SECT. I.

THE Defence of the Reverend Dean of Pauls Un­reasonableness of Separation, containing little in it of Argument, more than what we find in the Dean's own Treatise, might pass unanswered, had not the Author, by a fuller Discovery of the Design of his Party (which are but a few) made it necessary to shew to the world, whither it leads. For in this Defence there are hints enough given to tempt an Unprejudiced and Impartial Reader to fear, he hath engag'd himself too deeply in that Design that was seemingly but begun by the Dean. For which Reason I will in this, with as much modesty as the subject-matter will admit, and this Author will let me enjoy, shew, That as I did not abuse the Dean of Pauls, when in the Mo­dest and peaceable Enquiry, I detected some of his Mistakes; even so, if we must pass a Judgment on the Doctor, answerable to the Character that is to be found of his Substitute in the Defence, 'tis apparent that they are conspiring in a Design, which the Learned and Conformable Clergy will give him little thanks for. [Page 2]The Doctor's Substitute (as hereafter I will from his own words prove) doth sufficiently declare what his party would be at, which is a point, I'm sure, that will meet with opposition from such as are true Sons of the Church, whereby the Controversie, if closely followed, must cease to be between Conformist and Non­cormist; it must be between Conformist and Conformist. It looks as if there were among our Church-men some resolv'd to revive Laud's Design, as 'tis well known there are many others among them who highly value the Principles and Temper of that great Protestant Prelate Abbot, Laud's Predecessor in the See of Canter­bury, between whom the Scussle must at last end.

That this may with the greater Conviction be evinc'd, I will in this Reply to the Defence of the Dean, &c. confine my self to the Author's own words, as compared with what is more than suggested in the Writings of Bishop Bramhall, and some other Sons of the Church of England; the which with due clearness I shall not be able to compass, if I follow our Author in his disor­derly way of Writing. For which reason I must keep to the Me­thod I took in the Modest and Peaceable Enquiry, and bring what calls for my observation, into its proper place. The whole then he hath offered in Answer to the Enquiry, may be reduced to these Heads.

• 1. His Reflections on the Title of the Enquiry.
• 2. His Censure of the Author's Design.
• 3. The Defence of the Dean.

I'll begin with the First.

The Author reflects on the Title, as if the Discourse, notwith­standing the specious pretences of the Title, had not been as Mo­dest, nor as Peaceable as suggested; in doing which, he spends one whole Chapter, it may be not f [...]nding matter enough in the Discourse it self, to enlarge so far, as to write any thing that might deserve the name of an Answer, or countenance the Title given his Great Book.

I could very easily therefore, as one unconcern'd, pass by this first Chapter, if there had not been more in it than the re­presenting me as a person who deserve not the Character of be­ing either Modest or Peaceable. But the Overt acts of Immodesty, which are insisted on by this Author, being such as cannot but be of an ill Tendency, I must consider 'em.

The first instance of Immodesty is thus express'd, ‘He begins his Epistle to the Dean, with observing how industrious the Pa­pists have been, ever since the Reformation, to ruine England and the Churches of Christ in it, which he sufficiently proves from their Rebellions and Insurrections in King Edward's days, the Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeths, the Gun-Powder Trea­son in King James's, &c. and the late Hellish Conspiracy, which was designed for the utter Extirpation of the Protestant Reli­gion, and the universal Destruction of all the Professors there­of, whether Episcopal or Dissenter. But this modest man (saies our Author) takes no notice, That King and Kingdom, Church and State have been once ruined already by such Modest Dissen­ters, and may be in a fair way for it again, if we suffer our selves to be Charmed and Lulled asleep by such modest Inquirers: We are aware, Sir, what a Popish Zeal would do, and what a Factious Zeal has done; and think our selves concern'd, as much as we can, to countermine the Designs of both. But however, I confess it was very modestly done to pass over this, that while men are zealous against Popery, they may fear no danger from any other quarter.’

Rep. Whether the mentioning the Rebellions and Insurrections of the Papists in King Edw. the 6th days, the Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeths, the Gunpowder-Treason in King James's, the Hellish Plot of late discovered, be an extraordinary act of Immodesty, or Unpeaceableness, let any temperate man among the Church of England judge that please. Is it an Act of Immodesty to relate such notorious Truths? or of Unpeaceableness, to mention the Dangers we are in, on the account of Popish bloody Plots? This it may be is not the Crime, but what follows, which is,

This modest man (saith our Author) takes no notice, That King and Kingdom, Church and State, have been once ruin'd already by such modest Dissenters, and may be in a fair way for it again, if we suffer our selves to be Charm'd and Lull'd asleep by such Mo­dest Inquirers.

Rep. Hereby we know what the Authour would be at; 'tis as if he had said, This Modest Enquirer is very immodest and quar­relsome, for not imitating the Jesuitical Clubs, who are, con­trary to the Act of Oblivion, raking in old sores, calling us to [Page 4]the remembrance of 41. to make us look back on the actings of Archb. Laud and his Faction, the steps they made towards Rome, the bones of contention they cast in between a Protestant Prince, and a Church of England Parliament; the Civil War begun by the Episc [...]pal, who were Chief in each Army. 'Twas this the Enquirer indeed past over in silence, wishing with his very Soul, that the Episcopal Clergy had been either so wise or honest as to have done their utmost to have prevented those Ruins, which their own Divisions brought on these Nations. For 'tis well known to many hundreds now alive, who they were that had an Influence on those Unnatural Broils and Intestine Quarrels; and whoever will consult Mr. Baxter against Hinekley, or rather Mr. Rushworth, and Dr. Heylin, will see, That the Sons of the Church of England more on both sides the active persons concern'd in the very beginning of those Troubles. But those things the Inquirer was loath to mention, it being as Unnecessary, as Unsuitable to his Peaceable Design.

However, seeing our Author will not be satisfied, unless some notice be taken of those that once already Ruin'd King and King­dom, &c. I will out of Dr. Heylin's Life of Laud, a good Record, at least in the sense of the Dean's Defender, shew, who they were that did it. In a perusal of which 'twill appear, That 'twas the Papists, who had a sole hand in the Plot; no Protestant, I verily believe, ever design'd what was the unhappy product of the Hellish Conspiracies of the bloody Papist. This hath been long ago discover'd by Dr. Du Moulm, and since by Dr. Oates, and here most exactly related by Dr. Heylin a Son of the Church, in these words, viz. ‘A Confederacy was formed amongst them, [i. e. the Papists] consisting of some of the most subtle heads in the whole fesuitical Party; by whom it was concluded to foment the Broils began in Scotland, and to heighten the Combustions there, that the King being drawn into a War, might give them the opportunity to effect their Enterprize, for sending Him and the Archbishop to the other World. Which being by one of the party on Compunction of Conscience made known to Andreas ab Habernsfield, who had been Chaplain, as some said, to the Queen of Bohemia, they both together gave intimation of it to Sir William Boswell, his Majesties Resident at the Hague; having [Page 5]first bound him by his Oath, not to reveal the same to any man living, but to the Archbishop himself, and by the Arch [...]ishop to the King. This signified by Boswell's Letters of the 19th of Septemb. together with a general draught of the Design trans­mitted to Canterbur; under the hand of Hab [...]field himself, the first Discoverer of the Plot: On the receipt of which Dispatches, the Archbishop giving directions to Boswell to proceed to a fur­ther discovery of it, sends the Intelligence with all speed ima­ginable, by his Letters of the 11th of the same Month, to the King at York, beseeching nothing more than his Secrecy in it, that he would not trust his Pockets with those dangerous Pa­pers, and the business. And so far both the King and he had very good reason to be sensible of the Dangers which were threatned to them. But when the large Discovery was brought unto him, transmitted in Boswell's Letter of the 15th of Octo­ber, he found some Names in it, which discredited the whole Relation, as well in his Majesties judgment, as his own. For, besides this naming of some profest Papists, as the Dutchess of Buckingham, the Countesses of Arundel and Newport, Montague, Digby and Winter, of whose Fidelity the King was not willing to have any Suspicion, he named the Earl of Arundel, Winde­bank Principal Secretary of State, and Porter one of the Grooms of the Bed-chamber, whom he charged to be the King's utter Enemies, and such as betrayed his Secrets to the Popes Nuncio upon all occasions; all which his Majesty beheld as men of most approved Loyalty and Affections to him, by reason where­of no further credit being given to the Advertisement which they had from Boswell, the danger, so much feared at first, became more slighted and neglected, than consisted with his Majesties Safety, and the condition of the times, which were apt to mischief. For, though the Party, who first brake the Ice to this Intel­ligence, might be mistaken in the Names of some of the Ac­complices, which were interessed in the Design, whose relations unto those of the Church of Rome might give some ground for the mistake; yet the Calamities, which soon after fell upon them both, the deplorable Death of the Archbishop first, and his Majesty afterwards, declare sufficiently, That there was some greater reality in the Plot, than some were willing to believe. But it [Page 6]it had been a Maxime with King James, his Father, That Su­spicion was the Sickness and Disease of a Tyrant, which laid him open to all the subtle practices of malicious cunning. And it had been taken up by this King for an Axiom also, That it was better to be Deceived than to Distrust; which paved a plain and easie way to all those Misfortunes, which in the whole course of his Reign, especially for ten years last past, had been brought upon him.’ So far Heylin.

By this 'tis evident, That the Papists were the first Contrivers of all that ruine which befel the King and Kingdom, Church and State; and that the first who received any impressions from their wretched Attempts, were the Sons of the Church, is as evi­dent to such as consult Baxter, Rushworth, &c. who it may be were ignorant of their Hellish Designs; though 'tis evident e­nough that Laud was acquainted with them: For which reason it seems somewhat surprizing, that notwithstanding his being so fully enlightned concerning it, he still inclin'd to favour the Pa­pist more than the Puritan; concerning which party, they had nothing but their ungrounded Surmises to occasion any ill thoughts of 'em. For in the whole account Heylin gives of their Essays, I find nothing but intimations of their Secret actings, which 'tis like were so secret, that not one Overt Act can be gi­ven before there was an open breach between King and Parlia­ment; at which time the Papists come in as Auxiliaries to the King, and the Puritan Party came in as such to the Parliament: the King remaining to the very Death a Resolved Protestant, which animated the Papist to do their utmost for his Ruine; in which after they had in part accomplished their Devilish Design, they strangely triumph'd. I question not but that many of the Roman Faction were in both Armies, in the one Openly, in the other under a Covert; and that they attempted to heighten the Division; and at length turn'd all things into Confusion. This I take to be a true account of the Transaction; but why our Churchmen should thus glory, as if they had no hand in it, is not easie to conjecture: Neither is it over-easie to imagine, what the reason is, that our Author should represent the Papist so favou­rably, even when his Discourse against the Dissenters is so In­vective. For saith he,

We are aware, Sir, what a Popish Zeal would do, and what a Factious Zeal has done, &c. q. d. We are aware of what the Pa­pists would do, not what they have done. What the Papists have done must not be mention'd, not one word of that: Not one word of their old Rebellions and Insurrections; not one word of the Gunpowder Plot; not one word of the Plot discover'd by Andreas ab Habernsfield; not one word of the Murder of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey, of the Assassination of Justice Arnold; not one word of what they have done, only what they would do. A pleasant Insinuation, as if the Papist never yet discover'd by any Overt-acts their Horrid Design, &c. 'Tis the Factious Zeal only which has done somewhat. But yet this is not to prepare the people to expect a Presb [...]terian Plot, when there is none a­mong Protestants, but what is carried on by the Sons of the Church: This is not to act suitable to the P [...]pish D [...]signs, which were to destroy the King, after they had prepar'd the People to believe the Presbyterians were Resolv'd for it. Whether this was the Dean's Design in misrepresenting Diss [...]nters, I could not tell; but as to your self. I must say, That whatever your Design is, if you had been hir'd by a Popish Plotter, you could not more effectually do his work for him; and that the Protestant Gentry, who mind the Substantial part of their Religion, more than an indifferent Rite, cannot but deeply resent these your Procee­dings.

