I Not long since receiv'd from the hand of a Non-conforming Pastor (by way of Answer to my impeaching him of Schism) this Tract Intitul'd A Plea for the Non-conformists, tending to justifie them against the clamorous charge of Schism: by a Doctor of Divinity, whom the Dissenters call Dr. Owen. And whether I may at­tribute it, to the slighting or carelesness of our Clergie, I know not: but as yet I have neither seen or heard of an Answer to it.

Sir, The true Friendship I have for you, and your abilities, which I am no stranger unto, prompts me to put this Plea into your handling, and beg your Animadversions up­on it: Supposing the Doctor has much wan­dered from that Notion of Schism deliver'd down to us from the Primitive Fathers; the sense of which Sacred Priests, I shall al­wayes rather espouse in any point I find so [Page 2] clearly determin'd by them, than the crude and partial (if not Enthusiastick) Writings of some Moderns, whose heads seem rather flatus't with a prejudic'd Interest, than bal­lac'd with an Apostolick Sobriety.

When I reflect upon this Intrigue of the present Dissenters from the Church of En­gland, in confounding the Notion of Schism with that of Heresie, and by that jejune project would evade that Scandal of being Schismaticks; a discrimination esteemed so odious and perilous among all good Catholicks in all Ages of the Christian Church; I can fancy no other reason they can have than this, (viz.) lest their Proselytes and follow­ers should be justly affrighted at the dange­rous guilt of Schism and Separation; and consult their return to that Fold which they have deserted, which is certainly their safest Interest.

Another Stratagem, which has not been less useful for them than the former, is their contemning an Apostolical Succession of Priesthood; and thereby lessening the ha­zard of a Schismatick condition in the opi­nion of the people: This unchristian humour they continually instill into the Populacy, and inforce it with this Anti-Apostolick [Page 3] Maxim, That there is no difference between a Priest and a Laick, but that the first reads the Prayers of the Church, and Preaches Morally, as they call it; and the other is gifted with continual Revelations: for that, they must mean; if any thing, by praying by the Spirit in their notion. I must con­fess I am as yet unconverted to these Opi­nions, and have an awful respect to your Sacred Order, and I could be as easily Pro­selyted to Atheism, as to think a Knipper­dolling or an Hugh Peters were as true Priests of the Living God, as a Tertullian or a Chrysostom.

Sir, As an obedient Son of the Church of England, and a Loyal Subject to my Sove­raign, and so oblig'd to be very solicitous of the Welfare of Church and State, give me leave to sigh out some thoughts which have been and are afflictive to my Soli­tudes, and may detect, if not the causes, at least the encouragements of our Schisms.

When I see the admir'd providence of our indulgent Prince (so eminently expres­sed in his Royal Amnestie and Act of Ob­livion) for the obliterating all Animosities and Rancours (which might still ferment in the hearts of men so Diametrically opposite, [Page 4] and who had espoused Cases as contradictory as best and worst,) contemned and flouted by an undutiful and unchristian humour of persisting in the same stubborness where­with they have check'd two Glorious Princes, and Mated a third (God bless the fourth) and wherewith they brought upon our Church and Kingdom, the late horrid and lamen­table confusions; Indignation prompts me to think, that Sincere Religion cannot reside in an ungrateful heart; nor true Piety and Loyalty, where there are no Symptoms of their repentance. And let me appeal to common sense and reason, what a frightful face of Government there would appear in this Nation; if all His Majesties evil-dis­posed Subjects should as boldly resolve to per­petrate all those Crimes prohibited by the Com­mon and Statute Laws of this Realm, as the Dissenters do temerariously transgress, or fraudulently evade those Statutes relating to Conformity.

When I see some of your Sacred Order fly at a Dignity, a Bishoprick, and when they have truss'd it, quarry and prune them­selves upon it, and live as if a Diocess were only designed to Gorge and Aggran­dize the Bishop, and he not concern'd to be a faithful Shepherd to his flock, but negli­gent, [Page 5] if not wholly careless in no small part of his Episcopal Function and Paternal charge (witness the omission of that Solemn Office of Confirmation:) nor obliged to moderate over, and inspect the manners of his infe­riour Clergie, who are in Law but his Cu­rates, and whose vices and disorders reflect a Blot upon himself, and a Scandal to the Church; then I think, the longer time runs, its sand will be the fuller of dust, and I am ready to renounce my Philosphy, and be­lieve that Gold may rust; and we have too many Rosy-Crucians in Divinity to make their Remarques.

When our Parochial Clergie shall out of good nature, tepidity or perjury omit, if not all, at least some part of the Divine Ser­vice, to curry their Males, and coaks their Females: when to please a weak Sister, the Cross after Baptism must not be used, and for a bribe the Sacrament shall be Admini­stred to a sitting Bumkin, and the Priest shall civilly be from home, when a thing de­parted is to have the Burial of an Ass: when every Parish shall have a singular Directory, and every waxen Priest shall assume a Papism to dispense with Oath, Canons and Statutes, and the Diocesan shall be demure­ly compos'd into a posture of consent with [Page 6] closed eyes and folded arms, are we then like to be blest with one faith and one way?

When too many of our Nobility and Gen­try shall assume that honour and glory to list themselves in, and be reputed Sons of our Church of England, but by their Pro­faneness, Debauchery and prodigious vice, live Antipodes to that holy Profession, and act below the dictates of uneducated nature; then I think this must be influential upon the Manners of the Populacy, and create an inclination to Schism, if not an absolute con­tempt of Religion in them, who are commonly capable of no other direction in their Mo­rals and Piety, than the vertuous examples of their Superiours.

When too many of our Nobility and Gen­try shall desert their antient Seats and Coun­trey Interests, to enjoy an urbane effemina­cy, immerge in the gulfs of Luxury, and to enervate in the Venereal Laboratories of the Town, with the greater Security to their names, and less observation of the world; this must be reputed no small cause of Schism in their Tenants and Dependents, who in many Lordships and places of the Nation want nothing more, than the antique Hospi­tality [Page 7] of England, and the Orthodox practice of their Landlords and Patrons, to secure them against the cantings of the Wolves, and to shame them into a conformable obe­dience: and were it seriously consider'd, how easie and natural the motion is from immorality and Atheism, to disloyalty and civile Apostasie, these Monsters would be pro­scrib'd the Courts of Princes, to learn huma­nity among flocks and herds.

But when the Sacred Name of Jesus shall be mouth'd by the most vicious persons, to disguise an ugly, perhaps a treasonous de­sign, and novi homines, men of yesterday, shall dare to trifle with that Scepter which dignified them, and problem the Right of their Prince in the face of his Throne; when Englishmen shall Italianize and shoot those envenom'd arrows, their filthy Pasquils to wound their Prince in his reputation, which is the soul of his Throne: O, then I think, if it awakens not all the Sentinels of the Government, sure they are in their dead sleep or infatuated for destruction.

When I consider the ill-boding circum­stances attending the Church of England, her prodigious rents, her assiduous and im­pudent Adversaries, accompanied perhaps [Page 8] with too much Supinity in some of her most Principal members, and when it comes into my mind, that Miracles are ceased too, then each moment spur on my thoughts to expect; when Religion (now on tiptoes to be gone) should turn her back upon us, and that the ultimate failure of the Faith is at hand, ready to be the Harbinger to the Catholick Doom.

But, Sir, not to trouble your more Serene Meditations with such melancholy reflecti­ons, give me leave to Alarm you to Muster your notions, and by your Animadversions upon this Doctor, undeceive the deluded mul­titude in this weighty subject of Schism, the Dam of our Mischiefs, and which threat­en the ruine of our Church, and with that the unhinging that excellent temper of Go­vernment which has been the envy of the Nations.

THat Kingship and Episcopacy, have been the antient and con­tinued Government of this Nati­on in State and Church, ever since our Primitive Christianity, is evident from undoubted Records: But the Gentlemen of our New English Interest, mock at the two old Grandsires, Monarchy and Hierarchy, and begin to hope that they are come to their decrepit Age, and not far from a Grave, and they are preparing for their fu­neral. It is now scandalous to be Loyal to our Prince, or Regular to the Church. You will be thought a mean-spirited Gen­tleman for expressing any regard to a Mi­nister of Religion. And you have no way to redeem your Honour, but either to turn Atheist, or list your self a Member of the New Interest. And now Sir, can it be recon­cil'd to Friendship, to ship your Friend, when the Clouds look black and threaten a Storm? But since you are as kind to me as you are to your self; and are pleas'd to em­barque with me, I am resolv'd to adven­ture, [Page 10] and am prepar'd for Tempest, and that worst of Hurricanes, the madness of the People.

I think it highly necessary to demonstrate our Non-conformists to be Schismaticks: for though meer State Interest may legiti­mate many severities against those Persons and Principles that are Antipodes to the establish'd Government; yet if that were truth, which the Doctor pretends to prove, That the Sectaries of England were as much in the family of Jesus, or in the Communi­on of the Catholick Church, as the Church of England; it would puzzle my Reason, to make a Substantial Apology for our Pe­nal Laws. But if we can make it evident, that these men walk disorderly, and are Se­paratists from the Catholick Church, it will then appear, that our Laws are so far from Rigor or Persecution, that they are more charitable provisions, and only design'd to compell men to come in to that Socie­ty, where their Eternal Interest will be most rationally and manifestly secur'd.

When I first open'd theDoctor'sPlea you sent me, mine eye chanc'd upon a very plea­sant passage, to this effect, viz.That theGreekChurch call the Church of Rome, [Page 11] Schismatick, and the Church of Romere­turn the Schismatick upon theGreekChurch. The Church of Englandmake the RomishChurch the Schismatick, and the Church ofRomecharge the Schism upon the Church ofEngland.—Again,The Church of En­glandcall her Dissenters Schismaticks, and the Dissenters think the Church to be Schisma­ticks from them; and so we have call'd one another Schismaticks Round: and therefore Schism is butVox & praeterea nihil,nothing but a meer noise and Nick-name, which every Party cast upon all them who are not of their Society.

But let us try the Strength of this Argu­ment, by translating it to another circula­ting word, and that is Infidelity. The Mahometan calls himself Musalman, which my Persic Dictionary assures me, signifies Faithful or Believer in God; yet we Chri­stians call the Mahometans Infidels; and they call us Unbelievers. We call the Jews Infidels, and they return the same name upon us and the Mahometans too. Both Christian, Jew, and Mahomentan pro­nounce all Pagans to be Infidels, and ten to one, but they are as stout and peremptory as the rest of Mortals, and think all Man­kind Infidels but themselves. Thus the [Page 12] whole World have call'd one another Infi­dels Round, and therefore Infidelity is but a meer empty noise, and there is no such thing in the World as a True Religion. I appeal to any sober Judgement, if there be not as much Logick in this, as there was in the other.

I hope it will be an easie discovery, to find out the square of the Doctor's Circle, and to fix the Notion of Schism upon a cer­tain Basis. And therefore Sir, in obedi­ence to your Request, I shall discuss that great Question, Whether the Non-confor­mists in England meeting together for the Worship of God in places distinct from the Parochial Churches, are not Schismaticks?

To this I shall answer in the Affirma­tive, and shall consider this Separation, First, With respect to the whole Catholick Church. Secondly, With relation to the Church of England.

First, To be a Member of the Catholick Church, there is required a double Unity: First,1 An Unity of Faith, or Doctrine: a to­tal separation from this, we grant to be Apostasie; a disowning any one fundamen­tal Article, makes a man a Heretick. But [Page 13] in this does not consist the formal notion of Schism. Secondly,2 There is requir'd an Unity of Order or Government, which St. Cyprian calls Unitas Ecclesiastica. Now a Separation from this Unity, hath the for­mality of Schism. And for a right under­standing of this, I must look back to the first Origine of this Unity.

