM WITHOUT POPERY.

IN your Preface to your late Discourse, Entituled, Peace at Home, you have rightly observed, ‘That the Contro­versie which is the Subject Matter of that Discourse, ought not to be carried on with Heat and Passion, but fairly debated with Reason and Moderation, not by un­known Persons, who may be Jesuits or Deists, but by such as dare own their Prin­ciples, and will endeavour to Reconcile our Differences, and not inflame them.’ I hope that an Acquaintance of some Years hath sufficiently convinc'd you that I am nei­ther Jesuit nor Deist. And I dare appeal to your Conscience, whether I have not given you undeniable Evidence of an Affection to [Page 2]the Church of England, ‘and a desire not to keep up, but to reconcile our Differen­ces, not to promote Parties and Factions, but Peace and Unity, not for the sake of any private End or Interest whatsoever, but for the sake of Truth, and for the general Good.’ Thus far therefore I con­ceive my self to be such a Person as you wish your Answerer should be. But because you, and the Writers of your Party have taken the liberty to accuse ‘Men of my Principles as Hypocrites, as unfit to be Guardians of Children, or Executors of Wills, as dis­pensing with our Principles for the sake of an Office, as setting up an Arbitrary Dis­pensing Power in our own Consciences, as acting contrary to our Original Principles, as if Occasional Conformity were such an Offence as in inconsistent with the Publick Safety, and Occasional Conformists, Per­sons, sit to be rank'd with Papists, Deists, and Socinians.’ I have thought it my Du­ty thus to acquaint you, that I have also that other Qualification to become your Answerer, That "I dare own my Principles. But a­lass, to what End were your Applications made to Her Majesty on Occasion of the late Bill, since by your own ‘Confession the Fears and Jealousies of those who are Members of the Church of England, and of those who dissent from it. And the [Page 3]Matters in Controversie arising from those Fears, seem in a fair way to be determined to the Satisfaction of all Parties by Her Majesties Gracious Speeches from the Throne, That Her Majesty will always make it Her particular Care to encourage and maintain the Church, as by Law E­stablished, and to maintain the Act of To­leration for the ease of Dissenters.’ Give me leave to add, alass, to what end did you erect a Pompous Frontispiece before an Epistle Dedicatory, a Preface, a Discourse, and a Postscript; and all these on a Subject, of which you seem to know no more, than if you had lived in Turky, or under the Great Mogul: I mean the Principles of the Occasional Conformists; for I had rather im­pute your unaccountable Mistakes concerning them to Ignorance, than Insincerity. And unless they be understood, your Discourse in behalf of the Establish'd Government in Church and State, of Uniformity, Establish'd Religion, and Establish'd Constitutions, seems Calculated, and may indifferently serve for the Meridian of Edenburg, Geneva, Paris, Rome, or Constantinople; and, with a small Variation of Names, may be publish'd in behalf of the Constitutions in Church and State in all those places.

I take leave therefore to inform you, That the Description of the Occasional Com­formists [Page 4]is true, which is given by the Au­thor of a Letter to a Clergy-man, concerning the Votes of the Bishops in the last Sessions; ‘who divides them into two sorts, such as prefer the Worship of the Church of Eng­land for a Constancy, but hold the sepa­rate Congregations to be Lawful Churches, and think themselves obliged in Consci­ence sometimes to Communicate with them,’ tho' I had rather call such Occasional Dis­senters;‘and such as prefer the Worship of Dissenters for a Constancy, but hold the Worship of the Church of England to be Lawful, and think themselves obliged to testifie their Charity by Communicating sometimes with it, who are properly Oc­casional Conformists.’

I take leave also to inform you, That both these sorts of Occasional Conformists do be­lieve the Apostle's Creed, and particularly the Holy Catholick Church; or, as the Ni­cene Creed has it, They believe One Catho­lick and Apostolick Church: They acknow­ledge the 19th Article of the Church of England, That the Visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of Faithful Men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministred, according to Christ's Ordinance, in all those things, that of necessity are requisite to the same: That neither sort of these Occasional Conformists [Page 5]find any such Article in any Creed, as this, I believe the High Church-Party of the Church of England. And thus believing, they thus Reason, He that believes the Holy Catholick Church, takes himself to be a Member of that Church, and consequently believes it his Duty to refuse Communion with no Party of Christians, whose Com­munion does not necessitate him to Sin; and no Communion of Christians, who are a Visible Church of Christ, within the said Description, given by the said 19th Article, do necessitate him to Sin.

They make a great difference between the Use of a Ceremony, or any indifferent thing about Religion, and the Imposition thereof, as necessary to Communion in the Ordinances of Christ; and again, another difference be­tween the Imposition thereof by any particu­lar Church, or Division of Christians, on those that Communicate with them, and the Separation of that Division of Christians, by such Ceremony, or indifferent Thing, from the rest of the Catholick Church. The Use therefore of a certain Ceremony, is what they do not scruple, as wearing a Gown or Sur­plice, Standing at the Creed, Kneeling, or Standing, or Sitting at the Sacrament, accord­ing to the Usage of that Party of Christians, with whom they Communicate. Again, They don't scruple the like Ceremony, tho' [Page 6]they be imposed by the Government on any National Church, or Party of Christians, so as they be not made Parties to the Imposi­tion, or compelled to declare their Approba­tion thereof by Word or Practise: It is their Judgment, That all Religion is Natural or Revealed; That there is no Revealed Re­ligion, nor any part of it, which is not found in the Word of God; That nothing ought to be imposed amongst Christians, as a Term of Communion, which has not its Warrant from thence, according to the Sense of the Primitive Church, and the whole Protestant Church at the first Reformation: And they think it absurd to talk of Un­revealed Parts of Revealed Religion. It is therefore their Opinion, that if any Party of Christians make a Law, That whoever communicates with them must use such or such an Unscriptural Posture or Ceremony, and must not have Communion with any other Christians, who use not the same, al­tho' true Churches, according to the said 19th Article of the Church of England, and this under the Penalty of being starved, or any other severe Penalty; they take that Par­ty of Christians to be such as the Psalmist speaks of,Psal. 94.21. who frame Mischief by a Law.

They think that such Party of Christians do thereby set up an unaccountable Schism in the [Page 7]Catholick Church, and separate themselves from it, by setting up their Posts by God's, and their own Thresholds by his, and their making a Wall between him and them; so that the Schism lies at their Door, and not at theirs, who, in Contradiction to such a Law, continue Members of the Catholick Church. They are of Opinion, that the Roman Catho­licks are justly charged with the greatest Schism that ever was in the Christian World, because they separate themselves from the Catholick Church by their new Articles of Faith, and Notorious Idolatries, which they impose as Terms of Communion; but they pretending, that the things which they impose are neces­sary, and to be comply'd with on Peril of Damnation, are not therefore so Self-con­demned as that Party would be, who should, by such a Law, concerning things indifferent, separate themselves from all the rest of the Catholick Church. The Occasional Con­formist therefore, by his Communicating with the Church of England, declares, That he takes it to be a sound Part of the Catho­lick Church; and his Communion with it, is Communion, with the Catholick Church, and not with a Party: He Communicates with it, because he Agrees with it in all the Essentials of Christianity, tho' he Approves not of its Impositions: And his Communion with other Protestants, is Communion with [Page 8]the Catholick Church, of which he takes them also to be a sound Part. By the first, he declares himself an Enemy to Separation; by the second, to unnecessary Impositions; by both, a Catholick Christian.

And he is the more confirmed in this Pra­ctice, because of the plain Tendency of the Unscriptural Terms of Communion, which the High Church-Party would establish, to a Re-union with Popery, as is obvious to any Person who shall seriously consider them. And for satisfaction therein, I would refer you (to avoid Repetition) to the Pre­face of a little Discourse, entituled, Catholo­cism without Popery; where this Matter is particularly Considered. And the Notions therein advanc'd have been effectually Justi­fied, by the Oracle of your Party, the Author of the Case of the Regale & Pontisicat; a Book written directly against her Majesty's Supremacy, and which has received a Second Edition; which asserts, That the Dissenter will neither take nor give quarter, will neither propose nor accept any Terms of Reconciliation,Page 255. and cannot for that (unless only for that) Reason, be angry at the High-Party's seeking or offering Re­conciliation with others, who may be bet­ter disposed; and that the whole and only difference between that Party and the Church of Rome, Page 244. and which [Page 9]hinders Communion, is the Extents of the Pope's Supremacy, which the Galliean Church have thrown off as well as they. But that all the difference between the Popish French Church, and the Church of England, are so far Reconcilable, as not to hinder Commu­nion. And proposes (in the First Edition) a Treaty between our Convocation, and the General Assembly of the Galliean Bishops and Clergy; and complains in the Margin of the Second Edition, pag. 263. That the English Convocation not being suffered to sit, while that of France lasted, rendered any Treaty betwixt them impracticable: And pag. 179. proposes it (plainly as a means to this blessed End) that a Bill should pass, to render all those that go to Meetings uncapable of any Place of Trust or Profit in the Government: And that this must be the Reason of the Zeal of a certain Party therein, and nor a Con­sciencious Regard to the Act of Uniformity, is further Evident, because Bowing at the Name of Jesus, and toward the Altar, tho' contrary to the Act of Uniformity, but sig­nifying an inclination towards Popery, are as much practised and defended by that Party, as any Ceremonies establish'd by that Law. The Occasional Conformist therefore thinks himself bound in Conscience to make a Re­markable Difference in his Practise, between the regard he shews to the Commandments of [Page 10]God, and to the Inventions of Men, espe­cially when those Inventions are manifestly defended with the utmost Vigor, to keep a Correspondence with France and Rome.

I might here name many Things, which may be amended in the Church of England: But I had rather Convince you, that you are in a great Mistake, when you affirm, That there is no way to heal Divisions, but by such a Bill as that against Occasional Con­formity. And because Her most Sacred and most Excellent Majesty, is, I trust, raised up by Almighty God to perfect that Reforma­tion, both at Home and Abroad, which was so much advanc'd by Her Predecessor, Queen Elizabeth, of Blessed Memory; and because I take Her Reign to be a more proper Season for such a Work, than that of the late King Wil­liam, tho' of Glorious Memory, for Reasons easily Occurring to Men of Thought, and some of which shall be hereafter mentioned, I will venture to propose another Means to put an End to Faction, to secure the Pub­lick Peace in Church and State, to remove the Causes of all our Fears, and of all our Divisions, which is worth Ten Thousand such Bills, as that against Occasional Confor­mity, and which the Promoters of that Bill cannot refuse to approve of, if they be hearty Lovers of her Majesty, and the Church of England.

It were easie to prove what has been be­fore mentioned, that the Primitive Rule of Reformation, and the Rule universally used at the Reformation, was, That the Terms of Christian Communion ought to be only such as are found in the Scripture. And perhaps in another Discourse, the World may see a full Evidence, That all the Mischiefs that have happen'd to the Christian Church have been occasioned by departing from that Prin­ciple; and an account may be given of the gradual Growth of Priestcraft, from the days of Diotrephes, to the time of Cardinal Wool­sey at least.