Is it not most obvious, that notwithstanding the loud Cries we have had of the Factious and Seditious Principles of Dissenters, the Dissenters have approved themselves, when under the severest Censures and Pressures of our Clergy, to be men of another Character? That notwithstanding the many Prophetical and Historical Discourses among our Church-men of a Presbyterian Plot, no such thing could be fastned on a Protestant Dissenter; the De­sign of the Papists being the real Destruction of hearty Prote­stants, though Sons of the Church, under the name of Presby­terians? Read Mr. Dangerfield's Discovery of that Sham-Presby­terian Plot, and you'll find My Lord Duke of Monmouth, the Lord President, the Lord of Essex, brought in by the Papists as Presbyterian Plotters: Although 'tis well known, that they are Sons of the Church of England, whose Loyalty to their Prince, [Page 8]and Firmness to the Protestant Religion, doth equalize the greatness of their Honour.

Methinks, Sir, 'tis now high time to consider, That as all Prote­stants, whether Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Congregational, &c. are all in one bottom, even so the One cannot be ruin'd with the preser­vation of the Other. Ought we not then to entertain better thoughts of each other? What, shall we now quarrel with one another, even when, unless we joyn in putting our hand to the Pump, the Ship sinks, and we all must perish together? But I must not enlarge on this subject, lest I be thought too Immodest and Unpeaceable.

A Second Instance of Immodesty now succeeds; 'Twas mo­destly done (saith the Author) to charge the Dean with a Design of gratifying the Roman Faction, &c. And at the same time to laugh at the Jesuits and Coleman as great Fools, for designing to bring in Popery, by the Tolerating Fanaticks.

Rep. How is this that our Author treats the Dean so unman­nerly, as to joyn him thus with the Jesuits and Coleman! Me­thinks a desending the Dean should be a distinct work from a vindicating the reputation of Jesuits, and the Traitor Coleman. And why, Sir, may I not laugh at the Counsels of some Jesuits, without being immodest to the Doctor? Have you such vene­rable thoughts of these men, that a laughing at their Devices is a Crime that must not pass without Rebuke?

But the Dean is represented as a Reviler of Dissenters, and that's immodest.

Rep. What I suggested as to this, was not without great rea­son, as may appear from what I insisted on in the Enquiry; but he goes on very pleasantly, as if by Reviling Dissenters I meant Confuting Dissenters. Really Sir, if by Reviling Dissenters I meant a Confuting of them, I fear I should have wronged the Doctor and the Truth also, if I had but said there was any one Reviling passage in the whole Treatise; but the fixing this sense on the words, to the end you may give us an account of your admirable Faculty of Talking very little to the purpose, is an ex­cellency wherein you seem to delight; for I'm sure you are so modest as to fasten your own, which is a foreign sense on my words, and then run on triumphantly, &c. but after so easie a [Page 9]manner, that it deserves not an Answer; and therefore I'll con­sider the great thing.

The Doctor is brought in (you say) as one designing to Gratifie the Roman Faction.

Rep. That I might prevent any just offence here, I was express in distinguishing between the Deans own intent, and tendency of his Treatise. Take my words in the Enquiry, ‘I will propose the Design of the Dr's History, [(i. e.) of that account he had given of Dissenters, &c.] being charitably dispos'd to distinguish be­tween the Finis Operis, and Operantis;’ For though the End of the work it self cannot but in its tendency prove pernicious to the Protestant Religion, yet I hope the Dr. design'd it not as such.

But though I thought my self oblig'd to be thus civil in my thoughts of the Reverend Dean, I do not find any Reason to pass the same favourable Censure on you. The Dr. I knew wrote against the Papists; but whether you have not in some Treatises formerly done as much in some respects for 'em, is best known to your self. Whatever you have done either for or against the Papist formerly, by what I find in your Defence of the Dean, I do very much suspect you. 'Tis very evident, you have in your Notions about the Nature of an Universal Church, the Notion of Schism, &c. faln in with those that were not ashamed to own, that they were for a going towards Rome, in order to an ac­commodating the Differences between the Church of England, and the Papist.

That this may appear to be so, I will faithfully set down your notion of these things, and then compare it with the Design of Archb. Laud and Archb. Bramhall, and leave it to the judgment of the Candid and Impartial Reader, whether you are not of those who ran the Cassandrian way. You say,

§ 1. That the Catholique Church consists of such Particular Churches, as have all the Essentials of a Church, as to Faith, Government, and Discipline. It consists of all these, as Similar parts, which have the same Nature, and make up one Body by a common Union. This p. 139, 140.

§ 2. That the Catholique Church, though it consists of all Par­ticular Churches contained in it, yet 'tis not a meer arbitrary combination and confederacy of particular Churches; but is [Page 10]the Root and Fountain of Unity, and in order of nature antecedent to particular Churches, as the Sun is before its Beams, and the Root before its Branches. So that all Particular Churches re­ceived their denomination of Catholique Church from the Catho­lique Church, p. 144, &c.

Here you assert, That the Universal Church is in order of na­ture antecedent to Particular Churches, as the Sun is before its Beams, and the Root before its Branches, &c. But your Allusion is not ad rem; for you should have given us some instance of some one Universal, that was in order of nature antecedent to its Parti­culars, which is impossible; it being, in the sense of most, evi­dent, That Universale is unum in multis, that is, in many parti­culars, which Universal hath no real Existence, but in Particu­lars; for abstracted from all Particulars, 'tis only an Ens ratic­nis, having its being in the Eutopian Commonwealth; whence we distinguish between the consideration of an Universal as Formal, and as Fundamental. Fundamentally, and 'tis quid singulare; but Formally, and so 'tis abstracted from all Singulars; the Parti­culars being the foundation of the Universal, the Root from which the Universal doth proceed. Now if it be the Particulars that are the foundation of the Universal, How can the Universal be the Root of the Particulars? This is the more remarkable in our Author, because he falls in with an old exploded part of In­dependency, viz. That what person soever is not a Member of a Parti­cular Church, is not so of the Universal Church. Which being so, I would fain know Where this Universal Church should be, when Antecedent to any Particular Church? If he had said, That by a Particular Church, he meant only such as were Organiz'd and faln into some compleat order; and that there were many, who not having arriv'd to that degree of being compleat Church-members of any Particular Church, who yet were Members of the Church Universal; he would have had ground for his Assertion; for there must be Particular Christians before Particular Chur­ches: but to adhere to his Hypothesis, which seems to be but a step to the asserting Diocesan Churches to be in order of nature antecedent to particular Congregations, is ridiculous; especi­ally seeing he asserts, That the Universal Church is an Organiz'd, or Political Body, the [...]of all Instituted Worship [Page 11]and Discipline; as if there could be Church-Members under Government, antecedent to the being of Particular Churches, even when no one that is not a Member of a Particular Church, is a Member of the Universal: As if a City that consists of many particular Houses were in order of nature antecedent to every particular House.

§ 3. That the Unity of the Christian Church consists in one Com­munion. Catholique Unity signifies Catholique Communion. To have a Right to be a Member of the Christian Church, to com­municate in all the several Duties and Offices of Religion with all Christians all the World over, and to partake in all the Pri­viledges of Christians, and to be admitted to the freedom of their conversation, to eat, and drink, and discourse, and trade to­gether. So that such as are not Church-Members have no right to trade among Christians; A pleasant Insinuation!

§ 4. The Unity of the Christian Sacraments, viz. Baptism and the Lords-Supper, prove the Unity of Christian Communion. This is from p. 193. to p. 208.

§ 5. Unity of Church-Power and Government, doth also prove the Unity of Christian Communion. Under this head he main­tains;

• 1. That every Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, by his Ordination is made a Minister of the Catholique Church; though for the bet­ter edification of the Church, the exercise of his Office is more peculiarly confin'd to some particular place.
• 2. Every Bishop and Presbyter receives into the Catholique Church by Baptism, and shuts out of the Catholique Church by Ex­communication.
• 3. That the Catholique Church is united and coupled by the cement of Bishops, who stick close together; for which you produce Cy­prian.
• 4. That the Unity and Peace of the Episcopacy is maintained by their governing their Churches by mutual Consent. Whence you mention the Collegium Episcopale, the Episcopal Colledge, which I take to be a Council of Bishops, which Bishops have an Origi­nal Right and Power in relation to the whole Church, (i.e.) the foreign Bishops, as those of Alexandria and Rome, &c. have an Original Power and Right in relation to the whole Church, [Page 12]even a Right and Power in relation to England.
• 5. That every part of the Universal Church is under the Go­vernment of the Universal Bishops assembled in their Colledge, or in Council; and what Bishop soever abuse his Power, he shall be accountable to those assembled in Council.
• 6. That there is no such thing as the Independency of Bishops, their Independency being almost as inconsistent with Ecclesiasti­cal Unity, as the Indpendency of single Congregations. Whence the Church of England, called either Archi-Episcopal, National, or Patriarchal, is not Independent, but accountable unto Foreign Bishops, if at any time they abuse their Power.
• 7. That this Council of Forreign Bishops, unto which they are accountable, must look on the Bishop of Rome as their Pri­mate; the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome being acknowledged, it seems, by our Author himself, as well as by Bramhall. The Primacy (he saith) out of Cyprian, being given to Peter, that it might appear, that the Church of Christ was One; and the Chair, that is, the Apostolical Office and Power, is One. Thus Cy­prian, on whom lay all the care of the Churches, dispatches Letters to Rome, from whence they were sent through all the Catholique Churches. All this is to be found from p. 208 to the end of the Chapter. Thus you agree with Bramhall, though you express not the Notion so well as he doth, and should learn it better.

Before I proceed therefore, I cannot but desire you to consi­der what is become of your Protestant Episcopacy; I beseech you, Sir, consider, Is the French Episcopacy, a Protestant Episcopacy? If not, seeing the English Episcopacy, as described by you, is the same with the French, Why call you the one a Popish, and the other a Protestant Episcopacy? Whether you agree not in these respects with the Papists, let the world judge.

But you go on to assert,

§ 6. That to be in Commuion with any Church, is to be a Member of it, every Member having equal Right, and equal Ob­ligation to all parts of Christian Communion, even that Com­munion which is External and Visible, p. 132, &c.