The Holy Jesus, the great Author and Founder of our Religion, was sent of God, and all power in Heaven and Earth committed to him. Now before his Ascension, that he might not leave his Disciples to the end of the World, to be governed by every pretender to Revelation, which would have exposed his Kingdom upon Earth, to eternal confu­sions and impostures, he solemnly ordains and consecrates the Apostles his immediate Delegates upon earth. John 20. 22. As my Father sent me, even so send I you: by vertue of which Commission, the power of Ordaining, Governing and conferring Orders did rest only in the Apostles.

They took care to continue this Succes­sion, and therefore Timothy was by the Apostles ordain'd Bishop of Ephesus, and Ti­tus of Crete, and both invested with power of Jurisdiction and conferring Orders, as is [Page 14] evident from St. Paul's Epistles directed to them: and though there were many Pres­byters in the Dioceses of Ephesus and Crete, yet none had Authority to ordain Elders or Priests, but only Timothy and Titus. Linus by Apostolick Consecration succeeded the Apostles in the Chair of Rome. Symeon governed the Church of Jerusalem, or the Diocess of Palestine next after St. James. Anianus succeeded St. Mark in the Church of Alexandria. And this Succession was propagated with so much care and certain­ty, that Irenaeus tells us, He could name all the Successors of the Apostles in the several Apostolick Churches unto his dayes: Habe­mus annumerare eos, Lib. 3. adv. qui ab Apostolis insti­tuti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, Haer. cap. 3. & Successores eorum, usque ad nos. And this line of Apostolick Succession of Bishops hath con­tinued through all Ages of the Church to our present times. So that he who is out of this line of Apostolick Succession, and exercises any Ministerial Office without the Commission of Episcopal Ordination, is but a Lay-Impostor, and a Schismatick from the Catholick Church. And all other Societies of Christian people, who totally withdraw themselves from the Government of their Bishops, who are the Apostles Successors, and from the Ministry of those Presbyters [Page 15] lawfully set over them by Episcopal Ordi­nation and Institution, and cast themselves into any other Model of Government, are guilty of Schism. This was the formal Notion of Schism in the sense of the anti­ent Church. Irenaeus Bishop of Lugdunum, who convers'd with Polycarpus the Disciple of St. John, may in reason be allowed to un­derstand the Primitive and Apostolick No­tion of Schism, better than our Doctor at the distance of sixteen hundred years. He in his Book Adversus Hereses, Lib. 4. exhorts the Christian World to hearken only to those Priests,cap. 43. who were in the Communion of the Catholick Church; and who those are, he there describes, Quapropter eis, qui in Eccle­sia sunt Presbyteris obaudire oported iis, qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendi­mus, qui cum Episcopatus successione charis­ma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris accepêrunt—Reliquos vero qui absistunt à principali successione, & quocun­que loco colliguntur, suspectos habere vel quasi Haereticos & malae sententiae, vel quasi scindentes & elatos, & sibi placentes, aut rursus ut Hypocritas quaestus gratia & vanae gloriae hoc operantes: Qui autem scindunt & separant unitatem Ecclesiae, eandem quam Hieroboam poenam percipiunt à Deo.

[Page 16] Ignatius the second Bishop of Antioch in succession from St. Peter, ☞ [...]. Ep­ad Phila­delph. in his Epistles ad Trallianos, ad Smyrnenses, and in those to the Philippians, Ephesians and Philadelphi­ans, frequently charges them to keep them­selves in the unity and communion of the Christian Church, by a regular obedience to the Bishops,And ex­horting to obey the Bishops, and Priests he tells them, [...]. and by communication with the Priests, who were set over them by the Authority of Episcopal Order: and to dis­obey those Bishops and their Presbyters, and to separate from them, is in those Epi­stles charg'd with Schism.

Ignat. Ep. ad Trall. Athanasius brands Ischyras for a Schis­matick, and justifies the charge from this reason, that Ischyras did usurp a Ministerial Authority without a regular Ordination from the Bishops of the Catholick Church, and gathered to himself a distinct Congre­gation separate from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria, in whose Province he lived.

St. Cyprian in his fortieth Epistle ad po­pulum Carthaginensem de quinque Presby­teris Schismaticis, exhorts them to have no communion with those who had divided themselves from their Bishops; for he tells them in that Epistle, That to be sine Epi­scopis, [Page 17] was to be extra Ecclesiam. And in his Book de Unitate, he gives us this notion of Schism, Contemptis Episcopis & derelictis Dei Sacerdotibus constituere aliud Altare, or Conventicula diversa constituere: That it was Schism to contemn and forsake the Bishops, and Priests of God, and to set up another Altar, or to settle distinct Conven­ticles. And this he accounts so foul a crime, that he tells us in the same discourse, Talis, etiamsi occisi in confessione fuerint, Macula ista nec sanguine abluitur, inexpiabilis & gravis culpa discordiae nec passione purga­tur, That Martyrdom it self cannot expiate the guilt of Schisim. And when Maximus, Urbanus, Sydonius and Macarius return'd from the Novatian faction into the commu­nion of the Church, they express it thus, Episcopo nostro pacem fecimus, they had re­concil'd themselves to the Bishop: and this was enough to assure St. Cyprian, they had renounc'd their Schism, and were restor'd to the Churches communion. I will end this with the assertion of St. Augustine, Epist. 42. Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum, & successiones Episcoporum, certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur: i. e. the root or foundation of unity or communion in the Christian Church, is founded in the seve­ral Seats of the Apostles, and diffused through [Page 18] the Christian World, by the certain propa­gation or succession of Bishops. Therefore in the judgement of St. Augustine, all those persons, or societies that have divided them­selves from the Bishops and Priests of the Apostolick succession, are but wild plants, and no branches of the Catholick stock. I could fill many Pages more with Testimo­nies of the same nature; but such numerous Quotations would look like Pedantick im­pertinence: and I doubt not, but those Au­thorities I have already mentioned, will per­swade you to believe, That a total separa­tion from the Orders and Government of Bishops, was constantly adjudg'd to be Schism by the concurrent sentiments of the antient Church.

And now Sir, having examined these Testimonies, I may proceed to sentence: That seeing the Teachers of our Non-con­forming Congregations in England were ne­ver regularly Ordain'd to any Ministerial Function by the hands of the Bishops (de­riving their Authority from Apostolick suc­cession) and seeing their Leaders and their blind Proselytes have wholly withdrawn themselves, from the Conduct & Government of Episcopal Authority, I shall therefore ad­venture to pronounce them Schismaticks, [Page 19] not only from the Church of England, but from the whole Corporation of the Catho­lick Church. Therefore that which the Doctor so Magisterially asserts at the end of his seventeenth Page is no Axiom of Divinity; for I have already prov'd, that a man may be Schismatick from the whole Catholick Church on earth without Heresie or Apostasie. The premises being consi­dered, will furnish us with an Answer to that passionate Harangue, pag. 21. Do we not own Christ, his Gospel, the same points of faith, the same acts of Worship, where is the Separation then? This St. Augustine tells us, was the same Plea of the Donatists, and might have been urged by the Novatians, and Schismatick Presbyters of Carthage, but it would not acquit them from Schism, nor will it vindicate our English Sectaries.

Corah and his confederate Mutineers were neither Hereticks nor Apostates, but men of the same Creed with Moses and Aaron: their crime was the violating that subordination which God had appointed, and not sub­mitting themselves to the Superiour Autho­rity of the Priesthood. And Sir, it may be worth your observation, that this Plea of the Doctor, and that of the Hebrew Rebels have the same sense; for just thus they [Page 20] plead, Numb. 16. 3. All the Congregation is holy, every one of them: that is, in the Doctor's phrase, Do we not own Moses, his Laws, the same points of faith, the same acts of Worship? But this plausible plea would not prevail, nor mitigate the provo­cation; for God punished one Schism with another, The earth rent, and swallowed them up, and with open mouth taught the rest of the Church to keep Unity and Or­der, as well as the profession of a true Reli­gion. Therefore the Answer is very easie to the Doctor's ruffling Question; Do we not own Christ, his Gospel, the same points of faith, the same acts of Worship, where is the separation then? Why Sir, the sepa­ration is in dividing from the communion of all the Bishops and Episcopal Presby­ters, who in a constant line succeeding the Apostles, have only a just and regular Au­thority to govern and guide the Christian Church.

Pag. 34. The Doctor in the beginning of pag. 34. tells us, That a controversie among them of the same communion is the chief, if not the only notion of Schism that the Scripture gives us. I confess, the word [...] Schism in its general notion signifies any manner of separation or division; and therefore I do [Page 21] acknowledge, that those dissentions that were within the bowels of the Apostolick and Catholick Church were called Schisms, both in the Scripture, and in the Writings of the antient Fathers: but this does not hinder, but that the same word may be used to signifie a separation from the Ca­tholick Church; for if a wound in the body may be called a Schism, sure Amputation or the cutting off from the body is the great­est rent and Schism in the World. For though there were indeed divisions in the Church of Corinth, where some were for Paul, and some for Apollos, and some for Cephas: this at the worst was but a faction or a breach of charity, but it was not pro­perly Schism in the highest sense of the word; for they still setled themselves un­der the Government and Ministry of the Apostles, or some Presbyters ordained by the hands of the Apostles. But those Con­venticles that crept into houses, and formed Assemblies distinct from the communion of the Apostolick Church, those that heaped to themselves Teachers, which, as the phrase imports, were not set over them by Aposto­lick Order and Institution; those that de­spised Dominion, and sake evil of those Dignities which did superintend the Go­vernment of the Church: These men St. Jude [Page 22] tell us, were those that did separate them­selves, that is, were Schismaticks; and just so are their Brethren the Sectaries of England.

Before I proceed to the next enquiry that concerns the Schism from the Church of England, it will be necessary to state the right notion of the Catholick Church ac­cording to the sense of the antient Coun­cils and Fathers.

The Doctor and his Complices are for Comprehension, and give us a very wide notion of the Catholick Church; for they will have all men that profess the name of Christ, though in some things Hereticks and Schismaticks too, yet to be included within the boundaries of the Catholick Church. But I observe, the Antients would not endure this Comprehension; for they reckoned none to be in the communion of the Catho­lick Church, but those who confessed the common faith delivered to the Saints, and kept themselves under the Orders and Go­vernment of the Bishops, who were the Apostles Successors: and therefore oft-times in Councils and antient Epistles we find this Superscription, To the Catholick Church in Antioch, To the Catholick Church of Alex­andria, [Page 23] To the Catholick Church of Rome, &c. this still being used in contra­distinction from the Novatians, Arrians and Donatists, which the antient Church look'd upon as Schismaticks and extra Ec­clesiam.

Now having advanc'd thus far, the way is prepared for the second enquiry, Whether our Non-conformists are guilty of Schism from the Church of England? And I doubt not but to prove the Affirmative.

The Church of England adhere to that Creed which was delivered by the Apostles, professed by the antient Primitive Church, and confirm'd by the first four General Councils; it hath preserv'd the Unity of Government by a succession of Bishops in the Apostolick line, as appears from the undoubted Archives and Records of En­gland: Therefore we are secured that it is in the Unity of the Catholick Church, and a most excellent part of it.