But before I mention the said Means, of putting an End to Faction, I will only ob­serve, that notwithstanding by Stat. 31. H. 8. c. 14. Transubstantiation, Communion in one Kind, Prohibition of Marriage to the Clergy, Monkish Vows, Private Masses, and Auricu­lar Confession, are also Establish'd by Act of Parliament; yet some time before, viz. 25 H. 8. cap. 21. the King and Parliament did declare, That they did not intend to de­cline or vary from the Congregation of Christ's Church in any thing, concerning the very Articles of the Faith of Christendom, or in any other things declared by Holy Scrip­ture, and the Word of God, nec [...]ssary for their Salvation; and that this continued to be the Opinion even of the Popish Church [Page 12]of England, appears from Stat. 1. Mar. Ses. 2. c. 1. Wherein the Marriage of Queen Kathe­rin to Henry the 8th is declared Lawful, and all Sentences of Divorce between them Re­pealed. And lest the Queen and Parliament should seem to enact any thing herein con­trary to the aforesaid Principle, It is thereby Enacted, ‘That the said Marriage had and solemnized between the Queen's most Noble Father King Henry, and her most Noble Mo­ther Queen Katherine, should be definitively, clearly, and absolutely declared, deemed, and adjudged to be, and stand with God's Law, and his most Holy Word:’ So sensible were the Parliament in those times, that God's Law, and his most Holy Word, ought to be the Rule of all things relating to Christian Religion. And tho' an Act of Parliament will not make that stand with God's Law, and his most Holy Word, which does not stand therewith; yet the Wisdom of the Nation at that time, and the Wisdom of all Nations, and of all Pretenders to Establish a Revealed Religion, such as Numa, Maho­met, and others, have thought it necessary to pretend Divine Authority for all Matters re­lating to Revealed Religion. And had that seemed Good to the Governors of Church and State in Christian Countries, which seemed Good to the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles, Elders, or Presbyters and Brethren, [Page 13]met in the first Council of the Christian Church at Jerusalem, viz. To impose no­thing but necessary things. Had they taken the Prophet's Advice, Isai. 55.14. Take up the stumbling Block out of the Way of my Peo­ple, instead of forcing them to use it, Popery had never risen, but the Church had conti­nued Pure to the Worlds end.

But this being premised, I desire you to remember, that when the Supremacy of the Pope was thrown off by the Church of Eng­land, and the Crown restored to its Ancient Rights, it was by Stat. 25. H. 8. c. 19. Enacted, That the Convocation should be Assembled by the King's Writs, and should not Enact any Constitutions or Ordinances without the King's Assent. And it was fur­ther Enacted as follows, ‘And for as much as such Canons, Constitutions and Ordinan­ces, as heretofore have been made by the Clergy of this Realm, cannot now, at the Session of this present Parliament, by reason of shortness of Time, be viewed, examined and determined, by the King's Highness, and Thirty Two Persons, to be chosen and ap­pointed, according to the Petition of the said Clergy, in form above rehearsed. Be it therefore Enacted, by the Authority above­said, That the King's Highness shall have Power and Authority to nominate and assign at his pleasure the said Two and Thirty [Page 14]Persons of his Subject; whereof Sixteen to be of the Clergy, and Sixteen to be of the Temporalty of the Upper and Nether House of the Parliament: And if any of the said Two and Thirty Persons so chosen shall happen to die before their full Determina­tion, then His Highness to nominate other from time to time of the said Two Houses of the Parliament, to supply the Number of the said Two and Thirty; and that the same Two and Thirty, by his Highness so to be named, shall have Power and Authority to view, search and examine the said Canons, Constitutions and Ordinances, Provincial and Synodal, heretofore made: And such of them, as the King's Highness, and the said Two and Thirty, or the more part of them, shall deem an adjudge worthy to be continued, kept, obeyed and executed with­in this Realm; so that the King's most Royal Assent be first had to the same. And the residue of the said Canons, Constitutions, and Ordinances Provincial, which the said King's Highness, and the said Two and Thir­ty Persons, or the more part of them, shall not approve, or deem and adjudge worthy, to be abolish'd, abrogate, and made frustrate, shall from thenceforth be void, and of none effect, and never be put in Execution within this Realm; provided alway, that no Ca­nons, Constitutions, or Ordinance, shall be [Page 15]made, or put in Execution, within this Realm, by Authority of the Convocation of the Clergy, which shall be contrariant or Repugnant to the King's Prerogative Royal, or the Customs, Laws, or Statutes of this Realm, any thing contained in this Act to the contrary hereof notwithstanding. And in the close of the said Act it follows, Provided that such Canons, Constitutions, and Synodals Provincial, being already made, which be not contrariant nor repug­nant to the Laws, Statutes and Customs of this Realm, nor to the damage or hurt of the King's Prerogative Royal, shall now still be used and executed, as they were be­fore the making of this Act, till such time as they be viewed, searched, or otherwise ordered and determined, by the said Two and Thirty Persons, or the more part of them, according to the Tenor, Form and effect of this present Act.’ But nothing being done in pursuance of this Power, vested in that King, thereby, the same was again Enacted, by Stat. 27. H. 8. c. 15. But the Power of Popery rendring that Law also Ineffectual, it was again, by Stat. 35. H. 8. c. 16. Enacted, That that King should still have the same Authority during his Life. But still nothing was done, for the Priests chose rather to continue the Canons, and Constitutions, and Laws Ec­clesiastical, [Page 16]in the uncertainty in which they were left by the said Stat. 25. H. 8. c. 19. than that the King, and Sixteen of the Temporalty, should intermeddle in Mat­ters Ecclesiastical. But King H. 8. died, and left the Ecclesiastical Constitutions, as the were unestablish'd by the last mentioned Statute.

And the Reformation having made a con­siderable Progress in the Reign of Edw. 6. the like Power and Authority was again given to that King, by Stat. 3. and 4. Ed. 6. c. 11. But still the Old Leaven remained, and nothing was done in his short Reign; and Popery returning to its Vigor under the Reign of Queen Mary, the aforesaid Stat. of 25 H. 8. c. 14. was Repealed, by Stat. 1. and 2, Phil. and Mary, c. 8. And although that Act was Revived again, by the Act of 1 Eliz. c. 1. yet that Authority, which had been given to King H. 8. and King Edw. 6. seems not to be given by that Act to Q. Eliz. But by the same Act the High Commission Court was created to Act under the Queen's Prerogative, which was quite another sort of Authority, and left the Laws Ecclesiastical, as they were left by the Stat. 25. H. 8. c. 19. And the High Com­mission being since found inconvenient, and condemned by Law, it seems to me, that something remains to be done, for the Esta­blishment of the Church.

And therefore, tho' I impute it to the Prevalency of Popery, that all those Statutes were of no Effect; yet I would hope, that the Divine Providence did permit so many Laws of that Kind to be made with a design, that they might be Presidents for the like Authority, to be vested in our most Gracious Sovereign Queen Anne, whose Life hath set a rare Example of Christian Piety, whose Reign the Almighty hath blest with the best Bishops that ever fill'd the English Sees; and whose Care of all her Subjects hath been so often Exprest, with such moving Ac­cents from the Throne; of whose Affection to the Church of England no Man can doubt, and who may easily render it a Means and Pattern of Union to all the Protestant Churches, and in a short time to the whole Christian World. I write not this without Ground, but with good Reason, and some Glimpse of Hope.

Had any of the said Statutes in the Reign of H. 8. been pursued, Popery had been fur­ther establish'd: And in the short Reign of Edw. 6. Things were yet in great Confusion: Matters in Controversie had not been fully discust; Laymen-had but just got the Bible, which is the Instructions left by our Blessed Saviour, into their Hands; and therefore could not so well judge, whether his Am­bassadors followed his Instructions or no. [Page 18]Humane Inventions had so long been made Equal to Divine Institutions, that it was not easie at that time to distinguish them: And considering the gross Ignorance that abound­ed among the Clergy, when the Transition was made from Popery to the Protestant Religion by Queen Elizabeth, it is wonder­ful, that the Reformation should have made so great a Progress, as it did in her Reign. During the Reign of King James the First, the Spanish and French Matches, the Cowar­dise, and yet the Ambition of that King, diverted his Thoughts to other Matters, than the Establishment of the Church; but yet a step was made towards it by the new Tran­slation of the Bible, which was made in his Reign. During the Reign of King Charles the First, the Cassandrian Design of a Re­union to Rome, was pursued with great In­dustry; and therefore no wonder, that a better Establishment of the Church was not attempted in his Reign: And perhaps, till the Mischief of Enthusiasm had shewed us the necessity of a National Church, it would have been difficult to have brought the Dissenters to any Reasonable Terms of Uni­on; and therefore the first Opportunity, which seems to me to have presented it self for such an Attempt, was at the Restoration of the Royal Family, when it was in the Power of King Charles the Second to have [Page 19]Establish'd the Church on such Foundations, as would easily have taken into her Com­munion almost all Denominations of Chri­stians, who had not cast oft the Ordinances of Christ, and their Allegiance to the Civil Government: But the foreign Education of the Royal Brothers had sixt their Inclina­tions to a Union with France and Rome; and the Fear, under which King Charles the Second laboured, was not, lest the Dissenters should not comply with the Act of Unifor­mity, but lest they should. One Party was to be turn'd out, that another might be brought in: So that this time was not im­proved towards our Union. But after that, Popery appear'd barefac'd, under the late King James the Second, and Advances were made, both by the Church-Party and the Dissenters, towards Union at the Revolu­tion; that Season was look'd upon as a happy Juncture for such an Attempt. But to speak my Mind freely, although I think no Man can give an Instance wherein his late Majesty King William shewed any want of Affection to this National Church; yet his Education under another sort of Church-Government, did, as I apprehend, cause the Church Party to take Umbrage, as if he de­signed to bend the Constitution in the Church too much toward the Dissenter: And might also occasion in the Dissenter [Page 20]Expectations of greater Concessions, than are necessary to Peace and Unity.

But the Mischiefs of Enthusiasm in the late Times, the Persecution of the Episcopal Party then, and of the Dissenters in the Reign of King Charles the Second, and the terrible Visage of returning Popery under the late King James, have occasioned great Thoughts of Heart. All things are now set in the clearest Light; a better Friend to the Church can never fill the English Throne; the terms of Catholick Unity are well un­derstood, both by the Clergy, and many of the Laity; while the Church has stood upon Stilts,Ceremonies. it has been sometimes bending towards Rome, and at other times towards Enthusiasm; but by this means it may be unmoveably fixt upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Pro­phets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone. And this in short is what I would offer on this Subject, that her Ma­jesty may receive the like Authority by Act of Parliament, as that so often given to King H. 8. and after to Edw. 6. By this means, instead of our being cursed once a Year, on Ash-Wednesday, the Church may obtain the Benefit of that Godly Discipline, which the Rubrick wishes to be Restored. The Litur­gy of the Church of England may be made a Form to some, and at least a Directory, [Page 21]agreeable to all the Protestant Churches, the Rights, Powers, and Priviledges of an English Convocation, would be better un­derstood, and all the Attempts of the Factors of Rome and France would be defeated for ever.

And therefore to use the Word of the Au­thor of the Reasons for passing the late Bill, with a very little Variation, they being as I conceive, much more for my purpose than his. ‘Since the Security of Particulars, that is the Innocent, the Honest and Peace­able; for no body, I suppose, means to incourage the wicked Seditions, or to pro­tect them in their Crimes,’ (Such as that High Church-man, who has lately Publish'd a Latin Treatise, to prove the present Church of England Schismatical, At least this is not a Design that will bear the Light,

Let us not after re­jecting a Bill against Immorality be so fond of a [Page 24]Bill which tends only to Establish Ceremonies, let us search the Scriptures, and not French Presidents for the Means of Ʋnion, least we be judged by our Blessed Saviour for rejecting the Commandments of God, that we may keep our own Tradition. ‘Let us at last discern the things that belong to our Peace, and God forbid that they should at any time, this e­specially be hid from our Eyes.’

And now, Sir, having offered to your Con­sideration, such Principles as I my self act by, and which I conceive are agreeable to the Opinion of most of the English Occasional Conformists, and Occasional Dissenters, and proposed an Expedient for the Establishment of the Church of England, which I conceive far more likely to unite us, than the late Bill if it had past, and applied the Pathetick Ar­guments of one of your Party to this Expe­dient. I shall next consider what ever seems to me remain unanswered in your Discourse. And, first, I cannot but admire that you who have pronounc'd that Her Majesty is none of the three Estates of the Realm, but the Sovereign Head of that Great Body, should in the very same Page allow Her no more than a Councurrence with what Her Par­liament should conceive to be reasonable; for methinks, conceiving what is reasonable, should be at least as proper for the Head as the Members.

I must confess that I concur with you in believing that Her Majesties Allies would not have been offended at the Wisdom of that Bill, had it past into a Law, because, per­haps they could not have discerned it, and it would probably have been the more invisi­ble to them, because it was so conspicuous to all the Papists and Jacobites in England.