§ 7. All Christians being bound to communicate with that part of the Catholique Church wherein they live, are guilty of [Page 13] Schism, if they separate; whoever separate from such particular Churches as are members of the Catholick Church, do separate from the Universal Catholick Church, which is Schism. For to divide from any part of the Catholick Church, is to break Catho­lick communion, i. e. to be a Schismatick. Whence 'tis concluded,

• 1. That Schism is a separating from the Catholick Church, which notion taken singly, will stand the Dissenters and all true Chri­stians who must be acknowledged to be members of the Catho­lick Church, in great stead, freeing them from the odious sin of Schism. The Dissenters divide not themselves from the communi­on of the Universal Church, Ergo, not Schismaticks. But the mis­chief is, that as this notion of Schism which our Author adheres unto, is the same with that of the Papists, as is to be seen in Fi­liucius, Azorius, &c. but in an especial manner in Charity main­tain'd by Catholicks; even so he closes with the same Popish Fa­ction, in asserting,
• 2. That separating from the Church of England is a separa­ting from the Catholick Church, as if the Catholick Church had been as much confin'd within the bounds of the Church of Eng­land, as the Papists says within the limits of Rome. Whence who­ever separates from the Church of England, cuts himself from the Catholick Church, puts himself out of a state of salvation; He is extra Ecclesiam, extra quam nulla salus; they are all, while Schis­maticks, in a state of damnation. But surely if these men belie­ved so much, methinks they should not be at rest until all their unscriptural impositions were removed, unless they have greater kindness for such trifles, than they have for such immortal souls for whom Christ dyed.

By this Doctrine we may understand why 'tis that some of our Clergy shew greater tenderness towards Drunkards, Swear­ers, Papists, than towards poor Dissenters: The former may hold communion with the Church of England, and consequently with the Catholick Church; when the others are undoubtedly in a state of damnation; as if we were all in the same state with Here­ticks.

I'le not (as easily I might) now enlarge, in shewing the weakness which the Dean's Substitute hath discovered in the ma­nagement of this Grotian or Cassandrian Design; but only tell him, That if he had consulted that excellent Treatise The Gro­tian Religion discovered, by Mr. Baxter, he might have seen an un­answerable [Page 14]confutation of a great part of his Book; or if he had rather applied himself unto that great Prelate Bishop Bramhall, a man of extraordinary worth for his Learning, he might have better digested his Notion: For there he would have been fur­nished with such distinctions about Communion, that would have been for his purpose and rectification. In his Defence of the Church of England, Tom. 2. Disp. 2. c. 2. he saith, The Communi­on of the Christian Catholick Church, is partly internal, partly ex­ternal. Among many other things, in discoursing of internal communion, 'tis added, That it is to judg charitably one of ano­ther. To exclude none from the Catholick Communion and hope of sal­vation, either Eastern, or Western, or Southern, or Northern Christi­ans, which profess the ancient Faith of the Apostles and primitive Fathers, established in the first General Councils, and comprehended in the Apostolick, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. This granted by our Author, as describ'd by Bramhall, seeing the Faith con­tain'd in these Creeds is professed by the Dissenters, 'tis queried, Whether or no this Gentleman doth not fall short in this respect of Catholick internal communion, by excluding the Dissenters from the Catholick communion and hope of salvation? Moreover as to external communion, says Bramhall, There are degrees of ex­clusion; every one that is excluded, is not cut off from the Catho­lick Church; for external communion may sometimes be su­spended more or less, by the just censures of the Church clave non errante, as in the primitive times some were excluded a caetu participantium, only from the use of the Sacraments; others a caetu procumbentium, from Sacraments and Prayers also; and others a caetu Audientium, from Sacraments, Prayers, and Ser­mons; and others a caetu Fil [...]lium, from the society of Christi­ans, yea and as it may be suspended, it may be waved, or with­drawn by particular Churches or persons, from their Neighbour Churches, or Christians, in their Innovations or Errors. Nor is there so strict and perpetual an adherence required to a particular Church, as to the universal Church. This surely is enough to intimate how sudden our Authors thoughts were: for had he but deliberated on those things as this great Bishop did, he would not assert so confidently, That the separating from a particular Church that is in the Universal, is a separating from the Universal.

Leaving therefore our Author to receive further light from this Bishop concerning his own notion, I'le make my address to the [Page 15] Reader, beseeching him to apply himself to our Protestant Di­vines for an answer to what is said against the dependency of the Church of England on Foreign Churches, such as Rome, &c. And as to what he saith concerning Schism from the Universal Church, which p. 256. saith he, is when any shall separate from that part of the Catholick Church where they dwell, and set up any distinct Chur­ches meerly for some greater degree of purity. This is so like what the Author of Charity maintain'd by Catholicks, insisted on, that the Memorandums given by the famous Mr. Chillingworth, will be sufficient to enab'e an ordinary capacity to answer the whole he hath asserted about Schism.

1. That not every separation, but a causless separation from the external communion of any Church, is the sin of Schism.

2. That imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication, a ne­cessity of professing known errors, and practising known corruptions, is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation; and that this is the cause which Protestants alledg to justifie their separation from the Church of Rome. To which I must add, That this is the cause which Dis­senters alledg to justifie their separation from the Church of En­gland, it being uncontroulably true, That the professing known errors, and the practising known corruptions, is imposed on Dis­senters on pain of Excommunication, as hath been proved in Mr. Baxter's first Plea for Peace, never answered, but only nibled at by some inconsiderate Scriblers. The Dissenters are convinc'd in conscience, that if they continued in your communion, they should sin against God. What can be offered against this, I know not, unless you'l say unto us thus, viz. If this your pretence of conscience may serve, what Schismatick in the Church, what popular seditious brain in a Kingdom, may not alledg the dictamen of consci­ence to free themselves from Schism or Sedition? No man wishes them to do any thing against their conscience; but we say that they may and ought to rectifie and depose such a conscience, which is easie for them to do. This is what hath been frequently urg'd by the Clergy, yea by the Dean of Pauls. But seeing these words are taken out of the mouth of a Papist, the answer shall be no other than what I find in the mouth of a son of the Church, the famous Chil­lingworth, who asserts, That whoever is convinced in conscience, that the Church of Rome errs, cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of her errors; and the rea­son hereof is manifest, because otherwise he must profess what he be­lieves [Page 16]not, and practice what he approves not; which is no more than your self in thesi have divers times affirmed. For in one place you say, 'tis unlawful to speak any the least untruth. Now he that professes your Religion, and believes it not, what else doth he but live in a perpetual lye? Again, in another, you have called them that pro­fess one thing, and believe another, a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants. And therefore in inveighing against Protestants for forsaking the profession of those Errors, the belief whereof they had already forsaken, what do you but rail at them for not be­ing a damned crew of Sycophants? [The same may be said as to the Dissenters who are in conscience convinced, that they must profess to believe what really they do not, should they con­form]. But as to what the wicked may pretend as to conscience, take the Author's answer: 'Tis said that a pretence of conscience will not serve to justifie separation from being Schismatical; which is true, but little to the purpose, (saith Mr. Chil.) seeing it was but an erroneous persuasion, much less an hypocritical pretence, but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience. And therefore though seditious men in the Church and State, may pretend consci­ence for a cloak of their Rebellion; yet this I hope hinders not but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience, ra­ther than the unjust command of his Tyrannous Superiors. Otherwise with what colour can you defend either your own refusing the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy? I may add, Otherwise with what colour can the Dean and his Substitute defend their so firmly ad­hering to the present Constitution?

But to return to the third Memorandum.

3. That to leave the Church, and to leave the external communi­on of the Church at least, as Dr. Potter understands the words (and I think I may safely add, as every Protestant but a Grotian un­derstands) is not the same thing. That being done by ceasing to be a member of it, by ceasing to have those requisites which constitute a man a member of it, as Faith and Obedience; This by refusing to com­municate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick Worship of God. This little Armour, if it he rightly placed, I am persuaded will repel all those batteries which you threaten shall be so furious. To use the words of Mr. Chil. And for this reason I will now shew the Reader,

That the Model the Deans Substitu [...]a [...]h given us, is what is not only in it self admirably adjusted to accommodate the dif­ference [Page 17]between one Faction of the Church of England, and the Church [not the Court] of Rome, for that is their Distinction; but moreover 'tis very like that of Archb. Laud, for which he was censur'd as a Favourer of Popery.

This I will attempt to perform, by giving you an account of the Charge that was brought in against Laud in the House of Commons by the Lord Faulkland, a true Son of the Church; and the Reply is made thereunto by Dr. Heylin, whereby 'twill ap­pear, that as there is an agreement between Laud's Design and our Authors, even so this as well as that was to bring the Church of Rome and England together.

§ 1. Take My Lord Fauklkland's Speech made in the House of Commons, as represented by Dr. Heylin in the Life of Arch­bishop Laud, p. 383. ‘A little search (saith he) will find them to have been the Destruction of Unity, under pretence of Uniformity; To have brought in Superstition and Scandal, under titles of Reverence and Decency; to have defiled our Church, by adorning our Churches; to have slackned the strict­ness of that Union which was formerly between us and those of our Religion beyond the Seas, an Action as unpolitick as ungodly: Or we shall find them to have resembled the Dog in the Manger, to have neither Preached themselves, nor suf­fered those that would; to have brought in Catechising, only to thrust out Preaching; and cried down Lecturers by the names of Factions, either because their Industry in that Duty appeared a reproof to their neglect of it; or with intention to have brought in Darkness, that they might the easier sow their Tares while it was Night: And by that introduction of Igno­rance, introduce the better that Religion, which accounts it the Mother of Devotion. In which (saith he) they have abused his Majesty, as well as his people; For when he had with great wisdom silenced on both parts those Opinions, which have often tormented the Church, and have and always will trouble the Schools, they made use of this Declaration to tye up one side, and to let the other loose: Whereas they ought either in discre­tion to have been equally restrained, or in Justice to have been equally tolerated. And 'tis observable, that the party to which they gave this Licence, was that, whose Doctrine, though it was not contrary to Law, was contrary to Custom; and for a long time in this Kingdom was no oftner Preached, [Page 18]than recanted, &c. We find them introducing such Doctrines, as admitting them to be true, the truth could not recompence the Scandal; or such as were so far false, as Sir Thomas Moore says of the Casuists, their business was not to keep men from sinning, but to inform them, Quà propè ad peccatum sine pec­cato liceat accedere. So it seemed their work was to try, how much of a Papist might be brought in without Popery; and to de­stroy as much of the Gospel, without bringing themselves into danger of being destroyed by Law. To go yet further, some of them have so industriously laboured to deduce themseves from Rome, that they have given great suspicion that in Gra­titude they desire to return thither, or at least to meet it half way; Some have evidently laboured to bring in an English, though not a Roman Popery. I mean, not only the out side and dress of it, but equally absolute, a blind dependence of the People upon the Clergy, and of the Clergy upon themselves: And have opposed the Papacy beyond the Seas, that they might settle one beyond the Water.’

§ 2. I'll now proceed to the Reply Dr. Heylin makes to this Speech of the Lord Faulkland.

1. He produces the several Protestations of the Archbishop made in the Starchamber, [p. 389, 390, &c.] and at his Tryal be­fore the Lords; and on the Scaffold just before his going out of this world, of his Innocency as to this. Besides, Dr. Heylin doth insist on his. Conference with Fisher the Jesuit, the enlarging that Conference as an Argument that the Archbishop was no Papist.