Now as our Christianity obliges us to be members of that body of Christ the Catho­lick Church: So the eternal reasons of Peace and Order bind us to communicate with that part of the Catholick Church, in [Page 24] which our lot hath plac'd us, except it can manifestly appear, that that part is so cor­rupted that we cannot communicate with it without evident hazard of our salvation. It were an unpardonable disorder, for a Native of England dwelling in London, to contemn the Laws of our Prince, and to govern him­self by the Placaets of the United Provin­ces: and it were as great a confusion, for those who live within the Jurisdiction of the Church of England, to submit themselves to the Orders and Government of Rome or Ge­neva. Before the Papal Usurpation of Uni­versal Monarchy, the Patriarchs of the Christian Church had their distinct Limits and Jurisdictions: The Patriarch of Con­stantinople had his peculiar Primacy or Re­giment, and was not to intermeddle with the Province of Alexandria; and so the Bishop of Rome had his peculiar Jurisdicti­on, and was allowed no inspection over Constantinople, Antioch or Alexandria; and these distinct boundaries were fixed by a Ca­non of the Council of Nice, and because it con [...]utes both the Papal Supremacy and Puritanical Anarchy, I will give you the copy of that Canon.

[...] [Page 25] [...]. that is, Let the antient customs be in force; Let the Bishop of Alexandria have the Ju­risdiction of Aegypt, Libya and Pentapolis, as likewise the Bishop of Rome was ac­customed to have in his Province, and so let the Churches of Antioch and other Pro­vinces keep their peculiar priviledges. And so the Christians dwelling under these di­stinct Patriarchates were obliged to a re­spective obedience to their peculiar Provin­cial: and to divide themselves from their proper Patriarch or Bishop was accounted Schism in the antient Church. Timothy be­ing constituted Bishop of all the Diocess of Ephesus, the Christians residing within that Precinct were obliged by the rules of Or­der to submit themselves to his peculiar in­spection, and it had been Schism to have disobeyed him, or separated themselves from his Jurisdiction.

St. Ambrose observed this decorum him­self, as he tells us by St. Augustin, Aug. Ep. 113. in an E­pistle of his ad Januarium, Cum Romae sum jejuno Sabbato, cum hic sum non jejuno: and so St. Augustin counsels Januarius, Sic [Page 26] etiam tu ad quam forte Ecclesiam veneris, ejus morem serva; which plainly con­cludes, that Christian peace and order re­quires, that we should conform to the Rites and Canons of that Church, in whose Juris­diction we live. The five Presbyters of Carthage were by St. Cyprian sentenced for Schismaticks, because being within the Diocess of Carthage, and so under his in­spection, they notwithstanding gathered to themselves Assemblies, and exercised Mini­sterial Offices without his Authority. And for the same reason Athanasius accused I­schyras of Schism, for modelling a Congre­gation in Mareoles without any subjection or dependance upon him the Bishop of Alex­andria, unto whose Jurisdiction that Coun­trey belonged: for he shews us his Title in these words,Tom. 1. p. 781. ad p. 802. [...]. i. e. All the Presbyters of this Province have their peculiar Cures, or Parishes, but all the Churches of this Region are under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria. And the very same thing Epiphanius tells us in his second Book adversus Haereses, Epiphan. adv. Haeres. Tom. 2. p. 727. [...], &c. That there were several Parochial Churches, in [Page 27] which the Inhabitants might assemble with greater convenience; and these Congrega­tions were under the Ministery of peculiar Presbyters: but all these Presbyters and their respective Churches were governed by the Superintendence of the Arch-bishop of Alexandria: and this was the universal model of unity and order in all other Pro­vinces of the Catholick Church.

Now the Arch-bishops of Canterbury and York have as much Jurisdiction over the Christians in England, as Athanasius had over the Province of Alexandria, or St. Cy­prian in the Diocess of Carthage: for be­side the Right of Church-Government which their succession from the Apostles give them, they are impowr'd to exercise their Juris­diction by the Laws of our Christian Prince: and therefore those Societies of Christians living under the Jurisdiction of the Arch-bishops and Bishops of England, and yet do separate from their communion and Govern­ment, are Schismaticks from the Church of England. To conclude this, if the Nova­tians and Donatists, if the five Presbyters of Carthage, if Ischyras in Alexandria were Schismaticks; if from the Ascension of our Lord to his second Advent, there was, or can be a Schismatick; then the Sectaries of [Page 28] England are Schismaticks, not only from the Church of England, but from the whole Catholick Church.

Having thus stated the antient notion of Schism, and found it a henous impiety, though our Non-conformists sport with it as an Ecclesiastical Scarecrow; I shall next do them the justice to examine the Doctors Plea, and see how well he vindicates them from the guilt of Schism.

First, He denyes that there is any such creature as a National stated governing Church of England. If the Doctor means by all these rumbling Epithets of stated, National, governing, organical Church of England, that there is no such distinct orga­nical Church in England, that is, a separate body from the Catholick Church, I am then of his opinion: But if he means, that the Bishops of England have no power of Government over the Christians in En­gland, it is a very foul mistake, to speak in the modestest phrase: for I have already prov'd, that the Arch-bishops and Bishops have as much Jurisdiction in their respe­ctive Provinces and Dioceses of England, as any other Patriarchs and Bishops of the Catholick Church ever had in theirs: and [Page 29] if the Act of Uniformity be a Law, I am sure there is such an establish'd being as a National Church.

Pag. 30. In Pag. 30. his gravity drolls, and gives us a very merry Argument to prove that there is no such creature as a National Church of England: for, sayes he, Whoso will erect a stated National governing Church in En­gland, must find us an Officer clothed with Authority to excommunicate from Michael's Mount in Cornwall, to Carlisle in Berwick. Now Sir, let this pass for a piece of wit, though it is as wide from reason, as Corn­wall from Berwick. What though the Bi­shop of Antioch could not excommunicate from Antioch to Constantinople, and from thence to the borders of Persia, must there therefore be no governing Church in Greece? and might the Christians in Antioch by that Logick separate themselves from the communion and jurisdiction of their proper Patriarchs without Schism? If our Author could have prov'd, that there were any Pro­vinces, or Natives of England, that were de jure exempt from the Canons of this Church, and the jurisdiction of the English Bishops, then there had been something of argument: But if the Doctor for contumacy and disorder should be excommunicated from [Page 30] Church of England in Berwick, I am sure without absolution, de jure he could not communicate with any Assembly of the Church in England, though he travail'd from Berwick to Carlisle, and from thence to Mount Michael in Cornwall: and this I fancy, does strongly conclude, That the Church of England is such a part of the Catholick Church, which hath a proper and peculiar jurisdiction over all the Chri­stians in this Kingdom.

Page 10. Sect. 12. OurDoctor, pag. 10. sect. 12. owns it as a confess'd principle, That every individual member of the Church Catholick visible is bound in duty both to God and his own soul, to joyn himself to some particular Society of Christians, with which he may enjoy all the Ordinances of God, so as may be for his souls advantage. Well then, why do they not communicate with the Church ofEngland,where all the Ordinances of God are ob­serv'd and solemniz'd with as much gravity and faithfulness as in any other part of the Catholick Church?

To this he answers pag. 11. That the bu­siness is so stated by the Act of Uniformity, Pag. 11. that they cannot communicate with us with­out doing what they judge to be sinful.

[Page 31] There is nothing can justly be called sin­ful, but what transgresses some manifest Law of God or Nature: and could the Doctor have prov'd, that any thing pra­ctised or enjoyn'd by the Church of En­gland, did violate any of those Divine Rules, his Plea had been allowed, and his Party might vindicate their Non-conformity. But to Transgress a plain Law of God, to disobey the Orders of our Governours, and yet to give us no better reason for it, than to say, they fancy the things are sinful, is so far from excusing, that it aggravates the guilt. For, First, Their disobedience is an affront to their Governours, and then the doing this only upon the account of their own judgement or fancy, is an affront to God: for private conscience to usurp the Soveraignty of God, and to lay such Divine Obligations upon the soul and mind, which God never impos'd. The nature and guilt of this disobedience is exactly represented by the story of the young Prophet, 1 Kings 13. he was sent to prophesie against the Altar in Bethel; now Jeroboam having cast off all the Priests and Levites of the Aaro­nical line, and erected a new model of Religion, therefore that the young Prophet might have no communion with so great a [Page 32] Schismatick, God charges him expresly, Vers. 9. to eat no bread, nor drink water in that place: now an old Prophet that dwelt in Bethel pretends a new Revelation, and that with such cunning delusion, as he prevailed with the young Prophet to go back and dine with him at Bethel; but that entertainment cost him his life, Verse 24. The reason of this severity was very just and equitable; for God had given him an express command not to eat in that place, and that charge was reveal'd to him by some such manifest way of Divine Revela­tion, that he was as much ascertain'd, it was the Word of the Lord, as he was assur'd of his own being: And therefore he was justly punish'd for disobeying a plain command, and hearkning to a pretended Revelation, which was not personally reveal'd to him, and of the truth of which he could not be so much secur'd, as he was of his former Vision. Thus obedience to Governours in general, is as manifest a Law of God as was ever given to the World, and we are in no particular to disobey them, except we can produce another Divine Law of equal evidence and Authority which prohibits our obedience in that particular; or else I believe from the process of the former story, it is displeasing to God to transgress such a plain certain [Page 33] Law, without a manifest prohibition from Heaven, but only out of niceness of fan­cy or private judgement. And if the Church should part with all those things which Dissenters judge to be sinful, there could be neither Church nor Government: for we must throw off our Hoods and Sur­plice to gratifie the scrupulous Puritan; we must strip our selves stark-naked to sa­tisfie the Fanaticism of the Adamites; nay, we must part not only with Rites and Ce­remonies, but the whole Liturgie and Hie­rarchy of the Church, because some fancy them to be Anti-christian; nay, the Creed is not secure, we must expunge the Article of Christs Divinity to humour the Socini­ans; we must blot out the Propitiation of Christ, the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Resurrection of the body, to gratifie the Quakers: and so we must not only deface the front and out-side of the Temple, but even raze it to the ground, because it does not please the eye of these men of Babel: nay, we must renounce our reason and our senses too to satisfie the Papists in the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation, and so by this method, at length we must neither be men nor Christians.

But let us put the case at the worst, and [Page 34] suppose what these men fancy, were really true; That there were some things enjoyn'd by the Church, which were really sinful; I confess this would be a difficult and un­happy circumstance, but yet it would not justifie a total separation, and the erecting of new modell'd Churches; for I have prov'd before, that we are bound by the eternal reasons of Peace and Order to communicate with those Bishops, and that part of the Catholick Church under which we live: and if it should so happen, that some things evidently sinful were enjoyn'd by this Church, then we might remove into some other part of the Catholick Church, that were of a sounder constitution. But if we continued within the Jurisdiction of this Church, I think we should be oblig'd to communicate with it in Publick Confes­sion of Faith, in Devotions and Sacraments, and as far as we could without manifest sin. We might with peace and patience enjoy a pure conscience in our own family, but it could never be lawful by any rule of Chri­stianity to make a total separation, and to set up another form of Church-Govern­ment, in opposition to that under whose Ju­risdiction we live.

But Mr. H. in the Appendix hath disco­ver'd [Page 35] a new Argument to vindicate the Non-conformists in upholding Conventicles distinct from the Assemblies of the Church of England: The summ of his new Inven­tion amounts to thus much.

That necessity is laid upon them by Di­vine Law to preach the Gospel;Pag. 3, 4, 5, 6.as for their communion with our Churches, it is but an humane establishment: Now seeing they cannot preach in our Assemblies, the neces­sity of a Divine Law obliges them to teach in Conventicles.

Now Sir, to encounter this Gigantick reason, we must enquire the truth of his first Postulatum, Whether any such neces­sity be laid upon these men to preach the Gospel?