But as to the Prophetick Part of that De­dication, how much the Dissenter would have been pleased to know the extent of his Priviledges, or how contented he would be, or what Advantage would accreue from such Gentle Methods, or in the words of Maim­burg to the French King, Moyens deux & voyes de Grace, Maimbourg Epistle Dedicatory to the Life of Gregory the 1st. or whether the first words of your Dedication do insinuate, that there are some good Men who have no Sense of Religion, no con­cern for the true Interest of their Native Countrey, nor any Duty or Gratitude to Her Majesty, I must beg further time for Consi­deration.

I must also take time for further Thought, or desire, further Information, what those Truths are, which in your Preface you say you do with Deference and Respect to the House of Lords, and in a decent and respect­ful manner endeavour to Establish; for as to [Page 26]your two main Pillars, other Hands have sufficiently shewed that they are far from be­ing Pillars of Truth.

I am also, with great Submission, much surprized, to be told, Page 6. that the same Arguments were made use of against this Bill, which were formerly insisted on for Repealing all the Test-Laws whatsoever, for many of the Great and Wise Men in the Kingdom, and more especially in Shropshire, Herefordshire, and thereabouts, do well re­member that the way to Peace at Home, was with much Eloquence declared to be by Re­pealing those Laws, when to Repeal them, was manifestly to serve a Popish Interest, and with no less Assurance, when the late Bill was promoted, when the same End would have been served, tho' by quite contrary Means; so that one at least of those Argu­ments would have been very acceptable to me, who have always thought that the Rea­sons for Repealing those Laws in a Popish Reign, were of the same Size with those that are urged for rendring those Laws more strict and severe in the Reign of a Protestant Queen. ‘Concerning this Matter, therefore,Preface to Peace at Home. there are some Mistakes and Misapprehen­sions I doubt that do still prevail with some Persons, and seem to call for a further Explanation of it.’ And [Page 27]perhaps that the same Arguments were used for both these Purposes, would be as consi­derable a Truth, if it were made out, as any other of the Truths endeavoured to be esta­blish'd by your Discourse. But tho' I was against Repealing the Test in a Popish Reign, I Publish'd some Reasons for Repealing some part of it in a Protestant Reign, which I have added to this Letter, No. 1. for your Consideration.

That the Bill affected only those particu­lar Dissenters, who thought fit to Conform for an Office, but would not Conform for the Unity of the Church, is another of your Truths which needs to be establish'd; be­cause on the contrary, it seems to affect my Occasional Conformist, or rather Occasional Dissenter, nay to be principally levell'd at him, who conforms meerly for the Unity of the Church, and not for an Office, who endeavours to preserve the Unity of the Ca­tholick Church, from being rent as often as a Whimsey shall take any Sett of Men, to be adding their own Inventions to Christianity; and then to call themselves the Church; to make a parcel of Ceremonies, Articles of Communion; whereas the 39 Articles of the Church are not so, if you believe your Oracle.

One Truth indeed you have taught, us out of the Preamble of the intended Bill a­gainst Occasional Conformity, viz. That no­thing [Page 28]is more contrary to the Profession of the Christian Religion, and particularly to the Doctrine of the Church of England, than Persecution for Conscience sake only.

It was therefore, it seems to be Enacted, to this effect, That whosoever being in a Publick Office would not join himself to the High Church Party, so as never more to Communicate with any other part of the Christian World, altho' he believed the Ho­ly Catholick Churah, and endeavoured to shew his Faith by his Works, should forfeit his Office and a Fine of 100 l. to the Prose­cutor, &c.

Now if the Man did Communicate with o­ther good Christians out of Conscience, as is abovesaid, would not this be Persecution for Conscience only? And, pray, Sir, was not the danger of Establishing the aforesaid Truth the true Reason why that Truth was left out of the Preamble in the Second Edi­tion of that Bill? And this Question I ask you with the greater Freedom, tho' with great Submission, because this Truth being once in the Preamble of that Bill, is used by you as an Answer to the Objection, That they who think the being present at a Meet­ing to be so high a Crime, can hardly think that Toleration of such Meetings ought to continue, which by Reason of the said Truth, being in the said Preamble, you ar­gue [Page 29]to be an hard, not to say unwarrantable and uncharitable Censure on the Representa­tives of the People.

I don't say, Sir, That going to a Meeting is now by the Toleration Act Establish'd, or made part of our Constitution thereby. But I say, that if the Creed be part of our Con­stitution, if the Articles of the Church be a­nother part, and the Meeting be within the Description of the said 19th Article, going to it is Established both by Law and Gos­pel.

But I apply to your Questions, which I am willing to take as the chief Points, and to expect a good Issue, not from the Weak­ness, but Strength of the Reader's Judg­ment.

Now, that I may keep to the Subject Mat­ter of the Debate, I must take leave to di­vide these Questions into several Heads, be­cause they seem to me too perplex'd as they are stated; and therefore seeing the Subject Matter is Occasional Conformity, or Occasional Nonconformity.

First, Let us consider whether the Occasi­onal Conformist, or rather the Occasional Dissenter be not a sincere Member of the Na­tional Church, who heartily approves of the Laws of the Land, and chearfully pays Obe­dience to them, and whether he and the [Page 31]Churchman be of opposite Principles, or of one and the same Perswasion in Matters of Religion.

Secondly, Whether if the Occasional Bill had passed, it had secured the Government from such, who are not sincere Members of the National Church, nor heartily approve of the Laws of the Land, nor chearfully pay Obedience to them, but are of opposite Prin­ciples, and not of one and the same Per­swasion in Matters of Religion.

Thirdly, Whether the Administration of Publick Astairs may not be in the Hands of Persons who are not of one and the same Perswasion in Matters of Religion, nay, of Men of opposite Principles, without Confu­sion or tearing the Government in pieces be­tween them, and whether they may not, notwithstanding draw together the same way for the Publick Good.

Fourthly, Whether it is sit that the Cor­poration and Test Acts should be enfore'd or Repealed.

Fifthly, Whether upon the whole Matter the Occasional Conformist may not be admitted into Publick Offices and Employments relating to the Government, consistently with the Safe­ty of the Established Government, both in Church and State, with the Wisdom of the [Page 32] English Nation, and with the Practice of some wise Governments in the World.

And as to the first, I answer that the Oc­casional Conformist is a sincere Member of the National Church, who heartily approves of the Laws of the Land, and chearfully pays Obedience to them, and he and the Church­men are not of opposite Principles, but of one and the same Perswasion in Matters of Religion.

If the Church-man, whom you suppose the only Person fit for an Office, be one that troubles not himself about Religion, but be­lieves as the Church believes, and does as he sees others do. I neither can judge of his Principles nor his Perswasion in Matters of Religion; but if he have espoused the Reli­gion of the Church of England with con­sideration, and can give a Reason of the Faith or Hope that is in him; he knows that the Religion of this National Church is all to be found in the Bible. He is taught by the sixth Article of that Church, that Holy Scri­pture containeth all things necessary to Salva­tion, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be re­quired of any Man that it should be believ'd as an Article of Faith, or be thought requi­site or necessary to Salvation. The Reason given by the 8th Article, why the three Creeds ought throughly to be received and [Page 33]believed, is, for that they may be proved by most certain Warrants of Holy Scripture. And as to Creeds, so as to Councils, we are taught by the 21st Article, that things Or­dained by them as necessary to Salvation, have neither Strength nor Authority, only as it may be declared, that they be taken out of Holy Scripture. Now the Occasional Con­formists are herein intirely of the same mind, they agree intirely in the Creeds, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, as con­tained in the Decalogue, and as explained by our Saviour. In the two Sacraments, and e­very Part and Article that any Protestant can have any Colour to call a part of Christiani­ty.

But I have not Inclination, nor can it be expected that I should particularize every Head and Point of Religion, wherein they agree; but should be glad to be informed by you of any Article of Religion, or Point of Doctrine wherein they differ; for no Man ever called Rites and Ceremonies of humane Institution, Principles or Matters of Religi­on. I must own that they are not fully sa­tisfied in the large Sense of that Passage in the 20th Article, That the Church hath Power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, nor that, as the 34th Article expresses it, it is sufficient as to the Ceremonies, that nothing be Or­dained against God's Word, if the Opposi­tion [Page 34]of God's Word be intended a particular express Opposition; but they are of opinion, that to make any Rites or Ceremonies of Humane Institution, necessary to Communi­on, especially as is aforesaid, to make them Terms of Separation from the rest of the Catholick Church is against God's Word, but they are extricated out of this Difficulty by the last Clause of the 34th Article, it being plain by long and pungent Experience, that the Ordaining of such Rites and Ceremonies, is not among the Things that have been done so edifying, or if this should fail, yet your said Oracle is express that the 39 Articles are required from no Layman, a Licence for which no Occasional Conformist will thank him.

The Romanists by such Ordinance have indeed edified their Babel, and from things not contrary have proceeded to ordain things destructive to Christianity, and so in some Measure are all such Ordinances, which dif­fer as much from Religion as Christianity does from Priestcraft.

But to bring this Matter a little closer, I hope to make it plain, that not only the Oc­casional Conformist, but the Presbyterian, and the Independent are of the same Perswa­sion in Matters of Religion with the Church­man, and not of opposite Principles, and that nothing but gross Ignorance, or a wilful [Page 35]blind Prejudice has kept Men of either Party from being convinc'd of this Truth. And to make this evident, I take leave to acquaint you with plain Matter of Fact. You well know, that in the late times the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as also the Kirk of Scotland agreed in a Catechism, called the Assemblies shorter Catechism. And this Ca­techism was also agreed to by the Synod of the Independent Divines, met at the Savoy.

Now after the Restauration of King Charles the 2d. and particularly some time before the Popish Plot, a mighty Zeal appeared a­gainst that Catechism in the Men of your Party, and if I mistake not, this Catechism was publickly burnt at Oxford. But it hap­pened, that one Mr. Thomas Adams, formerly fellow of Brazen-Nose-Colledge in Oxford, being convinc'd of the Truth of what I am endeavouring to prove; he in the Year, 1675, wrote a Discourse, Entituled, The Main Principles of Christian Religion, in 107 short Articles, or Aphorisms, generally re­ceived, as being proved from Scripture, now further cleared and confirmed by the Conso­nant Doctrine, Recorded in the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England under 4 Heads.

Of things to be Explained.

• 1. Believed, compre­hended in the Creed.
• 2. Done in the Ten Commandments.
• 3. Practiced in the Gos­pel, particularly two Sa­craments.
• 4. Prayed for in the Lord's Prayer,

Which Discourse was Licensed, Sold well, and received a Second Edition in 1677, (which I have) but alass it was at last discovered that the 107 Articles were the Answers to the 107 Questions of the Assem­blies Shorter Catechism, and that hated Book was thus disper'd under the Patronage of the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England. And if you will please to peruse this Book, I suppose you will need no other Proof, that the Occasional Conformist, Pres­byterian, Independent, and the Church­man, are not of opposite Principles, but of one and the same Perswasion in Matters of Religion; and the Acceptation which that Discourse met with, puts me in mind of a like Passage relating to the Sorbon, to whom your Oracle, above-mention'd, desires that [Page 37]the Church of England may be united; for when Abbas le Roy Publish'd a Discourse in France, without naming the Author, being a most Elegant and Pious Oration, or Pray­er to our Lord Jesus Christ, for obtaining the Grace of a perfect Conversion, the Sorbon condemned it, because they believed it to be written by a Jansenist; but some Years after a Spanish Bishop having Transla­ted it into the Spanish Tongue, and Publish'd it with the Approbation of the Doctor's of the Holy Inquisition, Pesonius [...] Hayer turned it into French, Dedicated it to the Queen, Publish'd it with the Royal Privi­ledge, and the Approbation of the Doctors of the Sorbon.