2. Touching the Design of working a Reconciliation betwixt us and Rome, 'tis acknowledged by Heylin, and the Design ap­plauded. Take his own words, ‘I thought when our Saviour said Beati Pacifici, it had been sufficient warrant to any man to endeavour Peace, to build up the Breaches in the Church, and to make Jerusalem like a City, which is at Unity in it self, espe­cially where it may be done not only Salvâ Charitate, without breach of Charity; but Salvâ Fide too, without wrong to Faith. The greatest part of the Controversies between us and the Church of Rome not being in the Fundamentals, or in any Essential point in the Christian Religion, I cannot but look upon it as a most pious work, to endeavour an Attonement in the Su­perstructures.’ So far Heylin goes to shew both the Lawfulness of the endeavours of a Reconciliation, and then the Possibility [Page 19]of obtaining of it. The which Dr. Heylin no sooner evinces, but he admits that such a Reconciliation was endeavoured betwixt the Agents for both Churches, and gives an hint upon what terms the Agreement was to have been made, and how far they pro­ceeded on it.

3. ‘As to Reconciliation (saith he out of a Book entituled the Pope's Nuncio, affirmed to have been written by a Venetian Am­bassador, at his being in England) between the Churches of England and Rome, there were made some General Proposi­tions and Overtures by the Archbishops Agents; they assuring, that his Grace was very much disposed thereunto: And that if it was not accomplish'd in his Life-time, it would prove a work of more difficulty after his Death. That in very truth, for the last three years the Archbishop had introduced some Innovations, ap­proaching near the Rites and Forms of Rome: That the Bishop of Chichester, a great Confident of his Grace, the Lord Trea­surer, and eight other Bishops of his Grace's party, did most passionately desire a Reconciliation with the Church of Rome; that they did day by day recede from their antient Tenents, to ac­commodate with the Church of Rome; that therefore the Pope ought on his part to make some steps to meet them, and the Court of Rome remit something of its Rigour in Doctrine, or otherwise no accord will be. The Composition on both sides was in so good a forwardness before Panzany left the Kingdom, that the Archbishop and Bishop of Chichester had often said, That there were but two sorts of people likely to impede and hin­der the Reconciliation; to wit, the Puritans amongst the Pro­testants, and the Jesuits amongst the Catholiques.’

‘Let us next see the judgment and relation of another Au­thor, in a Gloss or Comment on the former, entituled The English Pope, Printed at London in the same Year, 1643, and he will tell us, That after Con had undertook the managing of the Affairs, matters began to grow to some Agreement. The King Required, saith he, such a Dispensation from the then Pope, as that his Catholique Subjects might resort to the Protestant Churches, and to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Fidelity; and that the Pope's Jurisdiction here should be declared to be but of Humane Right. And so far had the Pope consented, that what­ever did concern the King therein, should have been really performed, so far as other Catholick Princes usually enjoy and [Page 20]expect as their due: And so far as the Bishops were to be Inde­pendent both from King and Pope, there was no fear of breach on the Pope's part. So that upon the point, the Pope was to content himself amongst us in England with a Priority, instead of a Superiority over other Bishops; and with a Primacy instead of a Supremacy in these Parts of Christendom, which I conceive no man of Learning and Sobriety would have grudged to grant him. It was also condescended to in the name of the Pope, that Marriage might be permitted to Priests; that the Communion might be administred sub utraque specie; and that the Liturgy might be officiated in the English Tongue. And though the Author adds not long after, that it was to be suspected, That so far as the Inferiour Clergy and the People were concerned, the after performance was to be left to the Popes discretion; yet this was but his own Suspicion, without ground at all. And to obtain a Reconciliation upon these advantages, the Archbishop had all the reason in the world to do as he did, in or­dering the Lords-Table to be placed where the Altar stood, and making the accustomed Reverence in all approaches towards it, and accesses to it: In beautifying and adorning Churches, and celebrating the Divine Service with all due Selemnities; in taking care that all offensive and exasperating passages should be expunged out of such Books as were brought to the Press; and for reducing the extravagancy of some Opinions to an evener temper. His Majesty had the like Reason also for Tolerating lawful Recreations on Sundays and Holydays.’

But the Doctor goes on, ‘If you would know how far they had proceeded towards this happy Reconciliation, the Popes Nun­cio will assure us thus, That the Universities, Bishops, and Di­vines of this Realm, did daily embrace Catholick Opinions, though they professed not so much with Pen, or Mouth, for fear of the Puritans. For example, They hold that the Church of Rome is a true Church; That the Pope is Superiour to all Bishops; That to him it appertains to call General Councils; That 'tis lawful to pray for the Souls of the departed; That Altars ought to be erected of Stone: In sum, That they believe all that is taught by the Church, but not by the Court of Rome. Another of their Authors tells us, (as was elsewhere noted) That those amongst us of greatest Worth, Learning, and Authority, began to love Temper and Moderation: That their Doctrines began to be al­tered [Page 21]in many things, for which their Progenitors forsook the Visible Church of Christ; As for example, The Pope not Anti­christ, Prayers for the Dead, Limbus Patrum, Pictures; That the Church hath Authority in determining Controversies of Faith, and to interpret Scriptures about Free-will, Predestination, Uni­versal Grace; That all our Works are not Sins, Merit of good Works, Inherent Justice, Faith alone doth justifie, Charity to be preferr'd before Knowledg, the Authority of Traditions, Commandments possible to be kept: That in Exposition of the Scripture, they are by Canon bound to follow the Fathers; And that the once fearful names of Priests and Altars are used willingly in their Talk and Writings. In which compliances, so far forth as they speak the Truth, saies Heylin (for in some points, through the Ignorance of the One and the Malice of the Other, they are much mistaken) there is scarce any thing which may not very well consist with the established (though for a time discontinued) Doctrine of the Church of England. The Articles whereof, as the same Jesuit hath observed, seem pa­tient, or ambitious rather of some sense wherein they may seem Catholick.’ And such a sense is put upon them by him that calls himself Franciscus â Sancta Clara, as before was said. So far Heylir.

Thus to carry on this Recenciling Design, all the care imagi­nable must be taken to humour the Papist, not only by prose­cuting the Puritan with the greatest severity; but the Pope must not any longer be stigmatized with the name of Antichrist; all exasperating passages in any Book brought to the Press, must be expung'd, not one word of the Gunpowder-Treason; for said Ba­ker the Bishop of London's chaplain, We are not now so angry with the Papists, as we were twenty years ago; and that there was no need to exasperate them; and therefore the Book concern­ing the Gunpowder-Treason, must by no means be reprinted; the Divine Service must be in some respects altered; that whereas the Reformers in Queen Elizabeth's time had a greater kindness for the Pope than those in H. 8. and Ed. 6. manifested by ex­punging a clause against the Pope, viz. From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, Good Lord deli­ver us. Even so in imitation, Archbishop Land changes some phra­ses in the Book of Prayers for the fifth of November. So far a Church of England Dr. To which I might add several other in­stances, [Page 22]but I wish there had not been the woful occasion of insisting on so much.

By this time the Reader may see cause to suspect at least the Deans Substitute, who in the Defence of the Dr. gives us the scheme of the old Grotian model, so much esteemed by the Archbi­shop Laud, who in his walking towards Rome, kept most exactly thereunto.

But notwithstanding this, caution must be had, that we re­proach not all the Church of England as if they had been such as this Author; for I do verily believe there are very few this day in England among the Conforming Clergy, who will ap­prove of this mans notion, but probably may judg themselves as much concerned to oppose it, as any among the Dissenters. I'm sure Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury, and Usher Primate of Ireland, were persons of quite another principle and temper.

And not only Abbot and Usher, but if we may judg of a Queen Elizabeth Protestant by the Writings of the famous Hoo­ker and Dr. Field, we may be sure that this man (to say nothing of the Dean) hath (notwithstanding the great talk of the glory of the first Reformation) forsaken the notion the old church of England had of the church, and of such as are judged Schismati­cal, falling in with the French Papacy about Church-Govern­ment, as I will evince in the next Section.

SECT. II.

THAT our Author entertains notions about the nature of the Visible Church, and of the Schismatical, very different from what the old Queen Elizabeth Protestants did, will appear with the greatest conviction to such as will but consult the fa­mous Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field, who do most expresly contra­dict what is asserted in the Dean's Defence.

The Dean's Defender doth extremely insist on the Unity of the Universal Church, as what doth consist in more than in the Unity of the Faith, though in combination of those other graces of Love, and Charity, and Peace, to wit, in an external communion, Take his own words in answer to a supposed objection.

P. 183. But though Faith alone is not sufficient to Christian U­nity, yet Faith in combination with those other graces of Love, and Charity, and Peace, make a firm and lasting union. This I readily grant (saith he); but yet must add this one thing, That Christian love, and charity, and peace, in the language of the New Testament, and of the ancient Fathers, when they signifie Christian Unity, sig­nifie also one communion, that is, the unity of a Body and Society which is external and visible; and doth not only signifie the union of souls and affections, but the union of an external and visible communion.

P. 184. By the union of an external and visible communion, he means the living in Christian communion and fellowship with each other; that is, a worshipping God together after one and the same external and visible manner.

P. 248. Moreover he adds, That such as separate themselves from the external communion of any particular Church that is part of the Universal, do separate themselves from the Universal visible Church. All Schismaticks, in his opinion, cut themselves off from the visible Catholick Church, even as all such as are excommunicated, are cut off.

This is the notion of the Deans Substitute, which is as agree­able to the sense of the Papist, as 'tis in it self grosly absurd, and different from the doctrine of sound Church of England Prote­stants.

That 'tis agreeable to the sense of the Papists, you'l find in a Conference between Dr. Peter Gunning, and Dr. Pierson, with two Disputants of the Romish Profession. All Schismaticks (say the Romish Disputants) are out of the Church, and quite separate from it, as a part cut off is separate from the body. Schismatick is a term contradistinct to Catholick. No Schismaticks can be true mem­bers of the Catholick church; for Schism, as they define it, is a voluntary separation of one part from the whole true visible church of Christ. The correspondency that there is between the Author of the Deans Defence, and those Papists, about the formal reason of Schism, is as much as if the Defender had fetcht his Definiti­tion [Page 24]of Schism out of their Writings; which notion, as embrac'd by one that professes himself a Protestant, is as grosly absurd, as 'tis contrary unto Protestant principles.

I say, such a notion entertain'd by a professed Protestant, is grosly absurd; for it exposeth him to the triumph of the Ro­man-catholicks, it being impossible that the Papists, notwithstand­ing their Schismatical Impositions, should be esteemed Schisma­tical by our Author. For all such as are Schismatical, are (saith he) cut off from the visible Catholick Church, of which the Church of Rome is acknowledged to be a true part, although from it these men, as they are Protestants, separate, and so cut them­selves off from the Catholick visible Church; for such as separate from any true part of the Catholick church, according unto him, do cut themselves off from the Catholick church, and are Schismaticks.