Indeed I have met with a Geneva Di­vine, that stoutly believes, that necessity was laid upon Cain to be a Murderer, and upon Judas to be a Traytor: Now I con­fess, if this Divinity be true, they may be under the unavoidable fate of Schism and Rebellion, and then we ought to pity and excuse them, and lay the guilt in Hea­ven. But I will suppose Mr. H. to be too good and modest for to accuse God, to [Page 36] acquit himself. And the necessity he pre­tends, is founded in their call to the Mini­stry. Now Sir, there will be a necessity for us to enquire the truth of this Divine Call: for the Parliament were a very Jewish Sanhedrim to forbid these men to speak openly in the name of Jesus, if they were certainly sent of God. But I shall ask them the same Question concerning their Mission, that our Saviour asked the Jews concerning John's Baptism, Was it from Heaven, or of men? If they shall say from men, then they must shew us their orders from the hands of the Bishops, the Apostles Successors, who only have Authority with Titus to ordain Elders or Priests in every City: If they say from Heaven, they must then bring us very seri­ous credible Witnesses to assure us, that they were called by a voice from the clouds, as St. Paul was in his way to Damascus: And yet if this were done, we live in such a Sceptick Age, that men would not credit the Boast of Revelation without the cre­dentials of a Miracle. And I confess I cannot blame the Christian World for this suspecting humour; for so many impo­stures and delusions have been imposed up­on the World by this pretence, that 'tis pru­dence not to be too credulous.

[Page 37] Now Sir, you may observe, that these fanciful Visions and Revelations have strangely swelled these men; for they are no less in their own opinion, than the great Apostles of Christ, and therefore with St. Paul, they cry out, Necessity is laid upon us, and wo be unto us if we preach not the Gospel: that is, Sir, That the Kingdom of England are still Jews and Barbarians, and except these chief Apostles preach the Go­spel, there is no hopes of their conversion from Gentilism or Judaism. Nay, pag. 5, 6. he tells us, That there is such a necessity for these men to preach in Conventicles, that the everlasting welfare of thousands of mens souls depend upon it. Wo, wo to the King and Parliament, that should dare to stop the mouths of these men, upon whose breath depends the salvation of thou­sands of souls! Why Sir, this is far more mischievous, than shutting up the Exche­quer, breaking the East-India Company, or spoiling all the Trade of England.

But Sir, I hope this dreadful Harangue will not fright you, for all is but noise and canting: for I dare assure you, the Execu­tion of the Law will no way hinder the ad­vancement of the Gospel, nor hazard one [Page 38] soul in England: for Christianity will be soberly preach'd in England, though all these men be silenc'd. And besides, I should think by the principles of Calvinism, that the salvation of souls were more fix'd and fatal, than to depend upon the silence or preaching of a few Non-conforming Mini­sters. You know Sir, the Decree of pe­remptory Election was dated long before that Reprobate Act of Uniformity, and therefore there is no fear of losing one of the elect, though these men be struck dumb: and as for the Reprobates, all the Oratory of Dr. O. and Mr. H. and the rest of those mighty men can never alter their sadder fate. And therefore I think I may conclude from their own Divinity, that there is no necessity laid upon them to preach the Gospel.

Pag. 4.Mr.H. solemnly propounds this weighty Question,Which will be most for the glory of God, either for the Non-conforming Teachers to preach the Gospel to their meet­ings, or to keep the Union of their Parish Churches?

To which Question there is a very easie Answer; for no doubt, the God of order is more glorified by Unity, Peace and Obedi­ence [Page 39] to our Governours, than by disorder and confusion. And therefore I shall con­clude this by inverting the Argument: They may live in the communion of the Church, without the least hazard of their salvation; and necessity is laid upon them to obey their Governours; and wo be unto them if they preach the Gospel in Conventicles, and by walking disorderly, trouble the peace and order both of Church and State.

But there is one Plea more for this Schism or Separation, (call it which you please) and that is cunningly insinuated in that fa­mous definition of Schism by Mr. Hales ci­ted pag. 17. Schism is an unnecessary sepa­ration from that part of the visible Church, of which we once were members. That their separation is unnecessary, let the Do­ctor himself judge, who pag. 9. tells us, they differ from us only in the insignificant fringes and laces of Forms and Ceremo­nies. Now I fancy, it were a very unne­cessary and undutiful thing, for a Son to disown and desert his Mother, only because the fringe and lace of her garment did not please his eye.

But the mysterie lyes in the last words of the distinction, A separation from that part [Page 40] of the Church, of which we once were members. Now Sir, there are vast num­bers of persons in England who were never baptized by the Ministery of the Church of England, or had any communion with her, and then by the judgement of Mr. Hales cannot be charg'd with Schism or separa­tion from her.

But this is already answer'd, for I have prov'd, that they are bound in duty to live in communion with those Bishops and Priests, or that part of the Catholick Church, under which they reside: and if they never were in the communion of this Church, they have been the longer in dis­order and disobedience, and that is a very ill method of excusing the crime.

By this Sophistry Schism can only be the sin of the first generation: Novatus and his contemporaries that first departed from the communion of the Catholick Church, were indeed Schismaticks, but then those who were baptiz'd and educated by that faction, were never in the communion of the Ca­tholick Church, and so by this argument were free from Schism, and so downwards from generation to generation. Now this looks like Magick, for it teaches us an art [Page 41] how to split the Church into a thousand pieces, and to continue this division for ever; and yet in a little while there should be no dis-union: for it is only the adven­ture of the first Authors to break off from the Catholick Church, but then as many as they propagate to the end of the world are no Schismaticks, because they never had any personal communion.

Now Sir, having asserted that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists not only in the unity of faith, but in a succession of Bishops and Priests, and a regular obedi­ence to their inspection and conduct; give me leave to reflect and consider what dire­ful conclusions our Adversaries may draw from this notion.

First, This will be accused of too much kindness to the Church of Rome: for they having continued their succession of Bishops from St. Peter, this will acquit them from Schism, and place them within the body of the Catholick Church.

I hope Sir, it will not offend, if we be as kind to the Pope as we are to the Devil, and allow him his due: No doubt, the Church of Rome is in the communion of [Page 42] the Catholick Church, but yet this is no argument for any to desert the Church of England, and remove to that of Rome; for our Apostolick Succession of Bishops is as authentick as theirs, and our Doctrine more Pure, Primitive and Catholick; and there­fore it is irrational for the Romish Church to accuse us of Schism: for whatever they can justly plead for their Unity, will equally establish ours with the Catholick Church.

I cannot better represent the present State of the Catholick Church, than by an allusion to the Jewish Temple: The Church of England, we are able to prove, is the purest part of the Catholick Church, being most refined from error and superstition, and therefore that may be resembled to the Sanctum Sanctorum; The Greek Church, though something defiled, yet still preserv­ing the Apostolick faith and succession of Patriarchs and Presbyters, may be compar'd to the Middle Temple; The Church of Rome, like the Outward á Court, is most pro­fan'd with the Tables of the Money-chan­gers, and defil'd by abominable superstiti­ons; but yet though it be filthy, it is a part of the building, and within the Area of the Temple: But for any to desert the Church of England, to communicate with that of [Page 43] Rome, is such a frantick humour as for a man to quit the neatest appartment, and ex­change for the most sluttish room in the same house.

Secondly, That which will raise the great­est clamour is, That by this notion I un­church all the forreign Reform'd Churches, who have no Bishops of the Catholick line to govern them, and ordain their Mi­nisters.

To this I answer, That if any of the forreign Churches have continued a succes­sion of Presbyters, who can derive their O­rigination from Episcopal Ordination, it something lessens their dis-union, and gives them a remote alliance to the Catholick Church; yet this is but private charity, and will not justifie them from Schism by the Canons of the antient Church. But if any of them have a Ministry, which have no other Orders than their own Usurpation or popular Election, I know not how to ac­quit them from being Schismaticks from the Catholick Church. And why do not the States of Holland send their Professors from Leyden to London to receive Consecration from the hands of our English Bishops, and so engraft themselves again into the unity [Page 44] of the Catholick Church? this they might easily do, without being oblig'd to any sub­scriptions to Papal power or innovations; if their omission of this arise from a con­tempt and abhorrence of Episcopacy, I have no Apology for them, neither would I be in the communion of those Churches for all the Bank of their East-India Company. If any of the forreign Churches be under such unhappy circumstances, that they can justly plead a necessity for having no Bishops or Priests of the Apostolick Succession, I have great compassion for them, and question not but God accepts them: for I receive that as an indisputable Maxim, That where there is an inevitable necessity, there can be no guilt, though the fact it self be never so much irregular. But as for those Chur­ches in general, I have St. Pauls Charity, Those that are without let God judge.

Thirdly, Our squeamish▪ Sectaries are offended at the Hierarchy of England, be­cause it derives its succession from the Bi­shops of Rome. To which I have a double Answer.

First, That I make not the Chair of Rome the sole Head, or Origine of this Ca­tholick succession: for the Episcopal or A­postolick [Page 45] power of Government and Ordi­nation was equally conferred upon all the Apostles by the general commission of our High Priest Jesus: and therefore a succes­sion of Bishops and Priests from any of these Apostles, is enough to assert our unity with the Catholick Church. You know the twelve Apostles are made the twelve foun­dation-stones of the Christian Temple; and that part of the Church which in a right line is built upon St. James, is as much in the unity and compact of the building, as that which stands upon St. Peter.

Secondly, Let us grant it, that we claim our succession from the line of Rome, this will no way prejudice the Episcopacy of England: I hope it was no dishonour to the Holy Jesus, that there were some of his Ge­nealogy that had no very good fame in the World; it was sufficient, that by that line it was made evident our Lord sprung from Judah: and it is enough for the Bishops of England to make it evident, they sprung from the Apostles, and though some of their line were men of impious lives, or erroneous opinions, that no way lessened their power of propagation, nor invalidates the Authority of our succession.

[Page 46] Thus I have consider'd Schism as a sepa­ration from the Bishops and Priests of the Apostolick line, and I see no reason to re­cant this notion. And therefore the Ap­pendixer is vastly mistaken, pag. 9. when he tells us, That if the Parliament did legiti­mate their Meetings, there were an end of the Schism: for they might indeed by a Law of Toleration acquit them from all the Temporal penalties of a separation, but it would exceed all the Omnipotency of Par­liaments to discharge them from the guilt of Schism: for they must first compel their Teachers to take Episcopal Orders, and bring in all the Conventicles into the com­munion of the Catholick Church, and place them under the Government of their proper Bishops, or else they would still be Schisma­ticks, non obstante Statuto.

Before I conclude, I will consider some grand Absurdities that will follow from the denyal of this notion.

First, The profound Fanaticks in England clamour against the whole Hierarchy, and will have the whole race of Arch-bishops and Bishops to be Anti-christian. Now Sir, I'le appeal to your judgement, if this [Page 47] be not blasphemy; for then all the holy Bi­shops that assembled in the first four Gene­ral Councils, that did assert the truth of Christianity against Pagans, Jews and Here­ticks, and those many Bishops of the an­tient Church that headed the noble Army of Martyrs, must be damn'd as limbs of Anti­christ: Nay, I cannot see how to defend Timothy and Titus from being Anti-chri­stian too; and if these Propagators of the Christian Faith, were Anti-christian, where shall we enquire for Christianity? Nay, this were a sure foundation for Atheism; for how can it be reconcil'd to the Provi­dence of a God, or the care of Jesus, that he should plant a Kingdom upon earth, with a promise of his presence and most careful providence, and yet to suffer his own King­dom to be enslav'd under the usurpation of an Anti-christian yoke for sixteen hundred years together? if this were true, too many wise men would conclude with the fool in the Psalmist, That there is no God.