And thus have I known a fierce Scotch Presbyterian sit with Reverence and Atten­tion for a long time, while one of my Ac­quaintance rend diverse parts of the Com­mon Prayer, but as soon as it was discover­ed how the Person was entertained, my Friend, who was a tall Man, was glad to make the best use of his long Legs. And here I will mention an Observation which I have frequently made; That if you hear a Man declaring that no Man can be serious in the use of the Common Prayer, nor wor­ship God thereby with Fervency and Affe­ction 'tis forty to one, that the Man never tried? On the other hand, if you hear a Per­son [Page 38]exclaiming against Extempore Prayer, calling it Cant and Nonsense, 'tis as many to one that he never heard an Extempore Prayer in his Life; but now there is one Occasional Conformist to my knowledge, and I believe some thousands that have joined in worship­ping God by the Common-Prayer a thou­sand times, and have also joined in Worship­ping Him as often with those that use no in­variable Form, who can testifie with great Assurance that both those sorts of People are wretchedly mistaken, who can tell you that they know no reason why Christians should not agree in a Form as to the Matter of Prayer, as well as of Belief, or why those who make no scruple to sing the Psalms in Metre, by Sternhold and Hopkins, which is for the most part but a wretched Form of the Matter of Praise, should scruple the Com­mon Prayer, which is much nearer Scripture Language, than the aforesaid Version of the Psalms. That it is a very agreeable Consi­deration, that many Thousands of Pious Souls are at the same time joining in Ado­ring God in the same words, as well as De­sires without Idolatry, and without any of the Additions made by the Papacy to the Chri­stian Religion, and in the best Liturgy in the World. Especially when they consider that the 4 living Creatures, improperly call'd Beasts in our Translation, and the 24 Presbyters or Elders, which represent the [Page 39]Christian Church, are represented as con­stantly using the same Form of Thanksgiving, and the like Forms are found, 5 Rev. 9, 12, 13. 7 Rev. 10, 12. 11 Rev. 17, 18. 15 Rev. 3. 19 Rev. 1, 2, 6, 7.

And the same Persons can at the same time assure you that they never heard Cant or Nonsence among those who pray with­out a Form, but for the most part the Ex­pressions taken out of the Scripture, the Prayers generally Premeditated, Methodical, Reverend and fervent, accommodated to the various Circumstances of the Interests of Re­ligion in the World, both at home and a­broad, and the various Dangers or Judg­ments under which the Nation may be, and to the Blessings of Heaven received: They that so pray are never hindred from giving Thanks for Victories, because 'tis Lent, nor from Humiliation under Judgments; because 'tis Christmass. They usually have respect to the Subject Matter of the following Dis­course, which is a very good Preparation for Attention, and a Means of ob [...]aining a Blessing on the Sermon. They can ingeni­ously and suitably accomodate their Devoti­on to the Circumstances of Families, or Per­sons in Matter of Prayer or Thanksgiving, for which it is impossible that any, or all the Liturgies in the World can suffice. Again, these Occasional Conformists sinding that the blessed Spirit, as a Spirit of Grace and [Page 40]Supplication, is to convert the Jews, Zach. 12.10. that in the 8 Rom. 26. The Assi­stance of the Spirit in Prayer is exprest by a word alluding to a Person, who being to lift at a Beam, has one that helps him to lift both at the end of which he has hold, and at the other end too, or signifying such a help, as when one that is strong taketh up a Burden over-against another who is too weak, and also sets his Shoulders against the other to lift up the Burden [...], from these and other places of Sacred Scripture, they are apt to gather that the Assi­stance of the Spirit in Prayer ought not to be confined (I say, confined) to an invariable set Form of Humane Composure, or only to enable the Minister to read a Prayer Audibly and Reverently, nor are they willing to un­derstand the Act of Uniformity in such a Sense as this. That from, and after the 24th Day of August, 1662, neither the Parts nor Learning of any Minister of the Gospel, nor the Gift of Prayer, nor the Assistance of the Spirit in the Matter of Pray­er, should be of any further use in the Pub­lick Worship of God. They think it possi­ble that Men may make an Idol of Words as well as of Wood or Stone, and they are a­fraid, that where the Spirit is rejected as a Spirit of Supplication, he oft refuses to act as a Spirit of Grace. And herein on Consi­deration, [Page 41]I do verily believe that the good Church-man, and the Occasional Conformist are of the same Mind.

But further, as to all the Matters in Con­troversie between the Church-man, and the Presbyterian, and Independent, as well as between Him and the Occasional Conformist, which concern Matters of Ceremonies, and Humane Additions, such as the Sign of the Cross at Baptism, the Posture of Kneeling at the Sacrament, and the Surplice; your Oracle above-mention'd, has agreed, That it is lawful for the Church to dispense with their Rites and Ceremonies and if lawful, then necessary to heal the Schism of the Dis­senters, Page 247, That if they would all agree, which of the indifferent things would purchase their Reconciliation, the Church would readily grant it for so good an End. Page 254.

Indeed in another Form, viz. As a Wolf strip'd of his Shepherds Cloathing, he has been howling about the Streets for some time ‘against the Dissenters, and Occasional Conformists, Protestants, Jesuits, Hel­lish Doctrines, Diabolical Seed, Fruit of Blood, Massacre, and all Wickedness, Wild Enthusiasm, Laodicean Latitude which God abhors. Evil Beasts, always Lyars, Hideous Blasphemy, Furious Phanaticks, Impudence and Blasphemy, Grin of a Li­on, [Page 42]Asses-ears, Cloven-foot.’ (Thus in the compass of a few railing Pages, beginning with the Jesuit, and ending with the Devil) and after all, Page 59, complains of it as a heavy Charge against his Party, ‘That they do not treat the Dissenters in the Spirit of Meekness, yet he tells us in that very Trea­tise, Page 3. That the High Church should have little Quarrel with the Dissenters, a­bout all the Objections they make as to Habits, Ceremonies, Liturgy, and even the Grand Point of Ordination by Pres­byters in case of Necessity, and where a Bishop could not be had, if it were not for that fulsom word Schism. If they did not gather separate Congregations, and set them up in Opposition to the Church, they would be no Dissenters, notwith­standing their different Sentiments, as to the Points before mention'd; for there are those in the Communion of the Church, who may differ in Opinion a­bout those things, and may Reason and Argue them over with one another, with­out any Breach of Charity, or of the Uni­ty of the Church, which requires not that all Men should be exactly of the same Opinion in Matters of Discipline, nor nof Faith, but of one Communion, this preserves the Unity of the Church.’

Well said, Wolf, when you speak of the Church, do but mean the Church in your Creed, and fare-wel the Occasional Confor­mist; for he does none of those ill things you complain of, but is Sir Humphrey your very humble Servant, and very fit for an Of­fice. Page 80. Occasional Conformity has no ill Consequence, and is far from inferring ‘of no Church, and no Religion at all. I acknowledge with that Author, that set­ling the true Notion of the Church, and the Priesthood as Instituted by Christ,’ is really of Consequence, and therefore in that little Discourse, Entituled, Catholocism with­out Popery, I did earnestly request that it might be done for the Reasons therein men­tioned, Page 4.5, 6. And there is the more Reason to desire it, because else 'tis hard to judge who are of opposite Principles, and not of one and the same Perswasion in Mat­ters of Religion; especially since the afore­said Oracle, alias High ‘Church Wolf, tells us that the 39 Articles are not so much as Articles of Com­munion,Page 16. far less of Faith. He tells us that they are required from no Lay­men, or any other but the Clergy who are in Office. That there may be an U­niformity in the Doctrine publickly Preach'd.’ So then Uniformity in Mat­ters, that are neither Matters of Faith nor [Page 44]Communion, Constitutes the Church, or is the Church-man then the Hypocrite, instead of the Occasional Conformist, being obliged to Subscribe and Preach a Doctrine in the Name of God, which he does not believe, and are the Ceremonies and Humane Addi­tions, more considerable in the Constitution of the Church than the 39 Articles?

But in truth this Matter ought to be search'd to the bottom, and I am led to it by the same Author, who in the beginning of that Discourse, observes that there is a Mi­stake about the word Moderation; for that it appears by the Context,Page 1. the Original Word means a Pati­ent and chearful Suffering of Afflictions. So that instead of 4. Phil. 5. Let your Moderati­on be known unto all Men, being a Text a­gainst Persecution, it seems 'tis a Text that supposes Persecution. I must say that I ne­ver met with any Body that argued Indiffe­rency as to Religion from that Text, but surely 'tis violently screw'd to make it favour Persecution.Page. 1. But 'tis observed, that this word is found but once in all our Bible; and the word Cler­gy is found no oftner;Page 2. and yet what work have we about that Word. Laymen are not obliged to the Articles of the Church, but only the Clergy who are in Office; but how if the Laymen be the Clergy, [Page 45]that is, I mean God's Clergy or Inheritance for the Word [...], at least in that Sense is found no where in the Bible, but 1 Pet. 5.3. where St. Peter having styl'd himself a fellow Presbyter, exhorts the Presbyters to their Duty to feed the Flock of God, which was among them, as Bishops thereof, not by constraint, but willingly, not for fil­thy Lucre, but of a ready Mind, neither as being Lords over God's Clergy (which we read Heritage) but being Ensamples to the Flock. Now this Epistle being Written a­bout the Year of our Lord 64, 'tis remarka­ble, that he who was an Apostle, and a Partaker of the Miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghost above 30 Years before, calls himself a fellow Presbyter, which for some Reason, or other, our Translation reads an El­der, and Exhorts the Presbyters, which we read Elders, to Episcopize which we read, taking the over-sight: But the thing which I would here observe, is that [...], or [...], as the late Learned Scho­liast Gregory reads it out of Oecumenius, is not the Priests but the People, however the Priests afterwards came to engross the Name. One thing I would therefore desire of the Priests that they would let us in again for a Share at least, and not believe that they only are God's Clergy or Inheritance. I wou'd also intreat them, that they would not be [Page 46]the Church, because tho' that word is used in the New Testament about one hundred times, yet it is not once used for the Mini­sters without the People. I know 'tis pre­tended that the Gospel of St. Matthew, where the word is twice found, but no where else in any of the four Evangelists, it must sig­nifie the Ministers; but not to enter now in­to that Controversie, 'tis strange that in the other 99 Places it should signifie no such thing, and therefore since the People are 99 parts at least of the Church. I would not have the Priests pass for the Church, and if these two things be granted me, I fancy we shall by and by come into a fair way of de­livering the World from that Controversie about Episcopal and Presbyterian Govern­ment.

But I can't here omit to give you a short hint of what may perhahs be more fully dis­cours'd elsewhere. The Apostle Paul, 2 Thes. 2.3. Tells us that the Day of Judgment should not come till there had been an Apo­stacy, or falling away, and that Man of Sin be revealed, and so goes on, describing the Papacy most accurately. But I must own that till I read Irenaeus that best piece of Pri­mitive Christianity, I never understood the meaning of that Name [...]. But that Primitive Father acquaints us that [Page 47]the Primitive Hereticks, of whom Simon Magus was the Father,Lib. 1. Cap. 30. invented a new sort of God's, called Aeons, of whom they ima­gin'd originally but four,Lib. 1. Cap. 1. but were still adding new ones,Lib. 2. Cap. 22. till they came to be 4380, accor­ding to the number of the hours of the Days of the Year, and to carry on this Generation, they began betimes to couple their Aeons; as Man and Wife, and one of the first couple wore An­thropos and Ecclesia, Lib 1. Cap. 34. Vera & Sanct Ecclesia, so they called this same Goddess the Wife of Anthropos. And his Anthropos they held to be above God. Irenaeus, Page 54, which exactly agrees with the Anthropus mentioned by the Apo­stle Paul in the aforecited Place. And hence also we may gather who that Whore is that we read of in the Revelations, even this same Wife of Anthropos, which seems to me to be the Reason why in that whole Book after the third Chapter you never meet with the word Church, till after the end of the Prophecy, and this perhaps is also the Reason why the Reformed Christian Church of the latter Days is called the Bride, the Lamb's Wife: A Bride in oppositi­on to the Whore, and the Bride the Lamb's [Page 48]Wife in opposition to the Wife of Anthro­pos. But this, by the way, only observe that Simon Magus the Father of these Aeons was, if you believe Baronius, fetch'd down out of the Air by St. Peter's Prayers at Rome, Anno 45, about 4 Years before St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Thessalonians: And take no­tice also that Irenaeus in his 33 d. Chapter of his first Book, observes, that Ignorance and Impudence, False Zeal, Fury, Envy, and Lust, were said to be born about the same time with this same blessed couple.