Take a view then of the admirable abilities of our Auther, who must be considered to assert, either that the Church of Rome is Schismatical, or not. If not Schismatical, the church of England must be so, or otherwise there may be a separation from the external communion of a particular Church that is a part of the Universal, without being guilty of Schism or of se­parating from the Catholick church. But if the Church of Rome be Schismatical, 'tis either cut off from the visible Catholick church, or not; if not, then Schism consists not in a separating from the visible Catholick church; that is, a man may be a Schis­matick, and yet a member of the catholick church, a thing that our Author denies. But if the church of Rome be cut off from the visible Catholick church, then the distressed Papist is in as sad a condition as the Dissenter; he is cut off from the church of Christ, and must be either damn'd, or saved by another Name than that of Jesus Christ. If the latter, then farewell Christian Religion. If the former, Where shall we find any part of the Universal Church beside the Church of England? All the Protestants beyond the Sea are in the same state with the Dissenter at home; The Church of Rome, and all such as are in Subjection to that See, are cut off from the Visible Catholick Church, and it may be all the Eastern Churches in the World too; that is, the Catholick Visible Church is confin'd within the Pale of the Church of England. Pure Prelatical Donatism with a witness! Where will not Considence, when the attendant of Ignorance, lead men. Moreover,

This Notion as 'tis grosly absurd, in like manner 'tis most contrary to the old Protestant Principles. Consult Hooker's Ec­clesiastical Polity, lib. 3. and you'll find nothing more fully asser­ted than, That the Visible Church of Jesus Christ is therefore One in outward Profession of those things, which supernaturally appertain to the very essence of Christianity, and are necessarily required in every particular Christian man. — But we speak now of the Visible Church, whose Children are signed with this mark, One Lord, one Faith, one Baptifm. In whomsoever these things are, the Church doth acknowledg them for her Children. So far Hooker. But you will, it may be, object, That such as are Schismatical, or Ex­communicate, may acknowledge One Lord, hold One Faith, and receive One Baptism, And shall such be consider'd as Members of the Visible Church? Take Mr. Hooker's own words for an Answer, If by external Profession they be Christians, then are they of the Visible Church of Christ; and Christians by external Profession are they all, whose mark of Recognizance hath in it those things which we have mentioned; yea; although they be impious Idolaters, wicked Hereticks, Persons Excommunicable, yea and cast out for notorious Improbity.

Thus 'tis evident, that Mr. Hooker entertain'd apprehensions quite contrary to those of our Author; yea and Mr. Hooker doth consider the very Notion asserted by our Author to be Popish, which he doth as such most excellently expose. As for the Act of Excommunication, (saith he) it neither shuts out from the Mysti­cal, nor clean from the Visible, but only from the Fellowship with the Visible in holy Duties. In contradiction to which the Dean's Substitute's Assertion is, p. 226. That Excommunication casts a man out of the visible Society of Christ's Church, not of this or that par­ticular Church only, but of the Whole Christian Church. — He that is cast out of one Church, is thereby cast out of all, and separa­ted from the Body of Christ, which is but One. — And therefore such are out of a state of Salvation. As if it had been said in op­position to Mr. Hooker, Such as are Excommunicate are shut out clean from the Visible Church, yea and from the Mystical Church. A Notion that Mr. Hooker considers as held by none but Papists, for he immediatly addresseth himself to the Church of Rome, thus; With what congruity then (saith he) doth the Church of Rome deny, that her enemies whom she holds always for Here­ticks, do at all appertain to the Church of Christ? — How ex­clude [Page 26]they us from being any part of the Church of Christ, under the colour and pretence of Heresie, when they cannot but grant it possible, even for him [i. e. the Pope] to be as touching his own personal per­swasion Heretical, who in their opinion not only is of the Church, but holdeth the chief place of Authority over the same? The like may be said by way of Answer unto our Author. Moreover the Learned and Judicious Dr. Field, Son of the Church, is as full in contradicting what is asserted by our Author. For this Dr. of the Church, discoursing about the Schismatick, says, lib. 1. c. 13. That their departure is not such, but that notwithstanding their Schisme, they are and remain parts of the Church of God. — Schis­maticks, notwithstanding their Separation, remain still conjoyn'd with the rest of God's people, in respect of the profession of the whole saving Truth of God, all outward acts of Religion, and Divine Wor­ship, Power of Order, and Holy Sacraments, which they by vertue thereof administer, and so still are and remain parts of the Church of God. — The like is asserted of such as are cast out by Ex­communication, c. 15.

But I'll not enlarge any further, having sufficiently evinc'd, that the Opinions of this man, who treats the Dissenters with so much scorn and contempt, are such as were antiently by Queen Elizabeths Protestants exploded as Popish; and at this very time, I verily believe, rejected by the greatest part of the Episcopal Clergy; and that the Contest now is not so much between Dissenters and the Church of England, as between a few under the name of the Church of England on the one part, and the greater number of the Church of England, with the Dissenter, on the other. The former under the notion of running down Dis­senters, are preparing materials to meet the Papist: The other, to the end they may the more effectually prevent the Designs of Rome, have sent forth their Plea for the Nonconformist, finding themselves concern'd to check the Insolence of those, who in this day of common Calamity, would ruine the conscientious Protestant Dissenter.

This being so, I must beseech the Reader not to misapprehend me in what follows, as if I had been speaking reproachfully of the Church of England; because I cannot but discover, how a­greeable the Sentunents of the Deans Substitute about Church-Government are, unto those embrac'd by the French Papist.

That I may the more clearly shew what are the mischievous [Page 27]Tendencies of our Author's Notion about Church-Government, I will give in short, the most distinct, and truest state of the Controversie I can, shewing what is granted by sound Protestants, and what not; What are the Doctrines of the Papists: How far the French and Italian Papist agree, and wherein they differ, and in what respects the Dean's Substitute concurs with the French.

§ 1. All are so far agreed as to conclude, That God hath had a Church at all times in every Age of the World. We might be very particular in considering the divers Denominations under which the Church falls, answerable to the divers capacities of the Members thereof, and the divers states in which it is and hath been, which I shall at this time pass by.

§ 2. That the Church is but One, one Body united to one Head.

§ 3. That this One Church must be considered, as the Mem­bers thereof are scattered up and down the World, &c. and as they are joyned together in particular Societies. The former is call'd the Church Universal, the other a Particular Church.

The Papists themselves do acknowledge, That the Church must be considered as Universal and as Particular; though they look'd on the Universal to be such, whose whole existence was in Particulars; as Universale est unum in multis singularibus: Whence it follows, That such as are not members of a Parti­cular Church, they belong not unto the Catholick Visible Church. This very Notion hath been embrac'd by some, to wit, the Old Independents; but of late it hath been generally exploded by Divines of that name, they leaving it to entertain such as the Dean's Substitute.

§ 4. That the Church of Christ is under Government. There is such a thing as Church-Government Jure divino.

The Papists, both French and Italian; The Protestants, whe­ther Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregational, or Anabaptist, hear­tily agree in Thesi about this.

§ 5. The great difference is concerning what that Church-Go­vernment is, which is of Divine Institution: Where 'tis seated, whether in a Particular, or in the Universal Church; and whe­ther it be Monarchical, Aristocratical, or Democratical, or mixt.

§ 6. The Papists, with whom the Doctor's Substitute doth a­gree, assert, That the Universal Church is the [...]of Church-Government; That all Church-Officers belong to the [Page 28]Universal Church, and have an Original Right to govern the whole Universal Church.

Take the notion as found in the Defence. We must (saith he) consider, that all the Apostles had relation to the whole Church; and therefore, though being finite creatures they could not be every where at a time, but betook themselves to different places, and planted Chur­ches in several Countreys, and did more peculiarly apply themselves to the government of those Churches which they themselves had planted, and ordained Bishops to succeed them in their care and charge; yet their Original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church, did still remain, which they might re-assume when they saw occasion for it; and which did oblige them to take care as far as pos­sibly they could, that the Church of Christ suffer'd no injury by the he­resie or evil practises of any of their Colleagues. P. 212.

§ 7. The Protestants (excepting some obscure Writers) assert particular Churches to be the [...]of Church-Govern­ment; among whom there are these differences.

• 1. The Episcopal and Presbyterian differ from the Congregatio­nal and Anabaptistical about the extent of particular Churches, e. g. the latter concluding that their number must be no more than are capable of personal communion; the former contrarily judg, That a company of a greater extent may be included within the confines of a particular Church, who in the management of their discourses concerning it, give too great an advantage unto the Papacy.
• 2. The Episcopal and Presbyterian differ from some of the Congregational concerning the nature of Discipline, the Congre­gational being esteemed as espousers of a Democracy, or Popu­lacy, the other against it.
• 3. The Episcopal differs from the Presbyterian, in that the E­piscopal are for a Monarchy, the Presbyterian for an Aristocracy.

§ 8. All Protestants generally agree in asserting the Indepen­dency of particular Churches.

'Tis notorious that the Church of England established by Law; is a particular National Church, independent on any Foreign Power whatsoever. Such is the constitution of our Church, that what Bishop soever is found an abuser of his Power, he is not accoun­table to any Colledg of Bishops, but such as are conven'd by his [Page 29]Majesties Authority; and that what apprehensions soever he may have of his being griev'd through any undue procedure, he cannot make any Appeal to any Foreign Power from the King.

'Tis the King who is the Supreme Head of the Church of England; there is no Power on earth equal unto, or above his in Ecclesiastical Affairs. To appeal unto any Foreign Power, whether unto one Bishop singly, or unto many by consent assem­bled, 'tis to do what tends to the subverting the present Consti­tution; yea, 'tis to subvert the very foundation of our Govern­ment, as 'tis opposite unto a French or an Italian Papacy.

Whoever consults the many Laws made in Henry the 8th's time, Edward the 6th's, and Queen Elizabeths, cannot but be fully satisfied that the Appeal of any Bishop, or any other per­son, from the King unto any other Foreign Power, is contrary un­to the ancient Laws of this Realm; and that such as shall ven­ture the doing so, run themselves into a Praemunire. For 'tis most apparent, that our National Church of England is a particu­lar Independent Church. That neither the Pope of Rome, nor the Bishop of Paris, nor any other Foreign Bishops, have any Ori­ginal Right or Power in relation to England; and that therefore their assuming any such power, is a sinful Usurpation. All this is undoubtedly true. Yet,

§ 9. The Deans Substitute exposeth the Independency of Epi­scopal particular Churches, as what is inconsistent with Catho­lick Union; and asserts, That if any Bishops abuse their Pow­er, they are accountable unto a General Council, that is, unto a Foreign Power, whereby he doth his utmost to tare up the Church of England by the Roots, to subvert his Majesties Su­premacy, as if all the Laws of the Land concerning it had not been of any force. All this by Dr. Stilling fleet's Defender.

That this is so, I'le evince from our Authors own words, which are as follow, And now I cannot but wonder (saith he) to find some Learned men very zealous assertors of the Independency of Bishops, and to alledg St. Cyprians Authority for it: for what ever difficulty there may be in giving an account of every particular say­ing in St. Cyprian, certainly he would never be of this opinion, who asserts but One Chair, One Apostolical Office and Power, which now resides in the Bishops of the Universal Church; for when the same [Page 30]Power is in ten thousand hands, it can be but One only by Unity of consent in the exercise of it; and 'tis very wild to imagine that any one of these persons who abuse this Power, shall not be accounta­ble to the rest for it, i. e. to the Colledg of Bishops; for (saith he soon after) if we consider the practise of the ancient Church, we shall find that they never thought every Bishop to be Independent, but as liable to the censure of their Colleagues, as Presbyters and Dea­cons were to the censure of their Bishops. P. 212. So far our Au­thor, who doth as it were expresly assert, That the Archbishop of Canterbury, though Metropolitan and Primate of England, if he a­buses his Power, is accountable unto the General Council, when by consent assembled; that is, the Archbishop, who is not in pow­er above any other Bishops, (as is by the Deans Substitute assert­ed) abusing his Power, is accountable to some Court above any in this Realm, to a General Council, a Colledg of Bishops.