Secondly, If this succession of Bishops and Presbyters be not necessary to preserve our unity with the Catholick Church, then the Keys must be thrown away, and excommu­nication is but an idle impertinence: for if there be not a certain body or corporation [Page 48] of Christians known by a succession of pow­er and Priesthood from the Apostles, how can it be known, when a person is cast out of the Church? for if the Christian Church be like a Wilderness, where every family may pitch their Tent where they please, there is no use of Keyes to so wide a desert.

Thirdly, if this succession be not neces­sary, how can any rational man be ever satisfied in the administration of Ministerial Offices, as Sacraments, and Absolution, when there is no certain rule in the world by which he can rationally be assured of the regular Authority of him that ministers.

To conclude this, if this notion of unity be disown'd, then every Conventicle is a true Church; and every man whom him­self or the people fancy inspir'd must be receiv'd for a Prophet; and God must lose one of his Titles, The God of Order; and Confusion must be believ'd to be an Ordi­nance of Heaven.

Before I conclude, give me leave to re­verse the Doctor, and make his Front the Rear: (Sir, the phrase may be allow'd,) for if I mistake not, the Author has been [Page 49] a man of War, and understands very well the Martial Dialect.

The Harangue with which the Doctor pre­faces his Plea, may justly be inverted.

It was doubtless one of the greatest infe­licities that ever befell the whole body of people in these three Nations, that when in the year 1662. Religion was so happily set­led in Faith, Worship and Government, ac­cording to the pattern of the antient Ca­tholick Church in the first three Centuries, and though this Religion was ratified by the very hand of God, and the dry bones re­viv'd by the Miracle of an unexpected Re­stitution, that yet there should be amongst us so many thousands of such perverse and sullen Tempers, as not to be perswaded into the Churches communion neither by Law, Reason, nor Miracle.

I cannot discern the Doctors ingenuity in his second Section, Page 2. where he originates the Act of Uniformity in the anger, ambition and covetousness of Church-men, and al­lows our Governours not one grain of Pru­dence or Piety in the composure of that Law.

[Page 50] He first takes notice of the anger that rested in the bosom of Church-men,Page 2. who had been sufferers. Methinks those men who had invaded the Rights and Revenues of the Loyal Clergy should have been content with the publick remission and charity of the Act of Indemnity, and not expect a Mi­racle that the Act of Oblivion should quite destroy the Church-mens memories: for these ploughers had ploughed such deep furrows upon the Churches back, that it was impossible such impressions should soon wear out. The Doves were driven from their nest, and their feathers of Gold pluck'd off by those ravening Vultures, and they were forc'd (in the Psalmists lan­guage) to lye among the pots. And yet after all this, they must not so much as re­flect upon all those rapines, nor express any prudent caution against these Birds of prey, but they must presently be accused of having too much gall.

His next charge is against the Zeal of Church-men to continue some Bishops the repute of Martyrs,Page 2. who had suffer'd for the vigorous inforcing of some of the things now enjoyn'd.

[Page 51] I observe, the Doctor very warily covers the Blood of Charles the First, but dares dip his fingers in that of the Bishops; and yet I believe, the King as well as the Bi­shop is left out from his Martyrologie. Had the Bishops impos'd such Rites and In­novations as had been inconsistent with the reverence of Religion and the nature of Christianity; had they urged such Obser­vances which had never been practis'd in the Catholick Church, nor required by the Church of England: truly then the blood of Arch-bishop Laud should have no Rubrick in my Kalendar, for then he had suffered as an evil doer. But when those things re­quired, were founded upon good reasons of Religion, the custom of the antient Church, and enjoyn'd by the just Authority of this Nation, I think the Arch-bishop who had the hard fate to fall in doing of his duty, may (in a sober sense) be said to suffer for righteousness sake, and be allowed the ho­nour of some kind of Martyrdom. Sir, I do here declare my self an eternal enemy to that Religion, which can consecrate Sa­criledge, hallow Rebellion, and sanctifie Rapine and Injustice. Nor will I ever have any communion with those men, who Canonize the most infamous Traytors and [Page 52] Murderers for Saints, and condemn the best King and Bishop in the World for Malefa­ctors: I don't see, but by the Theorems of this Jewish Divinity, Barabbas might have been Sainted, and Christ recorded for an Impostor.

The next accusation brought against Church-men, is their desire of filthy Lucre. I confess, covetousness is one of the greatest shames of humane Reason, and that it is a most absurd impertinence to see Spiritual men to fond upon the things of earth. But if that must be called a desire of filthy Lucre, when a man perhaps a little too passionately desires and enjoyes his own just Rights and Properties, then sure it was the foulest Lucre, for those men no invade the Revenues of the Church, to which they had no Title, neither by the Law of God, nor the Statutes of the Nation: Sure none but a Pharisee could have overseen so vast a beam in his own eye, and taken such great notice of a little spot in his Bro­thers.

The Acts of Uniformity and that against Private Meetings,Page 4. are describ'd as Severe and Tragick,Sect. 5. as if they had been the Edicts of Nero or Dioclesian. I do believe, had [Page 53] the very same Laws been by the Roman Emperours imposed upon the Catholick Church in the first three hundred years, they would have made a Jubilee, and have been celebrated by the antient Christians with Hymns and Hallelujahs: The Senti­ments of these men differ so much from the judgement of the antient Christians, as if they were not of the same Religion. And Sir, you may remember some Ordinances of Parliament that did more bloody execu­tion, than all the Laws and Canons Royal of England. Sure you have not forgot, when Loyalty to our Prince, and faithful­ness to the establish'd Religion was damn'd for Malignancy; and the Loyal Nobility, Gentry and Clergy of England were con­demn'd to Axes and Halters, Plunderings and Sequestrations, Prisons and Banishment. And yet all these Tragick Scenes must have a silken curtain drawn over them, and must be interpreted as expresses of holy zeal, and Rigour and Persecution charg'd only upon the Acts of Uniformity, and that against Conventicles.

From pag. 3. to pag. 7. the Doctor labours to assert the great numbers of Non-confor­mists, and insinuates, that the prudence of our Governours could never have passed the [Page 54] Act of Uniformity, if they had not been mis-informed, that the numbers of Non-con­formists were very inconsiderable.

I confess, in State Logick number is a weighty argument, and in Politicks it must be thought imprudence, to disoblige a nu­merous party, who are able to affront their Governours, and cast away their cords from them; Cum plurimi peccant impunes sunt: But whether the establishing parties and di­visions by a Law, do consist with the Piety of a Christian Prince, I shall leave to your Judgement to enquire. But I see by the Doctor's Maxims of Prudence, if the World run after the Beast, it is but the duty and wisdom of the Kings of the Earth to fall down and worship him: and if the Arrian faction be great and popular, it is Prudence in Constantius to Arrianize.

It is worth observing, how these men to serve their Interest can quit their old im­propriation of the little flock, and to make themselves formidable, will appear as the Syrians, that cover the Land. But this Popish Argument of Number, is never urg'd but upon design; for it is confess'd, Multitude is no infallible argument of truth, for Anti-christ will out poll us.

[Page 55] He complains,Page 9. that there is a vast num­ber of Atheistical livers, that seldom or ne­ver resort to Publick worship, and yet these escape the Indictments of Law & Censures of the Church; but all the arrows are made rea­dy against the servants of the Living God. Whether the Title of the Servants of God, which these men appropriate to themselves; be not a Presumption, I shall leave to be examin'd by Omniscience: But I am sure, they are guilty of some actions of so bad a tincture, that may make the World justly suspect, they wear the Livery of another Master.

But if there be a remisness of Govern­ment in England, or a connivance to Athe­ [...]istical Separatists, it is our complaint and lamentation as well as theirs. The Doctor in the same Section makes the number of the Atheists in England not inferiour to the Non-conformists: And then by the late in­sinuation their number will likewise plead for Toleration, and it will not be prudence to molest them. And where there are ma­ny Sectaries, it is no wonder there should be as many Atheists. You know Sir, it was remarqued by a very observing Gentle­man, That there were more Atheists in [Page 56] the Seven Provinces, than in the rest of Christendom: (we must now except En­gland) and he gives us this reason for his conjecture, That there were so many Religions, that there were great numbers of men that were of none at all.

Sir, There are many impertinencies in that little Book, which I thought not wor­thy the examination, and which your Judgement will easily answer from the grounds of this discourse: Such is his branding Parish Churches for a Popish in­vention, which any sober man would rather have thought to have been the contrivance of Reason and convenience; for we find this invention elder than the Pope; for they were founded in the Province of Alex­andria in the dayes of Athanasius, as Atha­nasius and Epiphanius inform us.

Such another impertinence is his tedious Harangue about Separation from Parochial Organical Churches, which no way con­cern the constitution of the Catholick Church, or the Church of England: for though deserting our Parish Church in some circumstance may be a disorder, yet it is no Schism if we communicate with any other regular Assembly of the same com­munion. [Page 57] Athanasius does not accuse Ischy­ras of Schism, for separating from his Pa­rochial Congregation and Priest, but for erecting a Conventicle, and dividing from the Bishop, and the whole Catholick Church in Alexandria.

As for Mr. H's Discourse about the Ob­ligation of Humane Laws, I shall refer him for an Answer to St. Paul and Bishop San­derson; and when they are answered, we must enquire further.

I take no notice of the Railery against Ceremonies. The necessity of them in Publick Worship▪ and the Authority of the Church in enjoyning them is substan­tially prov'd by Mr. Hooker, and lately by Mr. Falkner; and if their Reasons will not prevail, I will not pretend to work a Miracle, or hope to open the eyes of them, who are resolv'd to be blind.

Sir, I hope that these Papers will satisfie you, that these men are Schismaticks, and assure you that I am,

THere lately came to my hand the Works of Mr. Hales, Entituled Golden Remains. The most Sacred of these Reliques, is a little Tract of Schism, which you find celebrated by the High and Mighty Transproser, and ap­plauded by your Doctor of Divinity, and is the fam'd Sanctuary of our dividing Par­ties. Therefore having some Months since presented you with my thoughts concerning Schism, I thought my self oblig'd to an impartial perusal of this Famous Tract, for fear I might through weakness of judge­ment have impos'd an error upon you and my self. I found the Remains of Mr. Hales prefac'd with so vast an Encomium of the Author, that I address'd my self to his Tract of Schism with a very awful reve­rence: resolving to submit to the clearest Reasons, and not to be asham'd to be con­vinc'd by a Person of that admir'd Acute­ness. But having with the most strict in­tention consider'd that Discourse, I find my notion of Schism left untouch'd.

[Page 60] But because our Non-conformists so oft Appeal to this Tractate, I resolv'd to con­sider how far it could serve their Interest, and justifie their Separation.

Page 2.First therefore he informs us, That there are two things which serve to compleat a Schism.

• 1. The choice of a Bishop in opposition to the former.
• 2. The erecting of a Church or Oratory for the dividing parties to meet in.

Now I acknowledge this notion of Schism to be both Antient and Orthodox: Schism being consider'd as a breach of charity, or a dissolving of that Bond of Peace, which we are so often solemnly changed to pre­serve inviolate. And without a great and evident necessity, this Dividing must be very displeasing unto the Prince of Peace, who did command us to be One, even as He and the Father are One. Of this na­ture was the Schism of the Arrians, Mile­tians and Donatiss at their first dividing: They set up Altar against Altar, had Bishops of their own party, and their peculiar [Page 61] Oratories, and would have no communion with the Bishops or Assemblies of that standing part that alwayes called themselves the Catholick Church.