Now, Sir, you must excuse me if I have no kindness for any of the Off-spring of these Folk, and if I find any thing put upon me as part of Revealed Religion, which ap­pears to be begot by Anthropos on Ecclesia, and if you or the Men of your Party Write as many Books as would fill the Tower of Babel in behalf of such things, I shall still remember such Texts as these, to the Law, and to the Testimony. If they speak not according to this Rule, 'tis because there is no Light in them, 8 Is. 20. Thus it is written, &c. I must always say of the Christianity contained in the Writings of the Sacred Penman, as Josephus says of the Wri­tings of Moses, Every thing that they wrote is yet extant, and we must take it as they left it,Joseph. Page 92. without any room for Ornament or [Page 49]Variation. And it was by this Principle which runs throughout his whole Work, that Irenaeus routed all the Hereticks, and all their Army of Aeons, except this couple who have plagued, do plague, and will plague the World till the total downfal of Anti­christ; for as your aforesaid Oracle in his New Association, Page 2. Page 17. observes, when once we leave the Institutions of God, there is no stop, and our Imagination is our only Rule. Magna est veritas & preva­lebi [...].

But 'tis high time, Sir, to stop, least after all you should think that I here condemn the Church of England, as by Law Establish'd, against which I don't say one word, the late designed Act not being past. For I do de­clare I take no Church to be a Whore, unless she be guilty of Idolatry; for that is Spiritu­al Adultery in Scripture Language. I could wish that none but the Great Whore were concerned with Anthropos, but some Church­es that are not Whores, are a little guilty of Jilting now and then, and are too apt to Paint, and to take some parts of the Attire of an Harlot, tho' they are not so; and there­fore I wish all honest Churches would con­sider what it is that will be done, when it shall be said, that the Marriage of the Lamb is come,19 Rev. 7. and his Wife hath made her self ready.

The Case of the Regale makes the only considerable Matter in Controversie between the Church and Dissenters to be Episcopacy, all other Matters being easily accommodated, that Episcopacy was the Heir, which they said, come let us kill him, that the Inheri­tance may be ours, Page 248, that he takes Episcopacy to be no indifferent thing, but Instituted by Christ, and confirmed by the constant Practice of the Ʋniversal Church of Christ in all Ages, Page 254. And yet in the Shape of a Wolf, Page 27. He falls very fiercely upon his Brother Wolf of Rome, and calls the Pope the Grand Schismatick, and why? e'en, because Catholick Communion is broke by the Church of Rome in the U­surpation of her Bishops, over all the rest of his Fellow Bishops, and confining the Ca­tholick Church to his own Communi­on, then it seems that is Schism in the Pope which would have been Establish­ing Peace and Unity, and Setling our Constitution upon a sure and lasting Foundation, if done by the Occasional Bill. Peace at Home, Page 12. But if the Pope be in the wrong, what is this Episco­pacy that is of Divine Right? And what is a Diocess, and what Texts are there that prove an Equality among Bishops, which do not also prove Presbyters to be Bishops? [Page 51]St. Peter we just now read was a Fellow Pres­byter, and would never have Exhorted Pres­byters to act the Bishop, if he had known that Presbyters and Bishops differed in Or­der, Jure Divino. Nor would St. John, who Wrote his Gospel about the Year 98, about 65 Years after he had received the Miracu­lous Gifts of the Holy Ghost, and after he came out of the boyling Oil, have omitted so necessary a Matter, nor would he in his 2 d. and 3 d. Epistles, just before his Death, have misled the Church, by calling himself the Presbyter, which is the first word in both those Epistles, especially in his Third Epi­stle, in which he complains of Diotrephes, who lov'd the Preheminence [...], a lover of Prelacy, for not receiving him, and for casting the Brethren out of the Church. He would have been careful to have used the Stile of a Higher Order, nay, 'tis plain he did not think it a Disparagement to the surviving Apostle of Jesus Christ to be styled a Presbyter; but hitherto the Church of Christ remained a pure Virgin. Hegesippus in Eus. l. 3. c. 32. and Anthropos had not prevailed to, introduce his Spouse in her stead. This Parity appears from divers Places in Irenaeus in the second Century, and the well known Place in St. Hierom, the Con­fession of Binius in 1 Can. Apost. is remar­kable, that the Names of Bishop and Presby­ter [Page 52]were promiscuously used, and not distin­guish'd for above 200 Years. I will add the words of the Learned Hales, in his Dis­course of Schism, ‘They deceive them­selves, and others who would perswade us that Bishops by the Institution of Christ have any Superiority above other Men, except that which requires Reverence, or That a Bishop is Superior by any other Law than Positivo, and by the common Consent of Christians.’ Do I then, Sir Humphrey, say any thing against the Consti­tion of the Church of England? not at all Jure Positivo: The Priests and People are Go­verned by the Queen, the Laws are made by Queen, Lords, and Commons, there are as many Lord Lieutenants as Counties, and Bishops as Diocesses, and Archbishops as Provinces; there are among the People, Dukes, Marquesses, &c. and among the Mi­nisters, Deans, Arch-Deacons, Prebends, &c. But for God's sake, what Texts do you quote for the Jus Divinum, either of the Monarchy limitted by our Laws, and all the Subordinate Officers in the English Form of Government, tho' the best in the World, or for the Hierarchy of the Church of Eng­land, with all its Subordinate Officers, as de­scribed by Dr. Cousius, in his Ecclesiae Anglica­nae Politica.

Reprint that Book, and let us have the Scriptures, proving the Constitution Jure Divino in the next Edition; but otherwise, let us not be bubled out of our Senses, either by the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy, or of Presbytery, while by one is meant the En­glish Hierarchy, or the Seotch Church Go­vernment by the other. Do not all Learn­ed Men know that Pope Leo the Great, who began his Popedom about the Year 440, in his 87th and 90th Epistles, is express for a pular Election of Bishops. And altho' Pope Symmachus in the latter end of the Fifth Century, about the Year 498, endeavoured to exclude the People from the Election, yet Pope Celestine the Second, in the Year 1143, was the first Pope made without the Peoples Election, even in the See of Rome, where Priesteraft did most prevail. And now in England the Dean and Chapter chose the Bishop in Pursuance of an Act of Parliament, and by Authority from the Crown. Hierom and Eutichius are express, that in Alexandria from Mark their first Bishop, one of the Presbyters was chosen to be Bishop by the rest. So that the Presbyters could make a Bi­shop; for we read of no Bishops that Or­dained or Consecrated Him, when so chosen, which is the Practice in England. The Learned Ʋsher acknowledges that the Presby­ters Power, which I plead for is taken from [Page 54]Him in England only by Law, and may by Law be restored. And yet because an Episco­pacy was early in the Church, the English Prelacy must be put upon us to be Jure Di­vino. Take it as it is Jure Humano, and I have not one word to say against it. And 'tis plain, that notwithstanding the noise now made about the Jus Divinum of Bishops, as a Superiour Order to Presbyters, that was not the Sense of the Church at the Restaura­tion of King Charles the Second; for if it had, the Lords Spiritual, would never have agreed to the Stat. 12. Car. 2. Cap. 17. which restores Ministers, Ordained by any Ecclesia­stical Persons before the 25th of December, then last past. Alass, Sir, Christ himself, and not the Apostles Ordained the Seventy. Philip the Deacon sent Christianity into Aba­sinia, where it still is, by the Aethopian Eu­nuch, who was no Bishop that I know of, and yet they had Ordained Ministers before they received an Abuna, or Archbishop from the Patriarch of Alexandria. Let the Priests be Governed in all Countries, as they are most Governable; it hinders not, but we may be all of the same, and not of opposite Princi­ples, but of the same Perswasion in Matters of Religion. I don't pretend to determine how far the Civil Power may enforce Re­veal'd. Religion, but I hope all Christian [Page 55]Princes and States will take care that the Priests add not to, or diminish from our Christianity in any Form, and let them be Go­verned, as they may, but for God's sake let Discipline be restored, and then 'tis no great matter in what Form the Priests are ma­naged.

Let every Minister who has the Cure of Souls, be enabled to exercise Disciplinam Christi, which I am sure is Jure Divino, and perhaps the Reduction of Episcopacy to the Form of Synodical Government, by Arch­bishop Ʋsher, tho' not Jure Divine, would be found so agreeable to Reason, suitable to Primitive Practice, and accomodate to the Ends of Discipline, that a due Considerati­on thereof might in a while bring all Christi­an Churches into the same Form of Govern­ment, without the Pretence of a Jus Divi­num for it. Let us have no Laws about the Matter of Reveal'd Religion, but what are at least plainly justified by the Scripture, and not be hampered by the Priests Additions in any Form; and Discipline will be easie and without Difficulty. But if the Parish Mini­ster may not Excommunicate a Notorious Convicted Atheist, Deist, Blasphemer, Ido­later, Prophane Swearer, Sabbath-breaker, Abuser of Parents, Murderer, Adulterer, Thief, Perjured Person, Extortioner, Bar­retor, and such like; but must complain to [Page 56]the Diocesan, and an Appeal must lie to the Archbishop, the same Reason may carry it to the Pope, tho' our Laws justly prohibit it. So in the other Form of Government, if such a Criminal, after Conviction by Law, may appeal from his Pastor to the Sessions, thence to the Presbytery, thence to the Sy­nod, and thence to the General Assembly, the same Reason will carry it to a General Council, and I think there ought to be one Appeal more in such Cases, viz. to the Day of Judgment. Indeed, if Priests may make us a Horse-load of Canons and Constituti­ons Ecclesiastical, and load us with Ceremo­nies, of which St. Augustine in his Second E­pistle to Januarius, complains, that the Condition of the Jews was more tolerable than of the Church in his Time, (which was the 5th. Century,) and the Transgression of e­very one of them shall be a new Sin, there may be need of Appeals, nor will it be sit to trust a single Person to teaze a Parish for not submitting to Priestcraft.

But the Laws of God are plain, the Du­ties required by Christianity are well known, and I am so far from Abridging the Ministers of the Gospel of their just Power, that I think 'tis a horrid shame that they have not more. 'Tis an excellent Passage, cited out of Mr. Chillingworth, by the late Author of [Page 57] a Discourse called the Principle of the Protestant Reformation. ‘I am fully assured that God doth not, and therefore that Man ought not to require any more of any Man than this; to Believe the Scripture to be God's word, to endeavour to find the true Sense of it, and to Live according to it; The Bible, the Bible, I say the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants.’