§ 10. Although the Papists generally assert, That the Univer­sal Church is the [...]of all Church-Government as hath been already intimated; yet there's a difference between the French and Italian Papist about the kind of the Government; the one insisting on an Aristocracy, the other on a Monarchy, i. e. the French holds, That the pars Regens of the Universal Church is a General Council; the Italian, That it is one single person, viz. the Bishop of Rome.

There hath been in the Church of Rome for some hundred years, a great contest concerning the Supreme Regent part of the Universal Church, Whether it be a General Council, or the Pope. Whether a General Council be above the Pope, or the Pope above a General Council. About which the Church of Rome is fallen into three parts, as Bellarmine asserts.

1. That the P [...]pe is the Supreme Head of the Church, and so much above a General Council, that he cannot subject himself thereunto. The Government of the Universal Church, though mixt, being composed of a Democracy, Aristocracy, and Monar­chy, yet principally 'tis Monarchical. The Supreme Power be­ing immediately lodg'd in the Monarch, who is the Bishop of R [...]me, Christs Vicar, and Peter's Successor, he is above a General Council, and not accountable to any on earth for any abuse he may be guilty of. Of this opinion, saith Bellarmine, are all the Schoolmen generally, especially Sanctus Antonius, Jeannes de [Page 31]Turrecremata, Alvarus Pelagius, Dominicus Jacobatius, Cajetan, Pighius, Ferrariensis, Augustinus de Aneena, Petrus de Monte, &c. Yea, this is the sense of the Jesuits generally, and of all such as are engag'd to support the Court of Rome, as are the Italian Bi­shops, for which reason I call it Italian Popery.

2. There are some among the Canonists who assert, That the Pope is above a General Council, but yet may subject himself hereunto.

3. There are others who assert, That a General Council is a­bove the Pope, that the Supreme Governing-power over the whole Catholick Church is given them immediately; that the Pope, as e­very other Bishop, is accountable to the General Council.

This is what hath been asserted by the Council at Constance, Anno 1315. and by that of Basil, Anno 1431. and by many Learned Divines in the Church of Rome, viz. Cardinal Camera­censis, Jeannes Gerson, Jacobus Almain, Nicolas Cusanus, Panor­mitanus, and his Master Cardinal Florentinus, as also by Abu­lensis.

Gerson being a Chancellor at Paris, had many followers among the French, who at this very day assert, That the Supreme Re­gent part of the Universal Church, is a General Council; for which reason I conclude, that such as assert, That a General Council is the Political Head or Regent part of the Universal Church, are in the number of French Papists.

Thus Cassander, yea and Grotius, as to Church-Government, were for a French Papacy. Whether the Dean's Substitute be or be not, I'le leave to the impartial censure of the judicious R [...] ­der, who is desired to consider his notion as compared with that of the Parisians.

1. The Dean's Substitute doth suggest, That the Universal Church is the first Seat of Government; 'tis a political organiz'd Body, in which there is a Pars Imperans & Subdita, the Bishops in their Colledg being the Governours, or Pars Imperans, and all others of the Universal Church the subdite part.

It may be our Author to gratifie the Dean, will deny the U­niversal Church to be a political organiz'd body, as indeed he doth; but 'tis even when he's resolv'd to assert, That the Universal church is the Seat of Government and Discipline; as if there could be any Government in any Society, without a governing and go­verned parts. But so it is, as a National, even so the Univer­sal [Page 32]church with him is not a political body, that is, 'tis not such a body unto whose constitution a pars Imperans and subdita is ne­cessary, even when its constitution is such that it cannot be but there must be in it some Governours, and other Governed. Ther [...] is not a Regent part in the Catholick Church, but there is a Go­verning part; that is, there are Governours, viz. the Catholick Bishops in their Colledg, who are the Governours of the Ca­tholick church.

Thus our Learned Gentleman in one place endeavouring to fetch the Dean off from that difficulty Mr. Humphreys had dri­ven him unto, concerning the constitutive Regent part of the church of England as National, doth say, The Dean answers in my poor opinion, with great judgment and consideration, We deny any necessity of such a constitutive Regent part—For though a Na­tional church be one body, yet it is not such a political body as Mr. B. describes, i. e. there is no such Government as cannot be without a Pars Regens & Subdita, p. 562. And yet he grants, That Church-Governours united and governing by consent, are the pars Imperans, and christian peoplo in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour, submitting to such government, are the pars subdita. p. 565. All which is true (saith he) without a Constitutive Regent Head, (i. e.) There is a Governing part or a pars Regens; or to speak English, a Constitutive Regent part or Head, without a Consti­tutive Regent Head. The like is asserted of the Universal Church, namely, That it is a Church governed by the Colledge of Bishops, which Colledge of Bishops are the Pars Imperans, though not the constitutive Regent part. For we must allow him to wallow in his contradictions. But a Governing part there is in the Universal Church, which Governing part is com­pos'd of Bishops.

II. The Governours of the Universal Church are Catholick Bi­shops in Council, who though they are equals, and as such have no Superiority over one another, p. 213. yet the Colledge, or these Bishops assembled, have Authority and command over any of its collegues; that is, every single Bishop is under the Autho­rity and command of this Foreign Council.

III. The Catholick Church is One, when it is not rent and divided, but united and coupled by the cement of Bishops, who stick c [...]ose together, p. 596.

The result of all is, That the Catholick Church of Christ be­ing [Page 33]one Visible Political Body, it is a compleatly Organiz'd body on Earth, hath its Governing and Governed parts; The Visible Governing part being a Terrestrial Numerical Head, though collective, viz. A Colledge of Bishops, a General Council.

A Notion that doth not only subvert the present constitution of the Church of England, that thinks not it self accountable to any such Forreign Power; but moreover in it self as grosly ab­surd, as 'tis suited to the French, the Cassandrian, or the Grotian Model, leading us all to Unite with all the other parts of the Catholick Church, by rendring an unwarrantable Obedience unto such a Governing Power as is seldom in being, and when so, as dangerous and of as destructive a tendency to the Government of Jesus Christ, as that of the Italian Papacy.

But whether our Author had a clear prospect of this Intreague, when at first he was put on it, I'll not venture to determine; it being sufficient that I have fully proved, That the New-Mo­dell'd Episcopacy of this Gentleman is the same with that of the French; which is as inconsistent with the old-establish'd Episco­pacy of our Church, as is the Italian Papacy. For if our Au­thor may safely exceed the bounds of those Laws, that do with the greatest Severity forbid our Appeal to any Forreign Power, by addressing himself unto a Forreign Colledge, Why may not ano­ther presume to make his Appeal to the Court of Rome? What Reason can be given for the One, which will not prove cogent for the Other; especially to such, who, living where they have constant experiences of the excellency of a Monarchical Govern­ment in the State, may be easily induced to conclude Monarchy as admirable in the Church, and then farewel Impossibilities, viz. General Councils, a Roman Monarch in the Church being much more desirable.

Having thus given a true state of the Controversie, whereby we find our Author to agree exactly with the French Papist about G [...]vernment, asserting the Universal Church as such, to be a Go­verned Body, in which there is a Governour, and the Governed; 'twill be requisite, that as I have shewn what are some of the Absurdities which flow from it, that I do moreover evince it to be in it self unsound and false.

That this may the more clearly and with the greater con­viction be performed, I will be so just, as to do our Author all the right imaginable, by taking notice what he seems to assert, and [Page 34]what he's resolv'd to deny, and accordingly proceed to the strictest disquisition after the Truth.

Our Author asserts, That the Universal Church, as such, is the Seat of Government, 'tis a Body under Government; as much as if it had been said, There must be in it a Governing, and a Go­verned part. It being impossible that Government should be without Order, which Order is secundum sub, & Supra. Where­ver there is Government, there must be a Superiour part Go­verning, and an Inferiour Governed. There must be Dominus & Subditus. This our Author seems to grant, when he doth to this Assertion of the Government of the Universal Church, add his thoughts about the Governours thereof; which, he saies, are the Universal Bishops assembled in Council.

But alrhough this is what our Author doth assert, he doth not­withstanding resolutely deny the Universal Church to be a Political Body; what he saith of a National, that he asserts of the Univer­sal Church, both which are Govern'd Societies, but neither a Political Body; p. 564, 565. All which is to fetch off the Dean from Mr. Humphrey's and Mr. B's unanswerable Queries concerning the constitutive Regent part of a National church, whose existence must be acknowledged, if a National church as such be a Governed church, or a Body Politick; but yet this cannot be found out. For which reason they distinguish between a Governed Society and a Body Politick; between a Governing and a Regent part, and as­sert, That the National church is a Govern'd Society, but not a Bo­dy Politick; that it hath a Governing, but not a Regent part; the like of an Universal church.

This is the true state of our Author's Judgment, wherein we have an admirable account of the Gentleman's acute distingui­shing, the excellency of which I'll leave to the entertainment of his Admirers; and if he please, consider the Notion according to his own stating it: that is, to gratifie him, I won't insist on the word Policy, nor Regent, nor constitutive Regent part; but only on government, Governours, and Governed; and so our Enquiry being about the Government of the Universal Church, we must consider what is necessary thereunto, and see whether what our Author asserts be agreeable unto such a constitution; for if not so, 'tis far from Truth.

To consider what it is that is necessary to the constitution of any Governed Body; that is, what is so necessary, that the [Page 35]absence thereof is destructive to the Constitution? To this I An­swer,

That a Governing, and a Governed part is so necessary unto Goverement, that where either one of these be absent, there can be no Government. A Governed Body cannot be without a Governing part, neither can this be without a part Governed. Go­vernment doth necessarily infer both these; remove either one, & the Government is destroyed. Government is a Relation result­ing from that mutual respect the Governing and Governed parts have to each other, whence as Sublato uno Relatorum tollitur & alterum; and where there is nor Subject nor Term, (i. e.) nor Relate nor Correlate, there can be no Relation. Remove the Go­verning part from the Universal or National Church, and the Government ceases. Paternity may be where there is no Fa­ther, assoon as Government without a Governing part. Whence I infer, That where there is a Fixed Government, there must be a fixed Governing part.

This premised, Let us next enquire, whether or no what our Author asserts, be suitable to this undoubted Rule? Doth he shew us such a Governing part? The Government is a constant fixed Government, but where is the constant fixed Governing part? 'Tis a General Council, saith he, i. e. the universal Bishops in their Colledge assembled. But is this a fixed Governing part? Is it not evident to an ordinary capacity, that the assembling such a Council of all the Bishops in the World, is a difficulty insupera­ble; and that without such an Assembly, 'tis impossible they should by joynt consent govern the Universal Church. The astembling of the Catholick Bishops is as easie as the gathering together their consent per literas format as, and much more conducive to the desired End; because when assembled they can debate the mat­ters before 'em, and with the greater judgment give their deter­minations.