The Church of England by the title of long prescription and the establishment of a Law, is the standing Church of this Na­tion, with which all the people of this Kingdom are bound to communicate; But our Non-conformists have chosen to them­selves Pastors in opposition to the Bishops and Priests of the Church of England, and have erected their distinct Congregations to confront our Church Assemblies, and there­fore by Mr. Hales's definition they are guil­ty of compleat Schism.

But Sir, it must be observ'd, that these men have run further than the Arrians, Mi­letians and Donatists did at their first di­viding: for though they had so little cha­rity, as for a matter of dispute, to divide from the communion of the other part of the Church, yet they had so much Prudence, as they preserv'd to themselves some Bi­shops and Priests who had receiv'd their Consecration and Orders from the Catho­lick Church; and when their Bishops and Priesthood were worn out, the Factions ex­pir'd; [Page 62] for they were not arriv'd to such a height of Fanaticism, as to think themselves a Church without the Government and Priesthood of the Apostolick line. No, they were so sacred and curious in this, that I find the Arrians cavilling at the Ordina­tion of Athanasius, as not being Catholick and Canonical; just as the Papists objected against us the Naggs-head Consecration. And (by the way) that was the most weighty and considerable attempt that ever Rome made upon the Church of England: and could they clearly have invalidated and disannull'd our succession of Bishops and Priesthood, all the learning of England could not have prov'd us a Catholick Church. But this Cavil was with demon­stration confuted by that elaborate Piece of Mr. Mason Arch-Deacon of Norfolk. Sir, I hope that the merit of this Digression will beg its own pardon.

But to return to our English Sectaries ac­cording to Mr. Hales's notion, it would be indeed a very unhappy Schism in the Church of England, for the Bishop of Nor­wich and his Presbyters and Jurisdiction, to divide from the communion of the Arch­bishop of Canterbury, and to set up a Church of the East Angles divided from that of the [Page 63] West. But supposing this, there were yet left to us this satisfaction, that we were still under the Government and Ministry of that Bishop and Priesthood, of whose Con­secration and Orders we were sufficiently as­sur'd; and though this would be an un­lucky Faction in the English Hierarchy, yet it would be no Schism from the Catho­lick Church.

But our Separatists are run to a further distance; for they have not set up Altar against Altar, or one Bishop in opposition to another, but have thrown off all the Bishops and Priests of the Apostolick Suc­cession, and have erected a Synagogue against the Church; and set up a Lay-Elder in op­position to the Bishop and Priest. And this is not only a disobedience against the Laws, and a Schism from the establish'd Church of England, but is a separation from the Catholick Church. And seeing our Secta­ries have no Priesthood, I believe their Conventicles to be no more a Church, than a Club of Mechanicks in a Coffee-house. For though some of these Congregations may retain Imposition of hands as a mocke­ry of Ordination, yet the imposing of Lay­hands have no more power to confer Priest­hood, than I to have to constitute a Judge of Oyer and Terminer.

[Page 64] Mr. Hales makes Schism and Sedition of a very resembling nature:Page 1. He tells us, That Sedition is a Lay Schism, and Schism is an Ecclesiastical Sedition. Now, 'tis true, it would be a great Sedition to set up a Prince of the Blood in opposition to our Soveraign, who by long and Legal Investiture hath been possessed of Regal Supremacy: But it would be Sedition of a deeper dye, to re­nounce all Allegiance to our Prince, and to cast off the whole Royal Line, and to set up a Forreigner, or one who had no alliance to the Royal Blood.

Thus, if to set up one Bishop in opposi­tion to another (though both be of the same Apostolick succession) if this be a Schism and a great disorder, then sure, for our Sectaries to cast off all the Bishops and Priests of the Catholick Church, and to set up such Teachers and Governours, who have no relation to the Sacerdotal Line, this must be [...] the outmost and most Schismatical separation from the Ca­tholick Church.

But Mr.Hales proceeds and gives us a di­stinction of Schism.There is a Schism, where only one part is the Schismatick, for [Page 65] where the occasion is necessary, there not he that separates, but he that is the cause of the Separation is the Schismatick.

This shall be allowed to be Orthodox too: and when our Non-conformists can demonstrate, that it is necessary for them to separate from the Church of England, we will take off the Indictment, and absolve them from Schism. But they must prove this necessity from weightier Topicks than Fringe and Lace. They must make it evi­dent, that they cannot communicate with us, without manifest dishonour to God, af­front to Jesus and his holy Religion, and evident hazard of their salvation. But this can never be prov'd, but from the New Go­spel of private Conscience, for I am sure the Church of England is so happily constitu­ted, that there is no Law nor Canon in the four Evangelists, or in the Apostolick Acts or Epistles, that will justifie a separation from it, much less vote it to be necessary.

Secondly, Our Author tells us,That there is a Schism in which both parties are the Schismaticks; for where the occasion of Se­paration is unnecessary, neither side can be excused from the guilt of Schism.An in­stance of this he gives us in that great di­vision [Page 66] between theEastern andWesternChurches about the Observation ofEaster.

I confess I can make no Defence for the Churches of the East or West for that un­charitable division upon the account of a different Ceremony; for sure the several parts of the Catholick Church might have enjoy'd their peculiar Rites and usages, and yet preserv'd an entire peace and universal communion. I am of St. Austin's mind, Totum hoc genus liberas habet observati­ones, Epist. 118. nec Disciplina ulla est in his melior gravi prudentique Christiano, quam ut eo modo agat quo agere viderit Ecclesiam ad quamcunque forte devenerit.

But how this Instance of the Paschal Schism should be improv'd to serve the In­terest of our English Sectaries, I can no way discern. He that can from hence ex­tract a Plea for our Non-conformists, must have greater skill in Theological Chymi­stry, than I dare pretend to. For though this unhappy controversie occasioned a breach of charity and communion, yet here was no departure from the Catholick Church on either side, nor any violation of Order and Government; for the Christians of the East observ'd the Canons and Customs of the [Page 67] Eastern Church, and submitted themselves to the Government and Ministery of those Bishops and Priests, in whose Jurisdiction they liv'd, and so likewise in the West, vice versa. And would our Non-conformists learn but so much Order and Obedience, there were an end of the Schism.

Thus I have consider'd the Theorems of our Admir'd Author, and I find no mischief in them; but there are still behind such a Train of consequences, as (in my opini­on) are of very evil insinuation, and do no way merit to be reckon'd among his Golden Remains.

I cannot approve of his severe Censure upon the Antient Church, upon the account of the Paschal difference: for he interprets that Breachto be a just judgement of God,(But then Sir, mark the Provocation)be­cause(sayes he)that through sloth and blind obedience, men examin'd not the things, which they were taught: but like Beasts of Burden patiently couch'd down, and indifferently underwent whatever their Su­periours laid upon them.

I abhorr the Barbarity of rifling Sepul­chres, or disturbing the Ashes of the Dead. [Page 68] But I wish our ingenious Author had in­vented some kinder Emblems for the An­tient Christians, than Ass and Camel. For though they were so humble and peaceable, as quietly to submit to the Orders of their Spiritual Governours, yet they were not so tame as to truckle to an Idol, though com­manded to couch by Imperial Injunctions.

I will never plead for a brutish inadver­tency, or a blind and unchristian obedience to our Superiours. The Church provides by a Canon, that all Christians should once be Catechumeni, instructed in the plain Fun­damentals of Faith and Piety; and there­fore it is not intended, that men should be impos'd upon in matters that concern their common salvation, and there is great rea­son, that in things of that moment men should be cautious and inquisitive. But I believe that Apostolick Canon, Let all things be done in Decency and Order, hath left a great scope to the wisdom of our Superiours, to order the publick Administrations of Reli­gion. And in institutions of this nature (the people being secured of all the pure necessaries to salvation) I don't think they are oblig'd to any further examination, their greatest duty in this case is a quiet submis­sion. The Gentile Christians of Antioch, [Page 69] knew themselves to be free'd from all Jew­ish or Levitical Observances, but yet when the Council at Jerusalem for prudential Reasons and considerations enjoyn'd them the Abstinence from Blood and things offe­red to Idols, we don't read, that they en­quir'd any further, but quietly obeyed that Canon, and yet I hope those primitive Christians deserv'd a better name and cha­racter than Beasts of Burden in matters of this nature, I cannot yet discern the guilt or irreligion of a blind obedience.

I could wish that all Christians would keep the common Faith, and practise the plain Rules of Christian Religion, and these things being preserv'd entire, I see no mis­chief if in other things we should leave our Superiours to govern, and submit even with blind obedience, and not trouble our selves and the World with nice and scrupulous examinations. Blind or unexamining obe­dience to our Superiours, with those limi­tations I have stated, would so much assure the peace and order of the Church, that if it were not a vertue, yet I am sure it would be a lesser crime, than Pride, Schism or ob­stinate disobedience.

[Page 70] Our Author reflects again upon the Pas­chal Schism in these words,

We may plainly see the danger of our Ap­peal to Antiquity for Resolution in contro­verted points of Faith,Page 3.and how small Re­lief we are to expect from them; for if the Direction of the chiefest Guides and Di­rectors of the Church, did in a point so Tri­vial so mainly fail them, can we without the imputation of great Grossness and Folly, think so poor-spirited Persons competent Judges of the Questions now on foot between the Churches? Pardon me, I know what tem­ptation drew that note from me.

Now Sir you may perceive that the Au­thor was very sensible, that there was some such guilt in this passage, as would stand in need of pardon; And therefore if you dare adventure the scandal of giving pardon to a man, after he is dead, you may remit this guilty passion of Mr. Hales: for my part, I have charity for him, because he tells us, that this expression was drawn from him, by some vehement Temptation. And you know, that a very great Apostle under a Temptation denyed the Son of God; and if this Good man in such a Hurricane, Re­nounced [Page 71] all the Fathers of the Church, this should plead for our compassion.

What that particular Temptation was that occasioned this Ecstasie, he was not pleas'd to acquaint us, and therefore I cannot determine, but give me leave to con­jecture. I find Mr. Hales had the ill De­stiny to be a member of the Belgick Synod, and he informs us in his Epistles, that it was sometimes his Province, to refute the Arguments of the Remonstrants, (Hoste absente.) Now perhaps, observing that those poor-spirited Antients, would not be press [...]d into the States service, but were all of a different opinion from that Synod, who knows but this unlucky contradiction, and his conversing too much with Dammannus, might put him into an unwary heat, and make him Reprobate all Antiquity. Our Church has so much Reverence for the Antients, as in her publick Articles to own the Authority of the first four General Councils, and King James himself would never impose upon us the Novel Decrees of Dort.

I confess Sir, ever since I understood Greek, I have had the Grossness and Folly (as Mr. H. interprets it) to have more [Page 72] value for the Judgement of St. Cyril of Je­rusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chry­sostome, than for the opinion of Bogerma­nus, Sybrandus, Beza or Gomarus. I have been so silly as to think the Antient, Ca­tholick Council of Nice (that was but three Centuries remov'd from the Apostles) did merit more Authority and esteem in the Christian Church, than that partial and Modern Assembly of Dort. And I cannot yet alter my Perswasion. But I would glad­ly quit my self from those ugly imputati­ons of Grossness and Folly.

I must therefore examine the Arguments of Mr. Hales, by which he invalidates the Authority of the Antients.

First, He accuses them for Poor-spirited Persons. Indeed they never were so daring as to be so bold with the Attributes of God, as the Dutch Professors were in the Synod of Dort, or as Beza was in Geneva: but yet these poor-spirited men had the Resolution to be Martyrs for the Name of Jesus; and that Sir, I should think, is a very divine and noble piece of Gallantry. Besides, some of them left to the World their Golden Re­mains, excellent Monuments of their Prety and Learning, as worthy as our Authors.