But though I agree with the Author, page 5. That a Person by Baptism is not made a Member of any particular Church, but only of the Christian Church Universal; yet I con­ceive that he is wretchedly out, when he in­sinuates, That there is no Part of Primitive Church Communion, which might not have been performed by a Woman, as well as a Man; and that a Woman's Narrative would have been part of the Gospel: Because that Bible tells me not, that our Saviour had any She-Apostles or Evangelists. Indeed Priscilla, as well as Aquila, did instruct Apollos; but so may any good Woman instruct her Friend, without being a Church-Officer. And the Context of that Passage, 1 Cor. 11.21. which he quotes, seems to insinuate, as if this Fancy of a Female Officer had got footing in the Church of Corinth; but the Apostle tells us, That the Head of the Woman is the Man, ver. 3. and that she ought to have Power, or a Covering on her Head: So far from being heard, that [Page 58]she was not to be seen. And in the next Chapter, v. 28, & 29. he speaks of Church-Officers, but of no She-Ones. And again, Chap 14. v. 34. He is plain in the Case, Let the Woman keep Silence in the Church, for it is not permitted to them to speak; and so 1 Tim. 2.12. Again, I think he is strangely out, when he says, page 11. That there is no ab­solute Necessity for Publick Church-Com­munion, since we can read the Gospel at home; for I am really a Friend to the Apo­stle's Creed, and believe the Communion of Saints, which is an Article founded on ex­press Scripture, as well as the other Articles of that Creed, and which must be had by joining to some Church or Congregation, such as is described in the 19th Article of the Church of England. But indeed, if you speak of National, or Provincial Churches, which distinguish themselves by their own, or other Mens Inventions; I am of the Mind of Diogenes, who would not be a Ci­tizen of Athens, because they required some separating Ceremonies, whereas, He took himself to be a Citizen of the World. A Pas­sage which the Pious and Ingenious Mr. Burscough, in his late Discourse of Schism has Cited; (but whether to this Purpose let the World Judge) I will not for the same Reason, confine my Communion to any such Party, because I am a Member of [Page 59]the Catholick-Church. But, for Ordinary Communion, certainly every Christian ought to be a Member of some Congregation, if he can so be, and that which Consists of his Neighbours is most Agreeable to the Ends of Christian Communion. And, then as to Church Officers, the Bible is Plain; the Epi­stles of the Apostles Paul, are full of Evi­dence for Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons; He left Tinus in Creet, to Ordain Presbyters in every City, Tit. 5. and 4.4 Eph. 11. He tells us, that our Saviour gave some Apo­stles, and some Prophets, and some Evan­gelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, for the Perfecting of the Saints, &c. The Words are all Masculine, and no Place Mentions a she Apostle or Evangelist. But, here let the Clergy observe the Consequence of pretend­ing to Unscriptural Rights, jure Divino, which drives Men to Question, whether they have any at all. But, let that Author and all Men know, that the Ministers of the Gospel are Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4.1. They are [...]. Presidents, Persons that Pre­side, or as it is rendred, are over the Church in the Lord, 1 Thess. 5.1.2. We read 1 Tim. 5.17. of Elders that Rule well [...] tho' Presiding Presbyters, a Passage one would think, inconsistent with the Presbyterian Government, as Opposed by [Page 60]the Episcopal. For I know no better Descri­ption of a Bishop, then a Presiding Presby­ter, and yet a Passage, that hath been tor­tured to Prove Lay-Elders, and to make that Government Jure Divino. Indeed, I know no Text so much relyed on, except perhaps that, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Timothy's Gift was given Him by laying on of the Hands of the Presbyters, which Place the Learned Cal­vin himself quits, as proving no such Mat­ter. Besides, 'tis Plain, that St. Paul's Hands were laid on him too, 2 Tim. 1.6. And I cannot but Observe, that this Passage in this Second Epistle, (which was Written about Eleven Years after the First) seems to fall from that inspired Writer, to prevent the Mistake that Men might be led into, by that other Text in the first Epistle, and at the same time Insinuate, that in Ordination, the Bishop and Presbyters (where a Church has both) do best together, so the same Apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Ex­plains some Passages in his first, as also some Things in his first Epistle to the Thessaloni­ans, that occasioned Mistakes, are set right in the Second.

On the other Side, 'tis strange to see the Jus Divinum of Prelatical Government is founded by some on Passages, that make most Strongly against it, of which I shall Content my self at Present with one Instane, Acts 20. [Page 61]17. St. Paul from Miletus. sent to Ephesius, and called the Presbyters of the Church, who v. 28. He says, were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost, this is a Place much relied on against the Difference of Order: But, Mr. Maurice in his Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy, endeavouring to Enervate Mr. Clarkson's Ar­gument from that Passage, Quotes Ireneus, L. 3. Cap. 14. Who he says, being Born in the End of the First Century, might have Notices from Tradition of more of St. Paul's Visitation, than is Recorded by St. Luke; and tells us, that St. Paul having called toge­ther the Bishops and Presbyters of Ephesus, and the other Neighbouring Cities, &c. The Text is, the Presbyters, Irenaeus says, Bi­shops and Presbyters; and Paul tells them, that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops: Now let the Reason of Mankind Judge, whe­ther this Passage of Irenaeus be not much Stronger against Diocesan Episcopacy, as it Imports a Difference of Order, than the Text it self, for some Prelates have endea­vour'd to avoid the force of that Text, by affirming, that those Presbyters were all Bi­shops. But if Irenaeus be in the right, both the Bishops and Presbyters were Bishops of the Holy Ghosts making, i. e. Jure Divino. It seems the Apostles Rule, 1 Pet. 5.5. was observed then, which was about Twelve Years before that Epistle was Written, viz. [Page 62]The Younger Presbyters did submit them­selves unto the Elder; tho' at the same time, they were all Subject one to another, and were cloathed with Humility. And that this Ancient Father knew no other Difference, will appear to the Impartial Reader, who will consult these Passages, Lib. 4. Cap. 43. Cap. 44. Cap. 52. Cap. 63. Lib. 5. Pag. 299. 322.

Surely Mr. Maurice had as good let that Fa­ther alone, and have wholly slid away from the Objection, as he does in another Place; for Mr. Clarkson making it his great Argument against Diocesan Episcopacy, that it was whol­ly Impracticable, supposing the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess, consisting of ma­ny Churches, Pag. 226. and proving it ir­refragably from Reason, and the Testimony of Chrysostom and others, and having men­tioned Gregory, Orat. 20. who Applauds the Multiplying of Bishopricks as an Excellent Art. Souls being hereby better lookt after; he Observes, that others would have this less regarded, and the Bishops Honour more: Now, what does Mr. Maurice say to all this; why in Truth, just nothing at all? St. Chry­sostom says, that a Bishop at the Peril of his Soul, is to take exact Notice of the Spiritual State of all under his Charge, and constantly to perform all Pastoral Duties to the whole Flock; he had need of many Thousand [Page 63]Eyes, to look into the State of every Soul under him, which of them can Digest bitter Remedies, and who for want of them grow Careless. Tho' he Order his own Life well, if he does not exactly take Care of thee, and of all that are under him, to Hell he goes with the Wicked. And in another Place, it is very Burdensom to have the Charge of 150 Souls. Now, what is to be done? These Matters are Plain. If a Bishop be the sole Pa­stor of 500000, and some of them live 3000 Miles from the Bishops Pallace; as for the Pur­pose, the distance of the West-Indies from Fulham, how is Chrysostom to be answered? Why, even by denying what he says. Bi­shops says Mr. Maurice, Pag. 438. ‘are cer­tainly accountable for those who Perish by their Neglect of their proper Office; but will not be Condemned for not doing the Office of a Presbyter, to all the Particulars of his Diocess.’ But pray, what is the Of­fice of a Presbyter, if those Passages of Chry­sostom do not describe it. It were much bet­ter, and Honester to say, the Bishop is the President of the Presbytery, and not the sole Pastor of the Diocess; he may have the Care of Souls in one particular Parish, but every Parish Presbyter is a Bishop of his Parish; and as such, those Passages of Chrysostom con­cern him, and not the Diocesan, who by the 71 Canon of the African Code, is forbidden [Page 64]to leave his Cathedral Church, and go to any other Church in his Diocess to reside there. This would be Plain Dealing, and a better Answer to the Charge of consulting the Bishops Honour, more than the good of Souls, than to tell the Story of the Cappadocian, whose Blood poison'd a Viper that bit him. Def. of Di. Epis. Pag. 107. This had made Mr. Maurice in the right, and Mr. Clarkson wholly in the wrong in this Matter. For af­ter all the Pains that Ingenious Independent has taken, Diocesan-Episcopacy rightly Un­derstood, is too hard for him; but taking the Diocesan as the Sole Pastor of a Diocess, these Two Gentlemen do most manifestly Confute one another, and neither of them in Truth, are for the True Primitive Episco­pacy. That Chrysostom was Bishop of Con­stantinople in this Sence, which I give of Pri­mitive Episcopacy, is very consistent with the aforesaid Passages, and his Practice does no more Contradict his Doctrine, then Dr. Ʋsher, being the Arch-Bishop Ardmagh, is an Argument, that he did not Write the a­forementioned Treatise, Entituled the Redu­ction of Episcopacy, &c.

I see no way of saving the Souls of either of Bishop or People without Discipline; I see no Possibility of Discipline, without al­lowing many Pastors in every Diocess, (too big for the Inspection of a single Pastor) who [Page 65]have the Power of the Keys, and I do not diminish here by the Diocesans Grandure, unless it be Claimed by the Institution of Christ, who has forbid such a Claim in the most Express Terms, and told us his King­dom is not of this World, neither He nor His Apostles would meddle with Govern­ment; and altho' I think the 13th Rom. which has been much urged for Arbitrary Power, and unlimitted Submission to the worst of Rulers signifies no such thing, es­pecially being Written in Neros Quinquenni­um, when his Reign was suitable to, the A­postles Description of it, in that Chapter: Yet that, and many such Texts shew, that the Apostles thought not of any such Hierar­chy of Divine Institution, as the High Party pretend to; it is not the Business of the Mi­nisters of the Gospel to meddle with Go­vernment, other than Pastoral, at least till the Apostles shall sit on Thrones, judging the 12 Tribes of Israel, and when that will be, God only knows. But of this I am sure, that there have been many Heretical Councils, that the Councils of Rome held by Gregory the III. in the 8th Century, consist­ing of 903 Bishops, almost Thrice the Num­ber of the Fathers at the Council of Nice; Decreed the Worshipping of Images, Ex­communicated the Emperor Leo, and de­prived him of his Imperial Dignity, for Op­posing [Page 66]Images. And whereas the Councils of Nice in the 4th Century, appointed 3 Patri­archs, one in Rome, another in Alexandria, and the Third in Antioch, with Power to Convocate within their own Bounds, parti­cular Councils for timely suppressing of He­resies, this was so far from suppressing them, that many of those Patriarchs were most No­torious Hereticks, and the great Promoters of Heresy, Eulalius, Euphronius, Placitus, Stepha­nus, Leontius, Spado, Eudoxius, all Patriarchs of Antioch were Arians in the very same Centu­ry. So was Lucius Patriarch of Alexandria. And tho' Julius Patriarch of Rome, and most of his Successors in that Age, were a Refuge to the Orthodox; yer, Siricius in that Age, forbad Marriage to Priests, and their affecting Supremacy, was very Visible. And Liberius one of them is given up by Bellarmine him­self as an Arian, and these Pretences at last, issued in the Papal-Empire.

But yet, in short, I know no Reason why a Minister of the Gospel, may not be made by the Civil Government a Lord of Parlia­ment; nor why, a Lord of Parliament may not become a Minister of the Gospel. It were no Disparagement to the Emperor, to be an Embassador for Christ, 2 Cor. 5.20. And I was pleased with a Story that I heard of, a certain Clergy-Man, on whom an Earldom descended, who Wrote himself Minister of [Page 67]Jesus Christ, and Earl of K. He that receiv­eth them receiveth Christ, and he that receiveth Him, receiveth Him that sent Him. I have the same Expectations with the Author of the Case of the Regale, that many of the Promises of the Glory of the Church, must be fulfilled in this World; that there are Original, Fundamental and Divine Powers, with which Christ has invested His Church; that there is a Discipline which Christ has left in his Church, and which is absolutely necessary, with which Princes cannot Dis­pense, and which they may not Over-rule; that she has an Original Independance from all Kings and States, who ought to be Sub­ject to her Discipline, if they Profess them­selves Members of her; that Censures are still in her Power, and that she cannot Re­cede from them; and that they would still have their Effect upon all truly Conscienti­ous, and restore the now well nigh lost Notions of a Church and Religion; but then, all these things must be found in the Bible; and Men may as well make an Act to Burn the Bible, Pres. Pag. 23. as set Up for Rights, Powers and Priviledges, Jure Divi­no, which are not to be found there.