But 'tis well known, that had such an Assembly been possible, yet the Church of God for the first 300 years, had no such As­sembly, excepting that in the Apostles days, i. e. it had no such Governing part; which is as if it had been said, There was no Government in the Universal Church the first 300 years.

To gratifie our Author, Let us suppose that the Universal Church is as such a Governed Society, and that it hath its Go­vernours, [Page 36]But though this be so, yet it must be still acknowedged, that a Governour cannot be without Power to Govern; I would therefore beseech my Author to shew me, What is that Power with which this Colledge of Bishops are invested? Is it Legislative only, or also Executive? Whether the one or the other, is it in the Colledge Subjectively and Formally, or only in 'em as in fine seu regulante, or supplente, or How? 'Twould be necessary that our Author consult the Parisian Doctors, if he will speak to the purpose, when he espouses their Notion.

Let our Author assert as it pleaseth him at an adventure, it matters not, for his Notion is such as necessarily directs us to conclude what he must, if he will be consistent with himself, as­sert, and that is this, All Church-Government is Universal, and as such it must be exercised; no one being a Governour in the Church, but he that is a Catholick Officer: That the due course of exer­cising this Power is, when it flows originally from the Head unto all its Members. That it flows from the Invisible, or ra­ther unseen Head in Heaven immediately unto the visible Head on Earth, is granted by all those who assert an Universal Church-Government; though there is a Dispute among the Papists, whether this Head be the Council, or the Pope. As it flows immediately from Christ to the visible Head, so it proceeds from this visible Head unto the Patriarchs, from thence to the Metro­politans, from thence to the Diocesans. For which Reason if any are injur'd by their Diocesan, they may Appeal to their Metropolitan, from thence to their Patriarch, from thence to the Pope or Council. This our Author must hold. That there may be no wrong done the Little Ones of Christ, if any be grieved by One, he may Appeal unto an Higher, till he comes unto the Highest Power on Earth; from whence if he find not relief, he must acquiesce, leaving the whole to him who is in Heaven. But if there be no constant visible Head actually existing, where shall the grieved lodge his last Appeal? The Dean's Substitute supposes an equality of Power in Patri­archs, Metropolitans, and Diocesans; whence if his Diocesan doth abuse his Power, he is not accountable to any Metropo­litan, nor Patriarch, but only unto the Catholick Colledge. The which being so, 'twill follow, That Executive Power must be lodg'd in some Supreme Head Subjectively, who can receive [Page 37]Appeals: I say Subjectively, or Formally, and not only Virtually; for 'tis an Executive Power only that can relieve in this case; which cannot Actually be, where 'tis only Virtually. For which Reason 'tis evident, that according to our Author, there must be a fixed Governing part invested with an Executive Power, from whom relief is to be expected, if at any time the Diocesan doth abuse his Power; which Governing part must be either a Colledge of Bishops, or one single Person. And if the obtaining the former be, as indeed 'tis impossible, the acknowledging the latter is ne­cessary.

Thus we see how fairly this Gentleman at length leads us to Rome, or some other Pope, as the only necessary way of governing the Church. In doing which, he doth but carry on the Project, of which Sir Francis Winnington takes notice at the Trial of the Lord Stafford, when he assured the Lords, That as an encouragement to the POPISH PLOTTERS, there did appear in some men too easie and favourable a Disposition towards the PA­PISTS. They were grown strangely MODERATE towards these OLD ENEMIES of our Church and State. New PRO­JECTS of RECONCILING of us were set on foot, and Books were written to distinguish the Church of Rome from the Court of Rome. One of those Books, which was Printed the year before the Discovery of the Plot, pretends, That there ought to be a Difference made between Papists of LOYAL and DISLOYAL Principles. This Book, as it was written more ARTIFICIALLY than the rest, and Published in so Critical and Dangerous a Jun­cture, deserves, and I doubt not in time will have a particular Con­sideration. 'Tis easie to believe how great Encouragement this must give to the ROMANISTS, to see how very willing men were to meet them, and how freely the Pen was drawn in their Favour.

By this time the Reader may easily see who 'tis that is subser­vient to the Popish Design, and without any further help clearly perceive what is the Tendency of our Author's Discourse. There remaineth only one objection which calls for our observation, the which can be no sooner remov'd, but the Reader may be fully satisfied in this, viz. That 'tis not impossible for one who Assents and Consents to the Thirty nine Articles, the Book of Common-prayer, and of Homilies, to drive on a French (not to say a Popish) Design.

The Objection that occurs to a common capacity, is, How can such that give in Assent and Consent to all that is said of the excellency of the present Establishment, do any thing that tends to its subversion?

The Answer is easie; You must distinguish between the say­ings and the things assented and consented unto. For you do not Assent unto the Sayings, though about the excellency of the pre­sent Establishment, but the Things; for saith he, p. 105. We do not give our Assent to every saying in the Common-prayer-book, but to every thing which is contained in, and prescrib'd by it; that is, what we are bound to use. Whence observe, That seeing a Papist can comply with all the Ceremonies in use, even when he cannot Assent to all the Sayings in the Common-prayer-book, he may give in his Assent, and Consent, and be as true a Son of the Church of England as our Author is.

SECT. III.

THE Enquirer charges the Dean and some of the Episcopal, to be against any compliances with the Dissenter, as if they set a greater value on the Honour and Reputation of men, than on Union, or the relieving tender consciences, which is said to be a ma­licious and impudent charge. Words very modest, as they drop from our Author's pen!

To this I'le reply, if possibly, modestly, without passing any further censure on the heat with which the Deans Defender ex­presseth himself.

'Tis true I did charge the Dean and some others of the E­piscopal, as persons who would not condescend to part with the least Iota for Union, for these Reasons: [Page 39]

• 1. The Dissenters have used all just means, but without suc­cess, for the obtaining of it.
• 2. Some of the Episcopal Clergy have for these last Twenty years made it their business to stir up Authority to a severe ex­ecution of such Laws as were made against Dissenters.
• 3. They were not ashamed to expose His Majesty to the great contempt of His people, when he began to shew pity and compassion to the oppressed Dissenters. What Invectives came out after it! What Satyrical Declamations against it!
• 4. The Dr. himself judg'd a severe execution of Laws against Dissenters, to be the most effectual means for the obtaining a firm and a lasting Union. And therefore,

• 1. Preached that Sermon which has been the shameful occa­sion of our late contests. Thus they press for a Comformity as the only way to Union, as if there can be no Union among Christians without such Uniformity.
• 2. He so states the case between Relief and no Relief to Dis­senters, as to incline more for no Relief. He hath but Three Ar­guments for Relief, and Six against it. Dr. Stil. Preface, p. 53, 54.
• 3. He inveighs against a boundless Toleration, as the Mother of all confusion; and then tells us, That the suspension of Penal Laws against Protestant Dissenters, is to open the Flood-gates to such a boundless Toleration; and yet they are for great Abatements.

In fine, 'tis remarkable, That notwithstanding the many Pro­testations made of a propension toward a real union between Conformist and Nonconformist, nothing is more notoriously evi­dent, than that those among the Dissenters who are mostly dispo­sed to some compliances with the Episcopal, are above all others hated and contemned by such as our Author.

There are some among Dissenters, (namely the Reverend Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Humphrey,) whose Moderation in these things hath been ever since their ejection for their Nonconfor­mity practically discover'd to the whole Kingdom. They fre­quently attend on the Conformists Ministry, not scrupling to be present at their prayers, nor at the Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per. Yea, they shew with the greatest evidence desirable, That their disposition toward the accommodating the matters in differ­ence [Page 40]between Conformist and Nonconformist is such, that nothing but apparent sin should hinder their conformity. But yet none more expos'd to contempt by the Dean and his Substitute, than these men! 'Tis Mr. Baxter who writes in a continued fit of an­ger. 'Tis he is the man to be pitied; and no wonder, for his Substitute gives great reason for it, viz. Mr. B. is the Judas, the most dangerous Enemy that lodges in the bosome of the Church; a Cataline, a Protean Religionist, who transforms himself into all shapes; and differs from the Hobbist only in this, That the Hobbist is for being always of his Prince's Religion, but he is always for being against it. P. 234.

This is the character which the Dean's Defender gives of that Reverend and Peaceable Divine, Mr. Baxter, and that principally, because he is so much inclin'd to unite with the Conformist; as if the Gentleman, and such as are of his Gang, were afraid of a Protestant Union.

But, Sir, is this the way to Union? Is this the way to peace? What, to let out all your wrath, and rage, and fury, against such as are most peaceable, and ready to unite with you? What thinking and unbiassed mind can be persuaded to con­clude, That those very men, who after such an unclean and in­decent manner revile the peace-maker, are in love with peace? Is it possible that he who considers so complying a person as Mr. Baxter is, to be for that reason a Judas, a Cataline, a Pro­tean Religionist, should be pleased with his compliances?

This certainly doth but discover, That if the Nonconform­ists could conscientiously conform to more than really they can, it would not conduce to their relief, if such as our Author could prevent; They must do all you exact, or else no peace to be expected; they must comply with every iota, or no Union. Moreover, when they have conformed to every impos'd iota, they must also separate themselves from all the good Christians in the Land that are not of their persuasion in every thing, or be still Schismatical: yea, though a man conforms, if he be more of a C [...]ristia [...] temper than our hot and fiery Author, that is, if he be but compassi nate towards Dissenters, shewing a tender­ness to their Consciences, 'tis enough to make him the object of their rage. Witness he Countrey Conformist, who notwithstand­ing the greatness of his Learning, and the excellency of [Page 41]his temper, discovered in his Remarks, is treated by the Dean's Substitute, Pref. p. 6. as one who is for raising a Civil War for the pulling down Church and State, to set up a Presbyterian Parity. Thus they deal with such as are for Peace, and yet would be thought to be for great Abatements for peace sake, as men sin­cerely dispos'd to unite with us; that is, they are so, if it may be without parting with one iota for Union.

The High-flown Conformists, with whom only our present Controversie is, are very much for Union, even when 'tis most obvious, that the utmost they are for, is the exposing the Dis­senter: Let the Dissenters do what they can, these men will not be pleased. There are several sizes among the Dissenters, some can Conscientiously do more for Union than others can; but they that do the most, are not freer from the lash of their Tongues and Pens, nor from the execution of their Laws than the other. If they come not to Church, then they are Disobedient, Seditious, Factions, and what not? If they do go to the Church, they are Judasses, Catalines, Protean Religionists, Hobbists, &c.

These things consider'd, Let any moderate man judge, what 'tis they'll part with for Union, what are those Iota's. Not that I accuse all Conformists, but a few, even those only who are of the same stamp with our Author, who seem to raze the founda­tions of the present Constitution; For I am confident, that there are many of the very Clergy, who desire nothing so much as the Peace of the Church, and the relieving tender Consciences. And as for the Magistracy, 'tis evident, that as few, or none delight to execute the Laws against Dissenters, even so 'tis in the heart of our Sovereign, the House of Lords, and of the Commons of En­gland, that an Expedient be found out for the uniting Protestants, and the easing those burdens that have so long lain on Dissenters; so that through God's Grace we may see a happy Union among Protestants, even when the Dean and his Substitute will not part with an Iota for it.