[Page 73] Secondly, But his great Argument against Appealing to the Judgement of the Anti­ents, is their indiscretion about that trivial matter of the observation of Easter.

The Churches of the East and West, were not without some plausible reasons, for their different observance of that Festival, and though they will not amount to a substan­tial Apology for that Controversie, yet they will something help to lessen the vast­ness of the Indiscretion: for the Eastern Church had been taught by the Apostles, an innocent complyance to the Jews in those Quarters, that they might not scandal them by a sudden and total departure from all the Mosaical Rites and Observances; and therefore the Christians in the East go­verned them by St. Pauls Rule of complai­sance, to the Jews they so far became Jews, as to celebrate their Easter Festival, upon the fourteenth Month, when the Jews ob­serv'd their Paschal. And though I con­fess, that Reason was out of force in two or three Centuries, yet Sir, you know, Cu­stom has a Great Empire upon wiser crea­tures, than Beasts of Burden: and therefore it was no Prodigy of imprudence, nor any Divine Judgement, if they were so tenaci­ous [Page 74] of an Antient custom, that had a very innocent and Apostolick Foundation. The Western Church being at a great distance from Palestine, was never oblig'd to that complyance to the Jews: But being left to their Christian Liberty, and assured by an infallible Oracle, That our Lord arose from the Dead upon the first day of the Week, therefore they judged it most ap­posite and rational, to celebrate the Anni­versary Feast of the Resurrection, upon a Dies Dominicus.

This appear'd so reasonable to that ex­cellent Prince Constantine the Great, that with great Resolution he oppos'd the Jew­ish complyance of the Eastern Christians, and in his General Epistle concerning the Transactions of the Council of Nice, he disswades the Christian Church from that custom, Itaque nihil vobis commune sit cum infestissima Judaeorum Turba— Domini Percussoribus. And besides his Im­perial Ratification of the Canon of Nice, he inforces a General Uniformity in the Observation of Easter, by a very plausible Reason,Niceph. l. 8. c. 25. Lang. Int. [...] in the same Epistle. —Unam esse Catholicam suam Ecclesiam voluit, cujus tametsi partes in multis variisque sunt di­spersae locis, uno tamen spiritus, hoc est, Di­vino [Page 75] Arbitrio fovetur. Consideret porro sanctitatis vestrae solertia, quam grave sit & indecorum, per eosdem Dies, alios quidem jejuniis intentos esse, alios verò vacare conviviis. All I design by this, is, to shew that there was so much Plausibility on each side, that there was something in the case more than Trifle, and not such monstrous Grossness and Folly as our Author repre­sents.

But grant this Controversie to be trivial, and the Antients indiscreet in the manage of it, yet I cannot discern the Logick of his conclusion, that therefore they are not to be appeal'd unto in any controversie of Religion.

The sense of this Argument amounts to thus much, Because the wisest and most learn­ed men, have sometimes their mistakes and indiscretions, therefore their Judgement is never to be regarded in any matter of mo­ment. I fancy the World would find vast inconveniencies by such a consequence.

Sir, I request you to lend me your Italian Boccaline, for the Conventions of Parnas­sus have now as much Authority as the four first General Councils, and sure [Page 76] there will not be so much Grossness and Folly, in Appealing to the Sentence of Apollo, as in consulting the Judgement of the poor-spirited Antients. Pray search the Rolls of Parnassus, that we may know whe­ther Apollo have Recorded Bishop Jewel, and all the Champions of the Reformation for Fools and Asses; for I observe they were all so impertinent▪ as in the controversie with Rome to Appeal very often to the Judgement of the Antient Fathers.

Learned Chamier in his [...] (for an­tiquity sake I have chosen the Hebrew Title) disputing de usu Canonis, Tom. 1. Lib. 10. Cap. 5. Sect. 1. censures his Romish Adversaries, for declining the Judgement of the Antients in that Contro­versie, Dissimulant Adversarii hanc tantam Antiquorum Testimoniorum & copiam, & vehementiam: ut solent à solis Radiis ocu­los avertere, quibus lippitudo est incom­moda▪

There are two Cases in which we Appeal to the old Catholick Fathers.

• 1. In Controversies of Faith, or the great Doctrines of Christian Religion.
• 2. Concerning the Government, Cu­stome [Page 77] and Discipline of the Antient Church.

Now the great Dispute is, Whether we may appeal to their judgement in matters of Faith. And here I will freely trust you with my Sentiments. My Belief of the great Fundamentals and Doctrinals of Christianity is founded upon those Divine Oracles of the Holy Scriptures: But my Perswasion is much help'd and establish'd by the universal consent of the old Ca­tholick Church in the same Articles. For I consider, that the Antients of the first four Centuries, liv'd very nigh the time of the first Promulgation of Christianity, when the Sense of the Apostolick Age, was yet fresh and early. And I am huge­ly confirm'd by observing, that the old Greek Fathers and Councils expounded the Creed just as we do: for sure they must in reason be suppos'd to understand the Idiom of their own Language, and therefore to interpret the Mysteries of the Gospel better than we, who are so many Ages remov'd from the first Revelation, and are but Forreigners to that Language in which the Gospel was writ.

[Page 78] There is still a controversie on foot in the Churches (to use the Phrase of our Author) concerning the eternal Divinity of Jesus the Son of God, and the Resur­rection of the Flesh is still called in Que­stion. Now though my Belief of these two Articles, is primarily founded upon the Sacred Scriptures, yet that which makes up my Plerophorie, is the authority of the Antients. For though the Sacred Wri­tings appear very express in those two Ar­ticles, yet I have seen all those Texts so cunningly evaded by the plausible interpre­tations of the Socinians, that I confess it is great satisfaction to me, that the anti­ent Catholick Church did in General Councils maintain those Articles and ex­pound the Holy Text in that sense which we receive. I was about to have con­cluded this with an old sentence of Vin­centius Lyrinensis; but I consider'd, that to prove the authority of the Antients, by an antient Author, would be false Logick, and a gross impertinence; and I am very shye of those ill-looking imputations. Therefore I will end with the authority of the great Chamier, who was but a Mo­dern Divine, and of the Reformed Galli­can [Page 79] Church, and I hope our Appeal to him will be allowed.

Tom. 1. lib. 16. cap. 5. sect. 5.In the controversieDe Scripturae inter­pretatione,he discourses of the several helps to a right interpretation of Scripture, and among the rest mentions the judgement of the Antients.Alter ordo, veterum est, at­que eorum qui nostram aetatem praecesse­runt. Horum labores nemo pius dubitat, Deum extare voluisse, ut qui viventes pro­fuerunt Ecclesiae, mortus non sint inutiles. Juvat ergo: & valdè quidem juvat, scisci­tari quid senserint olim boni Patres, tum de fidei Articulis, tum de singulorum Scri­pturae locorum interpretatione; neque earum Testimonium parvi faciendum multò minus rejiciendum absque graevissimd Ratione, etsi non debeant fidei nostrae dominari.

This learned man was under no tempta­tion as our Author was, and therefore ex­presses his opinion of the Antients with much Reason and Reverence: and there­fore if I have been guilty of Grossness and Folly in my appeal to Antiquity, you see Sir, I have very Learned Fools to bear me company.

[Page 80] 2. Our next Appeal to Antiquity is in the Questions concerning the antient Go­vernment and Discipline of the Catholick Church.

What au­thority have we, for Infant Baptism, the Lords Day, the dispensing the Eu­charist to Women, but the Authority and Pra­ctice of the Anti­ents?Methinks there should be no dispute concerning the Equity or Reasonableness of our Appeal in this case. For all Courts of Justice, in a Question concerning an anti­ent custom or practice, do constantly pass sentence, according to the Testimonies of the most aged men. And though we should grant, that the antient Fathers were not wise enough to be Judges, yet sure their very antiquity makes them the most com­petent Witnesses of the Government and Practice of the Church, in the first Ages of Christianity.

Sir, you see our House of Peers, when their Priviledges were questioned by the Commons, thought it the most rational Method to determine that controversie, by an Appeal to antient Presidents. And if our Protesting Lords would be as just to the Church, as they are to their own Court, and allow the antient Records of the Ca­tholick Church to be as Sacred, as the [Page 81] old Rolls of Parliament, they would have oblig'd themselves never to alter Episco­pal Government. For we can shew more numerous, and far more antient Monu­ments to prove the Primitive and continu­ed Jurisdiction of Bishops, than their Lordships can produce, to assert their pe­culiar Prerogatives.

But Sir, if you would more clearly un­derstand this necessity or usefulness of ap­pealing to the Antients, let me humbly of­fer this advice. I know your Temper is serious and contemplative, but I advise you upon this special occasion to com­pose your mind into an extraordinary Fix­ation; and when you are retired, and your eyes shut, and your arms folded, Then think out of the World all Coun­cils and Fathers, Fancy we had no more notice of the Judgement or Practice of the Antients, than Origen had of his State of Pre-existence; Suppose this pre­sent Age of the Church to have no Monu­ment of Christian Antiquity, but the Go­spels and Epistles in Greek, and no skill in that Language, but what we learned from Pagan Orators, Poets and Philoso­phers: And at my next Visit pray acquaint [Page 82] me with the Result of your thoughts; Whether in those considerations you did not fancy a strange Darkness upon the face of Christendome, and see a necessity of a New Revelation to interpret the Old.

Our Author proceeds and tells us,He sees no Reason, why opinionum varietas & opinantium unitasshould be [...], why we might not differ in opinion, and yet com­municatein Sacris.

The honour of God and Religion have so much suffered by our Divisions, that I wish with St. Paul, Rom. 15. 6. That we might with one mind and with one mouth Glorifie God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. But since our controversies in Re­ligion are so far multiplyed, that there is no hope the Christian World should ever unite in one judgement, without the force of a Miracle, yet it would be hap­py if all Christians would quietly enjoy their Differences of Opinion, and be so far of one mind, as to go up together to the Temple to pray and communicate with the Catholick Church in Sacris.

[Page 83] The Church of England retains no Sa­craments, but those which have the ma­nifest Authority of Divine Institution. All the Prayers of this Church are im­mediately directed to the Eternal God: and all presented in the Name of Jesus. We Petition for nothing, but what the Religion of Jesus allows us to suppli­cate. And therefore I see no reason why all the People of this Nation, who are not Atheists and Anti-christian, should not communicate with us in those con­fessed Services of Prayers, Praises and Sa­cramentals.

And this is all that is required by that Tyrannical Act of Uniformity. And therefore that great Popular Orator in his late Harangue to the House of Lords has imposed a Fallacy upon us, For he passionately complains against the Law, for devesting the People of their Proper­ties, only because they cannot agree with Church-men in some uncertain Opinions of Religion.

I hope it will not amount to Scanda­lum Magnatum to say, that this is meer [Page 84] Sophistry. For our Laws prosecute no man for difference of Opinion; no, so far from this, that the very Act against Conventicles allows our Dissenters, not only their different Opinions, but the quiet use and enjoyment of their several Religions in their own Families; nay, it granted them a further Favour and Li­berty, that they might receive four or five more of the same dissenting Brother­hood, to make the exercise more full and satisfying. Here was nothing prohi­bited but noise and multitude. But they might notwithstanding that Law have peaceably enjoyed their different Opini­ons and Property too (that great Funda­mental of State Religion.) The Church doth not put the souls of men upon the Rack, or command an exact consent to all her Publick Articles; but indulges a difference of Opinion: it only provides for the Beauty, Order and Solemnity of Publick Worship, by enjoyning all the Christians of this Kingdom to communi­cate with us in those common Sacra, that all sober Christians acknowledge to be of universal obligation.