He is certainly in the right Pag. 25. that nothing can be believed to be Religion by any People, but what they think to be Di­vine, and they can think nothing can be so, [Page 68]that is in the Power of Man to alter or Transverse. I look on every True Gospel Minister, as representing the Person of Jesus Christ, and Reverence Him as His Ambassa­dor; but I have his Instructions in my Hand, and he must not expect that I shew any Re­gard to his Demands, beyond those Instru­ctions: Suppose a Treaty of Peace between the Emperor and the Hungaeians now in Arms, who Accept of the Terms offered them by His Imperial Majesty; but, Prince Eugene would have Two or Three of his own Fancies complyed with, or no Peace should be, would not the Hungarians think him ve­ry Impertinent and Saucy, would not the Emperor think Himself ill Served by him, and would not all the World think him stark Mad? The Application is easie. And here Sir, I could particularly shew you, that An­thropos and his Wife did gradually Rob the Laity of their Reason, the Bible of their Sen­ses, by what Degrees Priest-crast grew, and Christianity decayed, but I must not En­large, having been much longer on this Head than I designed. But, I cannot Omit to give you, a Copy of a Letter Written by Cardinal Woolsey to the Pope; when we of the Laity began to shake our Ears, and look about Us as you may find it, Ld. Herb. Hist. H. VIII. No. 2.

And now Sir Humphry, what is there in all this that hinders; but that you a High Church-Man, and I an Occasional-Conformist, or rather if you please, an Occasional-Dissen­ter are not of Opposite Principles, but of the same Perswasion in Matters of Religi­on? Is there any particular Part of Religion, in what I have Discourst under this Head, in which Consideration, you do not fully agree with me in all Respects. Sure you cannot still think either English-Prelacy, or Scotch-Presbytery, Jure Divino, tho' by the Civil Sanction, they be justifyed in the re­spective Kingdoms, where they are Esta­blished. T'is a wonderful Thing, considering, for how many Ages Prelacy prevailed in the World, and the many Forgeries of Pieces of Antiquities, and the Indices Expurgatoriae that have been made, that there are so many Things to be said against Jus Divinum out of Antiquity; and on the other side, 'tis wonderful, that if Presbyterian Government without a President Bishop had been Jure Divino that so Early, as the Year 140. it should be Decreed over all the World, to change it to Diocesan-Episcopacy, which the Presbyterians indeavour to Prove out of St. Jerom; and that in no Age since, till of late, the Jus Divinum of it should be Discovered. And I believe, it may be proved, that the Albegois and Vaudois Churches, which have [Page 70]been pure Churches from the Apostles Days; have always allowed of President Bishops, tho' not of Diocesans, being sole Pastors of a Diocess, Jure Divino. But, this Question is no matter of either Natural or Revealed Religion; and therefore hinders me not, to Conclude, that you and I are not of Oppo­site Principles, but of one and the same Per­swasion in Matters of Religion; especially, since we are both Members also of the Natio­nal Church, heartily Approve of the Laws of the Land, and cheerfully pay Obedience to them; tho' both you and I, would be Glad to see them altered, so as to restore Dis­cipline, to Establish the Church of England more firmly, to make a better Provision for the small Vicarages and Curacys; to Unite our Differences and heal our Breaches, to Provide for Employing the Poor, to Sup­press Vice and Immorality more Effectually, and to promote Christian Knowledge, both at Home and Abroad.

2. And having been too Prolix, tho' far from Impoverishing the Subject of the first Question; I shall be short in my Answer to the other; and as to the Second, Whether if the Occasional-Bill had past, it had secured the Government from such, who are not sincere Members of the National Church, nor heartily approve of the Laws of the Land, nor chearfully pay Obedience to them; but [Page 71]are of Opposite Prinnciples, and not of one and the same Perswasion in Matters of Reli­gion.

I will only say, That 'tis plain, that altho' the Bill had passed, Atheists, Deists, Socini­ans, those that Value no Religion, nor any Church, if wise enough to avoid the late Act against Blasphemy, Adulterers, Common Swearers, Extortioners, and all those truly Scandalous Occasional-Conformists, whose Lives shew, that they neither heartily Approve of the Laws of God, or of the Land; and nei­ther chearfully nor otherwise, pay Obedi­ence to them, would be Capable of Publick Offices and Employments, relating to the Go­vernment either in Countries or Corporati­ons, notwithstanding that Bill, and would have been no way Affected by it; a Person of Sober Life, that had been in 5 or 6 Years, 5 or 600 Times at Church, and frequently received the Sacrament according to the U­sage of the Church of England, might have been removed out of an Office, tho' he had also all that while, laboured in doing Service to the Church, as by Law Establish'd, which will be of Everlasting Advantage to it; and a Person of a Prosligate Life, who had Pub­lickly owned, that he had not been at Church for as many Years, might be Capable of a Wh. St.—f. notwithstanding that Act; but this is so Clear, That it needs no Proof, as to [Page 72]so much of this Question, as relates to Reli­gion; and if you intend any other Laws, the Defacto Men, such as believe the Jus Divi­num of Absolute Monarchy, that take the Oaths to Her Majesty as an Ass eats Thistles, that neither heartily Approve of the Laws of the Land, abjuring the pretended James the III. and Establishing Her Majesty's Throne, and the Protestant Succession, nor the Law for Toleration, nor chearfully pay Obedi­ence to them, would be all unaffected by this Bill; surely the Promoters of it, thought there was no Sin, but going to a Protestant Meeting, as one of the Characters in Timon of Athens thought there was no Sin but Murder.

Thirdly, Whether the Administration of Publick Aflairs may not be in the Hands of Persons who are not of one and the same Perswasion in Matters of Religion, nay, of Men of opposite Principles, without Confu­sion or tearing the Government in pieces be­tween them, and whether they may not, notwithstanding, draw together the same way for the Publick Good. Now certainly, Calvinists and Arminians, High-Church and Low-Church, Sherlockians and Southians, such as take the Articles of the Church to be Arti­cles of Faith, and such as take them only to be Articles of Peace; such as are for the Oc­casional-Bill, and such as are not, such as hold the Pope to be Antichrist, and such as do [Page 73]not, are not of one and the same Perswasi­on in Matters of Religion, but of opposite Principles; and yet Sir Humphrey, you will not deny, that they may be all employ'd without Confusion or tearing the Govern­ment in pieces between them; and may not­withstanding draw together the same way, for the Publick Good: but the truth is this,Queens Coronati­on Sermon, p. 24. ‘Mixing of Heaven & Earth together, as his Grace the Lord Arch-bishop of York expresses it, When Men for difference of Opinion, about the Methods of the publick Conduct, break out into Parties and Factions, sacrifice the Peace of the Kingdom to their own private Re­sentments, and mingle Heaven and Earth for the supporting of a Side.’ 'Tis this which tears the Government in pieces. It were in­deed desirable, that all the Subjects of Eng­land were good Christians, for the sake of the Publick and of their own Souls; for that Christianity gives the best Rules of Mo­rality, and the Name of Jesus Christ is the only Name under Heaven, given among Men, whereby they can be Saved: Yet Faith is the Gift of God, and Men may be of great Use in this World, who may be very unhappy in the next.

It is a Notion long since exploded, That Dominion is founded in Grace: and Honesty, Honour, Skill, and Imegrity, may consist [Page 74]with a mistaken Belief as to revealed Reli­gion; and in this respect no Religion but the Popish, or the High-Church Party in England, or the High-Kirk Party or Came­ronians in Scotland, can make a Man other­wise honest to tear the Government in pieces. Indeed Popery is inconsistent with Allegi­ance to all Protestant Kings and States: For as Antonius de Dominis Arch-bishop of Spolato acknowledged above 80 years ago, The Church under the Bishop of Rome is no more a Church but a human Government under the Monarchy of the Pope, which is wholly Temporal. And this Assertion of his may be easily justified out of the Lateran and other Councils, and their most celebrated Writers. So Thomas Aquinas tells us, That the Pope is as much above Bishops as Bishops are above Kings and Princes; that the Secu­lar Power is subjected to the Spiritual, as the Body to the Soul; and that therefore 'tis no Usurpation when a Prelate meddles with Temporal Matters. So Bonaventure, his Con­temporary, about the Year 1274 affirms, That the Pope may depose Princes; and this after Edwardus Salburgensis, in his Ora­tion to the Diet at Ratisbon about the Year 1248, had thus express'd himself: ‘There are now 175 Years elasps'd since Gregory the 7th laid the Foundations of an Em­pire, under the shew of Religion, which [Page 75]in the same Oration he calls the Empire of Antichrist.’ But this is a matter so plain, that it cannot be denied by any learned Pro­testant; and I wish that none who bear the Protestant Name were of the Mind of Sal­mero, who teaches, that as well the Priestly as the Kingly Power is placed in the Pastors of the Church, that so Christ may reign for ever: For 'tis not long since the Judges of England were solemuly told in a Sermon, that St. Paul was a mix'd Person. Alas these, and such as these are the Princi­ples which work Confusion, and tear the Government in pieces; whether they got into the Heads of Prelatists or Presbyterians, or of Men of any other denomination: But altho' the Christian Profession with a suit­able Conversation, ought to be look't upon as an excellent Qualisication for an Imploy­ment, where the Person has other Qualifica­tions proper for such an Imployment, and such a Man is certainly preferable to another of equal Skill, who either makes no Pro­fession of Religion, or lives not according to his Profession: Yet the antient Roman Honesty with the Roman Courage, Loyalty, and Love to his Country, and largeness of Soul may render a Man more sit for an Im­ployment than a Selfish, Persecuting, Cow­ardly, Arbitrary, narrow Soul Fellow, that oves none but his own Party, tho' he be­lieved [Page 76]his Creed never so firmly, and roar'd for the Church never so boisterously; and much more if all the noise he makes be for humane Inventions and Ceremonies. The Priests are now competently ashamed of the pretended Jus Divinum of absolute Monarchy, and when they have been scouted out of all their Pretences under all Forms, to any Jus Divinum, not to be found in the Scriptures: Then, and not till then will the Princes and States of Christendom be secure and quiet.

The proof hereof would be too prolix, but I can't forbear to present you with a small sample. The Pope in the 13th Century sent the Christian Princes a Pilgrimage to recover the Holy Land, which was in truth only to take an Opportunity to usurp upon their Rights in their Absence, and to set up his pretended Jus Divinum to be Monarch of the World. Thus after Gregory the 9th had by Excommunication forc'd the Empe­ror Frederick the Second to an Expedition in­to the Holy Land, he invaded Naples, and other parts of the Emperor's Dominions, and stirred up Henry, the Emperor's Son to Rebellion, and called a Council to depose him: Nor would he make Peace with him, tho' he sued to the Pope for it; and tho' the Tartars carried all before them, the Em­peror could not obtain Liberty to assist the Christians, but was forc'd to fight it out [Page 77]with the Pope, till the Anti-christian Mon­ster having the worst on't broke his Heart. Some time after Pope Innocent the 4th blessed the French King Lewis about the Year 1248, and sent him on the same Errand; but ga­thered a Council at Lyons against Frederick, and thereby hindred him from assisting Lewis, who sought to make Peace between the Emperor and the Pope, that he might be assisted; but the barbarous Pope, and his pretended Jus Divinum, left the poor King and his two Brothers Captives to the Sara­cens, and the whole Christian Army to be cut off. Some time after Pope Gregory the 10th engaged the Emperor Rodulph to send an Army into Asia, and after the Ruin of that Army, and the Captivity of the Prince of Meckleburg who commanded it, being the 7th Army in this Century that was sent on the Pope's Errand: It happen'd that Cassia­nus Prince of Tartary, turned Christian, and conquered Syria from the Saracens, and left Governors in it with express Orders, that they should enter into a Confederacy with the Christian Princes of the West: But Pope Bonisuce the Eighth, to whom this Offer was made, was so busy in maintaining his pre­tended Jus Divinum, against the French King Philip, whom he Excommunicated and his Posterity to the Fourth Generation, that he wholly slighted this Offer, which occasi­oned [Page 78]oned the loss of Syria, made Capeacus who governed in Damascus for Cassianus, to re­volt to the Soldan of Egypt, and gave occa­sion to the rise of the Ottoman Empire in the beginning of the next Age.

Alass, Sir, were there no Princes in the Seventeenth Century, ruined by Contests a­bout those Jus Divinums? I pray God the Eighteenth Century may afford no instances of any Prince undone by believing the Jus Divinum of Priestcraft. These things con­sidered, it is not strange that the National Synod or Council of Gap, Anno 1604, just 100 Years ago, for the Reasons in their Acts mentioned; and among others, for that the Bishop of Rome, with relation to Civil Affairs, tramples on the lawful Autho­rity of Magistrates, giving, taking away, transferring Kingdoms; thus resolve, ‘We Believe and Assert, that he is the true and proper Antichrist, the Son of Perdition, foretold in the Word of God, the Purple Whore that sits on the Seven Mountains in the Great City, that has obtained Domini­on over the Kings of the Earth, and we wait till God (as he hath promis'd, and already begun to do) shall break and con­quer him by the Spirit of his Mouth, and destroy him utterly by the brightness of his Coming.’ But we are assured by a [Page 79]more infallible Authority, that the Kings of the Earth shall hate the Whore and make her Desolate and Naked,Rev. 17.12, 16. and eat her Flesh, and burn her with Fire. The Kings, and not the Priests are to work this Reformation; and therefore tho' they had given their Power, Strength,Verse 13. and Kingdom to the Beast, which the Kings of the Earth never gave to any but the Pope and his Church; yet by re-assuming their respective Rights, and as­serting their just Supremacy, God will some time or other utterly root out Priestcraft;Revel. 11.15. the Kingdoms of this World must become the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ; not by turning Kingdoms into Churches and Kings into Priests, or setting up Imperi­um in Imperio. Our Saviour at first indeed appeared to St. John in the Habit of a Priest, and his Sword went out of his Mouth, a plain Representation how his Gospel should at first prevail: But after that Anthropos and Ecclesia had set up Antichrist, and the Kings of the Earth had been a long time committing Fornication with the Great Whore,Revel. 18.3. and the inhabiters of the Earth had been made drunk with the Wine of her For­nication, when Babylon is to fall; when the [Page 80]Marriage of the Lamb is come, and his Wife hath made her self ready, and the Heavens open for the utter destruction of the Beast and false Prophet,Revel. 19.11. he then appears as a General in the Head of an Army; and tho' the Sword still comes out of his Mouth, and his Name is called the Word of God, Verse 15. that we may be sure to know Him,Verse 13. and the true means of Reformation; yet his Name written on his Vesture and on his Thigh, is not Bishop of Bishops,Verse 16. or chief Priest of Priests; but King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, that we may know also who they are, whom He will use as Instruments of Reformation. And I dare appeal to the Reason of Man­kind, whether it does not agree with this Prophecy, that the Civil Powers must inter­pose, or the Priests will be quarrelling about their pretended Jus Divinum, and tearing Christendom to pieces till the Day of Judg­ment.

And here I rid my hands of all the lament­able Stories, that the abovementioned Woolf tells of the Presbyterian Tyranny in Scotland; I have not one word to say for it, if it be true which he relates, and others deny: I hope the Civil Power will keep them in Or­der, as well as his Party in England. The Apo­logetick [Page 81]Declaration annex'd to that Dis­course, says, That they cannot own Prin­cess Ann as their lawful chosen covenanted Princess, such as they ought to have, nor can they have any Prince or Princess but a Covenanted one. Why, says another Party, no Prince or Princess, without they maintain the Jus Divinum of Absolute Monarchy, and maintain the Jus Divinum of Prelacy; is not this fine work Sir Humphrey, and has not our most Religious and most excellent Queen, (whom may the everlasting Arms sup­port to the Age of her Predecessor Queen Eli­zabeth at least, and with greater Glory & Hap­piness) a sine time of it amongst them; for my part I most heartily wish, that now Re as­sumptions are in fashion, all Princes and States in Christendom would enter into a solema League and Covenant, to re-aslume the just Rights of the Civil Power, and to hold the Noses of all the Priests in Christendom to the Bible, and to give them all the Honour and Respect, Authority and Maintenance which is their due; as the Stewards of the Mysteries of God, and as the Ambassadors of Christ, and to continue or derive to them by express Laws; all such share of the Civil Power, as the Wisdom of the Legislature shall see convenient in all Places, and that all we Laymen, as they call us, would enter into the same solemn League and Covenant, to [Page 82]support the Queen and all other Sovereigns therein, that so the Christian World may be quiet, then the Priests may enjoy the Bles­sing of our Saviour's Presence, which is an­nex'd to their teaching all things whatsoever he has commanded, and we may have the Benefit of being so taught, otherwise many a good Christian will be ready to say with poor Melancton, at his Death: I desire to depart out of this Life for two Causes, that I may enjoy the desired sight of the Son of God, and the Church Triumphant, and that I may be delivered from the most barbarous and implacable hatred of Divines, and to believe that Eneas Sylvius was more infalli­ble when he pronounc'd, That all the Evil in the World either arose from Ecclesiastical Persons,Omne malum in Mun­do out exortum aviris Ecclesiasticis aut ab illis patratum. or had been perpetrated by them, than he was after­wards, when about the Year 1458, he became Pope Pius the Se­cond.

Those therefore who are Papists, or who desire a Reunion with Popery, and those that have got the same Principles, tho' in an Aristocratical or Democratical form, are dan­gerous to the Civil Government; but what is this to most of the English Dissenters, and to all the Occasional-Conformists, who look not Abroad for any Sovereign of any sort [Page 83]Ecclesiastical or Temporal, but Acknowledge Her Majesty to be Rightful and Lawful Queen, who rejoice in the Laws Establish­ing the Protestant Succession, and have no Interest to serve by Embroiling the Govern­ment.

Fourthly, Whether it is sit that the Cor­poration and Test Acts should be enforc'd or Repealed.

Now as to so much of this Question, as relates to the Test Act, I shall choose to re­fer you to the Plea annext to this Dis­course, No. 1. only adding, that since the Writing thereof, your Oracle in the same Place, where he Advises to the late Bill a­gainst Occasional-Conformity, seems to give up the Point, as to that Part of the Test, that enjoins the actual Receiving of the Lords Supper, for Case of the Regale, Pag. 179. He sinds Faults with Bribing Men to Prophane the Holy Sacrament for an Office, that an Action should be against the Mini­ster, who should refuse it to them, tho' he Knows, Sees, and Hears them in their Con­versations and Principles to be never so much Unqualified.

And as to the Corporation Act, 'tis plain, that there have been vast Alterations made in the Constitution of the Government, both Ecclesiastical and Civil, since the making of that Act, which may justly Occasion a Re­view [Page 84]of that Act, without any Danger to the Government; especially, if made by such Persons, as Her most Excellent Majesty shall Commissionate for that Purpose; and in hope of living to see such an Act of Parlia­ment, as I have before mentioned; and such a Commission, I will say no more on that Subject.

And now methinks, the Fifth Question is sufficiently considered already, that Part of It, which relates to the Practice of other wise Nations, has been Effectually answered by other Hands, in the Examples of most Wise Nations, Heathen and Christian; and I don't find any Reply is offered, except a dry Discourse just come to Hand at the Writing of these Lines. Indeed Sir Hum­phry, I was comforting my Self with the thoughts of Subscribing your humble Ser­vant, when I was Interrupted by the Noise of one J—S. who seems to be John at Style, in whose Name we Lawyers use to put Cases, from whom I expected some mighty Matter, for Peace and Union are Excellent Things: But alas, 'tis a poor Creature, and I shall consider him in a few Words. All the Christian Acts of Moderation in other Countries, he takes to be Acts of Necessity, not of Choice. He seems to think, that there are no Laws in England, but those of Uniformity, and the Corporation and Test [Page 85]Acts, or otherwise he shamefully belies the Dissenters; for, no Men are more fond of the other Laws of England, made for the Se­curity of the Establisht Government. 'Tis a mighty Discovery that he has made, that the Dissenters would Repeal those Laws. Sure­ly, no Man ever doubted it so far as concerns good Protestants, tho' it would be in Ef­fect not a Repealing, but rectifying those Laws. He has confirmed my Observation, that there is a strange Byass on a certain Party of Men towards Popish and French Presidents, or surely he would not have troubled the Reader with the Pre­sidents of Portugal, Spain, Italy, Peace and Ʋ ­nion, Pag. 4. and France, any more than of Mus­covy, Turkey, Persia or China: And for Holland, they are a Wiser People, than to Exclude those that Communicate with their National Church, because they believe their Creed, and Communicate also with other Protestants 'Tis no wonder, if Men that pretend to Infallibility, and take the whole Web of Priestcraft to be as Sacred as our Sa­viours Seamless-Coat, should Establish an Inquisition; but that Men, that pretend to no Infallibility, but have rejected 19 Parts in 20, should be setting up an Inquisition to secure the Fag-end of Priestcraft, from being torn off from Christianity, this is wonder­ful; [Page 86]especially, when Constant Conformity,Page 10. which as the Party would impose it, is Schismatical Separation from the Catholick Church, is put on the same Foot with the Oaths of Alle­giance and Abjuration. I hope that I have shewed that Author another way to Peace and Union, than by Bribing Men by Offices to be Separalists; there needs no going over of the Church to the Dissenters, or the Dis­senters to the Church; but if both will go over to the Bible it would be well, and Christendom in a little while would go over with them. Let him take his Swing against all Parties, that would undermine our Consti­tution; but the things he and his Party are so fond of, are rather our Excrements, than our Constitution; and if only one thing is to be done at once,Page. 16. let me Advise the Party to take Care of a Commandment, an Article of the Creed, or a Petition of the Lords Prayer, and put an incapacity on those that trangress, let God be first served; at least, before a Humane Ceremony, or an Addition to our Saviours Institutions; and as to his Controversy with D'foe. I am not at all concerned whether your Offender, or your Defender are against Occasional-Conformity upon the same, or dif­ferent Principles. I hope the Precedent Sheets give a quite different Account of, and [Page 87]defend that Practice from the misrepresen­tations of them both.

But least the word Excrement should of­fend you, I think sit to acquaint you, that I have it from that great Man & eminent Church­man, Dr. Henry Moor, who among his Re­mains (which I have seen written with his own Hand) has this Passage, ‘That that which is good indeed should be generally relished by the World is as unlikely as that dead Men in their Graves should call out for Drink; but when Goodness is revived in the World, that which now goes for Food and Delicacy shall then be left as Dung and Excrement.’ I hope, Sir Hum­phry, that Goodness is reviving in the World, and I know that Sir Humphry Mackworth has his Heart and Hands engaged in its Resur­rection; and you know that there are Occa­sional Consormists, who join intirely with you therein. I was heartily sorry to find your Name to a Discourse which signifies to me, that you take that for Food and Deli­cacy, which I think deserves the other Name. But there is another Passage among those Remains in these words, ‘There is a Natu­ral kind of Religiousness, which is but the Stamp or Character of this or the o­ther Man's disposition, some are given na­turally to the magnificence of outward Ceremonies; others do attend the in­ward [Page 88]motions of their Mind, and think at ever moving of the Water, a good An­gel at least, if not God himself is there. But few Men are aware of their own natural Temper of Genius; but let every one be assured, that wherever Humility, Upright-dealing, and Charity are want­ing, both Ceremony and Inspiration are but a ridiculous piece of Gullery.’ Humility assures me, that the Oracles of God teach the true Terms of Christian Union; to walk humbly with our God,Mic. 6.8. is what the Prophet long since pronounc'd to be good, and what God required. Upright dealing teach­es the publickly to my own Principles, for which for some Years past I have been almost daily reproach'd; and I thank God my Chari­ty extends to the utmost limits of that Pro­mise, The Earth shall be full of the Knowledge of the Glory of the Lord as the Waters cover the Sea. Isaiab 11.9. Oh Sir Humphrey, Heb. 2.14. consider of Peace on Earth, Luke 2.14. as well as at Home. Not what will secure your Party, but what will unite the Christian World; who all agree, that the Scriptures are the Word of God, endeavour to render the Church of England a means of this glorious Peace, and you will for ever oblige.