[Page 85] But here your Doctor would Rejoyn, that it is as far from Cornwall to Ber­wick, as from Berwick to Cornwall, and demand a Reason, why we do not exercise as much charity to others, as we expect to our selves, or why we should not with as much Reason be obliged to communi­cate with their Assemblies, as to expect them to be present at ours? For our Author was so kind to Dissenters, as he tells us, He sees no Reason why we should not mix with those divided Assemblies, where there was nothing done, but what True Piety and Devotion would brook.

If I may credit my own conscience, I have a very serious love and veneration for all True Piety and Devotion. But I am resolved to have no communion with Conventicles, and will faithfully acquaint you with my Reasons for that Resolve.

First, My ears are not fitted for the unintelligible Rapsodies of Enthusiastick Divinity. Nothing impresses upon me, but what my Reason and Judgement can give a sober account of. And I am [Page 86] sure, there are many Assemblies in En­gland, called Religious Meetings, whose chiefest Devotions consist in nothing but Froth and Groans (to borrow an odd phrase from our Author.)

Secondly, I will appeal from our Au­thor, to Mr.Hales, who towards the end of thisTract gives us a very Or­thodox Definition of a Conventicle.A Conventicle is a Congregation of Schisma­ticks, or all Meetings upon unnecessary separation,(and concludes)that it is not lawful, no not for Prayer, for Hear­ing, for Conference, or for any other Religious Office whatsoever, for the People to Assemble otherwise, than by Publick Or­der is allowed.

Now since I can enjoy a communion with the Catholick Church, and all the advantages of Christianity, without go­ing to a Conventicle; I think it were neither Piety nor Devotion for me to communicate with those Congregations, which our Author grants to be unlaw­ful Assemblies. Had I lived in the dayes of Dioclefian, I would have been a mem­ber of the Ecclesia Subterranea, and have [Page 87] assembled with the Catholick Christi­ans in Caves and Grotto's, which neces­sity had consecrated into Holy Places; But since it is my happy Lot to live in that Age and Kingdom, where Christi­anity may be confessed above ground, since a just Authority hath opened our Churches, seeing I may offer all the Publick Devotions that God requires, in those Solemn Places which the Law ap­points; Since I can at the same time be both Devout towards God, and Obe­dient to my Governours, I resolve I will have no communion with those As­semblies, which the Law of the Nati­on, and the Canons of the Church make irregular. Sir, I assure you, it adds some cheerfulness to my Publick Devo­tions, that I can at the same time, both give unto God, the things that are God's, and to Caesar, the things that are Caesar's.

Thirdly, I resolve I will never be a member of our separate Congregations, because in them I cannot be assured of my compleat communion with the Catho­lick Church, or the advantages of a Re­gular Priesthood.

[Page 88] I question not, but God may par­don without the Absolution of a Priest, and give a man possession of eternal life, without the seal or title of a Sa­crament: but salvation is a matter of such vast importance, that I would never ad­venture it upon extraordinary Methods▪ in concerns of Religion and everlasting in­terest, I love to enjoy all the security, that God hath given to mankind. In that great Schism of Israel, some of the most sober and considering Jews, were not satisfied with their communion in that new Church of Israel, though it was established by the Law of Jeroboam, but returned to worship at Jerusalem; yet the Tribes of Israel retain'd the same Creed with those of Judah, and the Calves of Dan and Bethel were not design'd for Idols, but set up in imitation of the Che­rubims in the Temple; but these wise men were dissatisfied, because their Priests were not of the Aaronical Line, and had no other Consecration or Authority, but what was deriv'd from the Patents of Je­roboam, and they could not be assured, that God would accept their Oblations from the hands of those men, who had [Page 89] no Regular Priesthood. Now there is great Reason to believe, that there should be as much order in the Kingdom of Jesus, as there was in the Jewish Poli­ty; and therefore I am assur'd both by Reason and Sacred Oracles, that there is an Evangelical Priesthood, that hath suc­ceeded that of Aaron; That there is a peculiar Order of men, who have re­ceiv'd this Priestly Authority, by a Re­gular Ordination from the Apostles Suc­cessors. And I esteem these men accord­ing to St. Paul's Injunction, as the Stew­ards of the manifold Mysteries of God, and the Ministers of Reconciliation: and there­fore (without an inevitable necessity) I will never live without the advantage and satisfaction of their Ministerial Au­thority.

St.Chrysostome in his Discourse [...],highly magnifies the Office and Au­thority of a Priest; for speaking of that order of men, he tells us, [...],&c.That God hath invested the Priests with such Authority, as he never confer­red upon Angels or Arch-Angels. For to which of the Angels did he say at any time, [Page 90]What ever ye bind on Earth, is bound in Heaven; and whose sins, ye Remit, they are Remitted?For as the Father gave Power to the Son to Remit sins, so the Son of God hath committed the same Power to his Ministers on Earth.

I believe the Power of Absolution which was conferred upon the Christian Priest­hood, by the Commission of our Lord, is not so large, as the Pope would extend it; nor yet so inconsiderable as the Puri­tan fancies it. I believe our Saviour did not trifle, when he granted that Char­ter to the Apostles, but sure there is something in that Authority, that is so­lemn and momentous, and whatever it be, I resolve to enjoy the benefit of it. And therefore I declare, that I would sooner travel from London to Larissa, to communicate with the Greek Church, where I might be assured of Priestly Au­thority, than walk from Temple-Barr to Westminster, to joyn with a Lay-Conven­ticle. I know no Rule in the World, that can rationally assure me of Ministerial Au­thority, but a Sacerdotal succession from the Apostles.

[Page 91] As for the Pretension of Inspiration, it is no more than Mahomet and Manes, and every Impostor have pretended. Their Argument from Gifts and Qualifications, weighs nothing with me. A Jew under the Mosaical Oeconomy, might have hi­red an Hebrew Butcher, who might have slain his Lamb or Goat, and have dress'd it, and laid it upon an Altar with as much art and exactness, as the eldest Priest in the Temple: but then it had been no Sacrifice, nor have ever been accepted of God, as a Legal Attonement: no, it was the Priests offering Sacrifice,Lev. 17. 5, 6. that made them Peace-offerings; it was the Priests sprinkling the blood upon the Altar of the Lord, and his burning the Fat, that was an essential Requisite to render the Oblation a sweet savour unto the Lord. Angels and Arch-Angels are Wise, Zealous and Holy Spirits, but all their excellencies do not make them Priests, though in another sense they are Mini­string Spirits. To conclude this, since I can no way be rationally secured of my Relation to Christ, or of my participa­tion of all the advantages of Christiani­ty, but by a comm [...]nion with the Catho­lick [Page 92] Church and its Ministerial Authori­ty, I do therefore assure you, that I have a greater value for my communion with the Priests and the Temple, than for that ador'd Diana of English Proper­ty. And if any unhappy circumstance should ever put me upon the experiment, I would desert this, to enjoy the other.

Sir, if ever the Christian World be­come wise and sober, this very considera­tion would repair the Breaches of the Ca­tholick Church, and prove the final Ru­ine of Fanatick Conventicles.

Our Author passionately declaims a­gainst the Supremacy and Ambition of Bi­shops.

I confess, Pride and Ambition are great­ly inconsistent with the humble nature of Christianity, and are strange indecencies in Spiritual Governours: and I will never make an Apology for Vice and Disor­der. But this ought not to be urged as a Reason for the extirpation of Episcopa­cy. Our Lord did not suspend nor degrade his Apostles, because there was a strife among them, who should be the greatest. [Page 93] Nor would it be just or charitable, to charge all Bishops with these evil impu­tations. I observe one famous Instance of Humility in the Chair of Rome, and that Sir, you know, is the most Principal Seat of Ambition.

Gregory Bishop ofRome, who in the year of our Lord596. sentAugustina in­toEngland to convert theSaxons, in his Epistle toEulogius Bishop ofAlexandria,disowns the ambitious Title of Universal Supremacy:Indicare quoque vestra Bea­titudo studuit, jam se quibusdam non scri­bere superba vocabula, que ex vanitatis radice prodierunt, & mihi loquitur di­cens: sicut jussistis, Quod verbunt jussi­onis peto à meo Auditu removere, qu [...] ­scio quis sum, qui estis. Loco enim mihi Fratres estis, moribus Patres, non ergo jussi, sed quae utilia visa sunt, indicare curavi:—& ecce in praefatione Epistolae quam ad me ipsum qui prohibui direxistis, superbae Appellationes verbum, Universalem me Papam dicentis, impri­mere curastis. Quod peto dulcissima mihi fanctitas vestra ultra non faciat: quia vobis subtrahitur quod alteri plus, quam ratio exigit, praebetur.And we must not [Page 94] look upon this Modesty, as the Poor spi­rited▪ humour of this single Bishop, for he assures us in the same Epistle, that it was the constant humility of his Prede­cessors.—Recedant verba quae vani­tatem inflant, & charitatem vulnerant, & quidem in Sancta Chalcedonensi Synodo atque post à subsequentibus Patribus hoc Decessoribus meis oblatum vestra sanctitas novit, sed tamen nullus eorum uti hoc un­quam vocabulo voluit.

But Sir, our Author not only protests against the Ambition, but the Authority of Bishops: for he tells us,They do but abuse themselves and others, that would perswade us, that Bishops by Christs insti­tution, have any Superiority over other men, than that of Reverence.

He grants, that there is a greater Re­verence due to them, than to other men, but how this should become a duty, with­out supposing a just superiority to exact it, I cannot understand.

I will not here ingage in the Contro­versie about the Divine Right of Episco­pacy. But I am sure the Apostles had a [Page 95] Superiority over the Seventy Disciples by Christs Institution, and I am certain that the Antient Catholick Church did esteem Bishops as the Apostles Succes­sors. The first we meet with in Ecclesi­astical History that ever denyed the Su­periority of Bishops, was Aenius a discon­tented Arian, and Epiphanius records him for a Heretick, and brands his Opinion as a Diabolical Delusion.

Sir, there remains nothing more consi­derable in our Author, only the old Puri­tan Cavil against all Pomp and Gestures, Garments and Musick in Publick Wor­ship. I confess, I dislike the gaudy Pa­geantry and numerous Ceremonies of the Ordo Romanus, and I as much abhorr the Rudeness of a Conventicle.

Sir, I have neither mind nor leisure to examine the Scruples of nicer fancies, but I will propound these Queries, and re­serve them for future consideration.

1. Whether the Governours of the Ca­tholick Church have not as much Autho­rity to make Institutions in matters indif­ferent, as the Apostles? Whether the [Page 96] Womans Veil, or the Holy Kiss, were more Jure Divino, than the Surplice or Sign of the Cross?

2. Whether a Pompous Superstition in Publick Worship, be not more pardona­ble, than a Rude Forlorness? Or, whe­ther a Sancy Rudeness will not sooner introduce Atheism, than the most Glorious Superstition?

3. Whether the awful Adorations of the Jews, the Glory of the Tabernacle and the Temple, the Ornaments of the Priests, and the Musick, were Leviti­call, or rather founded upon Moral Rea­sons?

4. Whether a Publick Oratory or Church that is set apart for the more Solemn Worship of the Eternal God, may not without Superstition be as Glo­rious and Magnificent, as the Stadthouse in Holland? (except Imagery.) Whe­ther a Respect to God, will not as much justifie one, as a Relation to the States, will vindicate the other?

[Page 97] Sir, Whenever you please to command, I shall enquire for Resolution, in the mean I rest,