But you'll say, the Dr. makes Proposals for Union in the very Preface against which I write. Answ. 1. If the Doctor contra­dicts himself, whose fault is that? But 2. 'Tis true the Dean made a Proposal of some Abatements in order unto Union, but unto whom? Let our skilful Interpreter, the Dean's Substitute de­clare. The Dean saith, We do heartily and sincerely desire Union, &c. [Page 42] The meaning of which is, (saith our Dean's Interpreter) that we are sincerely willing to make any Condescensions for Peace-sake, which will not overthrow the Church of England, nor insinuate a false and scandalous Accusation of the Unlawfulness of our Constitu­tion and Rites of Worship, which we cannot do with a safe Con­science, because we believe the contrary, &c. And we are not so charitable to give ease to other mens Consciences to injure our own, and thereby condemn the Reformation, &c.

In answer unto this, I must say, what I did unto the Dean, [Enquiry, p. 33.] It must be observed, That Dissenters not Con­forming to Episcopacy and Ceremonies, is a judging them Un­lawful; which is in the Opinion of our Churchmen, a casting a Reproach and Dishonour on the Reformation of the Church of England, &c. To which I add, That the Churches parting with any of those Rites of Worship, which the Dissenters cannot con­scienciously comply with, may insinuate into the minds of some men the Notion of their Unlawfulness. Whence, if there must be no Abatements made, but such as do not insinuate an Un­lawfulness in the Episcopal Constitution, nor in the Rites of Wor­ship, what manner of Abatements can there be made? 'Tis evident then, that the Doctor's Proposal made with such Restri­ctions and Limitations for Union, is but a more plausible way of denying it. But what is the great Reason, why there must be no such compliance, as may be attended with such Insinua­tions, but this, 'Tis inconsistent with the Honour of the Refor­mation, or rather of the Reformers: For I remember, that when the talk was about blasting the Honour of the first Reformation, the meaning was, the casting a reproach upon Cramner, Rid­ley, &c. the first Reformers; And why may we not understand it now in the same sense in this place? And if so, How is the Charge untrue? or how comes it to be either Impudent or Mali­cious? But here is the Talk of Conscience, They cannot do it with safe Conscience, this surprizeth me. What! Is the Dean and his Defender fal [...] into such an hot fit of Fanaticisme, as to talk of their not being able to make any Abatements in the fore-de­scribed sense with a safe Conscience! How comes this about? I am hereby inclin'd to think, That they make the Scripture the Rule not only of their Doctrines, but Worship, and Discipline, a Pres [...]yterian Principle. And, that 'tis the Opinion of their Consci­ences, [Page 43]that Episcopacy is of Divine Right, and consequently Unal­terable. For they must not admit of any thing contrary to the Opinion of their Consciences; still Fanaticisme, a justifying the Dissenter, who cannot Consciencously Conform! Only there is an untoward Insinuation in't on the Doctor's part, namely, That the Episcopal Constitution is of Divine Right, and that our Church-men are not overmuch owing to our Governours for its Establishment; That if our Governours should go about to make any Alteration in the present Constitution, they offend God: For which our Governours won't give them any great thanks. But sure a mans Conscience may permit another, whom he cannot change, to do that which it will not permit himself to do.

Thus having considered the Overt acts of the Enquirers pre­tended Immodesty, let our Author make the most on't, and let the Reader judge, Whether there was not somewhat more than the Reflection on the Enquirer, that brought forth his first Chap­ter? Whether his propensions to favour our Common Enemy the Papist, were not stronger than his Aversions to the Enquirers Immodesty?

Here I would have put an end unto this Chapter, had it not been requisite to take some notice of the like Treatment which he affords Mr. Baxter, Mr. Humfrey, the Country-Conformist, and Doctor Owen. Not that I design to enlarge on this Subject, but only to give the Reader a Taste of the Modesty of our Author, who accuses others so much of Immodesty.

1. As for his usage of Mr. Baxter, 'tis such, that how immo­dest soever I may be esteem'd, I must solemnly profess, that I cannot without defiling my Pen express it aright: I will not therefore take any other notice of it than to say, It becomes not a Man, much less a Christian, much less a Presbyter of the Church of England, to treat the unworthiest of men after such a rate as he has treated Mr. B. I am sure, 'tis recorded in the Sacred Scriptures, that Michael the Archangel durst not bring a railing Accusation against the Devil. And Oh, How unmeet then is it for this man of inferiour Dignity, to rail at one so eminent in Piety and Learning!

Methinks 'tis a pitiful shift, when men have nothing but hard words to answer hard Arguments with: A way the most inef­fectual to the desired End, viz. the confuting a Learned Adversary; [Page 44]but the best perhaps that can be to come off. For really when there is so little of solid Answer to what Mr. Baxter hath urged against the Dean, this Gentlemans Treatise is beneath Mr. B's notice; and his hard words deserving no other Reply than, The Lord rebuke thee.

2. Mr. Humfrey and the Country-Conformist must come next under the Gentleman's Pen, They must be Immodest too, as I am, and who can help it?

But what is the matter? what is it that occasions all this stir? Really I cannot imagine, unless Mr. Humphrey's Faithfulness to the Dean, express'd in a way suitable to his wonted Freedom, be the cause. 'Tis true, the Countrey Conformist takes notice of Mr. H's late Book, giving him thanks for that judicious Trac [...]ate, say­ing, That he had modestly and plainly rebuk'd the pride of the Dr. and given Mr. Baxter his due praise. From whence our Author takes occasion to run into a Discourse on the Modesty of Mr. Humphrey, and produces several of his expressions, which in the apprehension of some others, who, it may be, do more imparti­ally, yea and more agreeably to the Christian Rule, weigh the nature of the Dean's Discourse, &c. are not so lyable to excep­tion as our Author suggests.

'Tis well known that the Reverend Mr. H. is a grave Mini­ster, it may be twenty years elder than Dr. Stillingfleet, for which reason a reproof (though plain and open) may be proper in him, which would not become me or this Author; especially, considering that this Mr. H. is one whose inclinations to con­formity are such, that there can be nothing of humour to keep him from a closure with the Dean, or to provoke him to an un­necessary quarrel; which is enough to engage a judicious person to conclude, That if such a man as Mr. H. treats the Dean severe­ly, there is somewhat extraordinary in the Dr. that call'd for it.

In this opinion I am abundantly confirmed, when I remember what Mr. Baxter in the Preface of his Second Defence sayes of him, which is, That he handles the Dr. somewhat freely, that is, as the Countrey Conformist interprets it, very honestly, as the Dr. deserv'd; and for this reason, though our Author, who it may be hath not that sense of Conscientious duties upon him, as these o­thers have, does blame it, yet it may be worthy commendation. For what should tempt so Learned and Judicious a person, as the [Page 45] Countrey Conformist is, to be so full in approving it, unless the very subject-matter of the Drs. Discourse, or the mode of ma­naging it, did suggest, that the greatest kindness could be shewn the Dr. was to deal plainly and uprightly in discovering unto him his sin?

But this is enough to expose the Countrey conformist presently to the same lash. He is also immodest; and why? surely for no other reason, that I can imagine, but because he is not afraid to speak the Truth, and to give to the world an assurance, That the Dean's Discourse was not grateful unto every Conformist; and that therefore, whoever would insinuate as if the Dr. had given us the sense of all his Conforming Brethren in that great Book, would abuse and injure some of the most judicious and godly among the Conforming Clergy.

He hath really done the true Church of England great right, in making not only his Reflections on the Deans Preface, but also his Remarks on the Book it self, a Treatise worthy the observati­on of the Dean, seeing the answering that, as appears by our Authors silence, is beyond his strength; that is, it is so candidly wrote, as he should be ashamed to except against it.

I need not say any thing concerning the Reverend Dr. Owen, because as our Author had spoken little of his person (though more than became him) but less by way of answer to his Book. However it must be remembred, That seeing our Author found himself necessitated to run unto the Tents of the French Pa­pist for Armour to batter down the Notion Dr. O. hath establish­ed in proving a particular Church to be the [...] of Church-Government; the Drs. notion abides in its strength, and his Book unanswered in the sense of any sound Protestant; and therefore this Feeble Defence of the Dean of Pauls, is unworthy of so great a persons Animadversions. And that the Dean himself is no way reliev'd by this Defender, but as much oblig'd to at­tempt it himself, as if this Defence had never been published.

SECT. I.

THE Deans Substitute doth at last apply himself to the De­fence of the Doctor, in doing which he considers the Reasons I collected out of the Dean's Preface, which the Dean urges to engage the Reader to believe, that the Dissenters are a people carrying on the Popish Designs.

1. The Dissenters have embraced the Jesuits Principles about Spi­ritual Prayer, and a more pure way of Worship. This is what I observ'd out of Dr. Still. But our Author, who hath read over the Doctors Preface very carefully, can find no such thing urged against the Dissenters, and adds, All that Mr. Lobb founds this Accusation on, is, That the Dean says, It is not improbable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of Spiritual Prayer in England: And then goes on to a very decent Censure, saying, That this is mighty falsely and imperfectly represented.

Sir, If I had insisted on no more than what you here mention as the foundation of my Charge, I must acknowledg, that 'twould not only be imperfectly, but impertinently related: For what connexion is there between the Jesuits Practises, and their Prin­ciples?

Is it not well known, that the Principles they profess, the Doctrines they embrace concerning many a point in Divinity, are one thing, even when their Practice is another? May they not then, in order to the carrying on a further Design, set on Practices contrary to their Doctrines? Yea, surely they may; and this is the whole Defence you make in behalf of the Dean, with which after an unnecessary Harangue, you dismiss the Sub­ject.

But is this fair, to misrepresent an Adversary, and then con­fute what needs no Confutation? Doth this redound to the Ho­nour of a Presbyter of the Church of England? Was this all on which Mr. Lobb founded his Accusation? Did he not add some­what more than what you relate? You say, all that Mr. Lobb founds this accusation on is, that the Dean says, It is not impro­bable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of Spiritual Prayer in England; which is mighty falsely and imperfectly repesented. p. 6. Yet whoever will consult the Enguiry will find, that I do out of the Dean add, That there is no improbality of the thing, if we consider the Dissenters pretences about Spiritual Prayer, to the Do­ctrine [Page 51]and Practice of the Jesuits. The Dean suggests, that Spi­ritual and Free Prayer, even that Spiritual and Free Prayer a­bout which there is such a Pother, is suited to the Doctrines of the Jesuits; to the Doctrine, that is, to their Principles. What dif­ference is there between the Doctrine and the Principles of the Church of England? In like manner I Query, What difference is there between the Doctrines and Principles of the Jesuits? Doth the Dean then assert such an Agreement to be between the Pre­tences of the Dissenter about Spiritual Prayer, and the Doctrines or Principles of the Jesuits, not only the Practices but Doctrines of the Jesuits? Who then is the impersect or mistaken Repor­ter?

The Dean's Charge against Dissenters is, That the Dissenters pretences about Spiritual Prayer, are suited with the Doctrines of the Jesuits. And 'tis our concern to enquire after the truth of this Charge; I say of this charge; to wit, about the Agree­ableness that is between our Pretences and their Doctrines. For it is no way momentous to enquire after the practice of a com­pany of Villains, who can transform themselves into a thousand shapes, whenever their Interest obliges them to do so. Was it never known that a Papist crept into some great Preferment in the Church of England, at which time they did both Assent and Consent to the doctrines of the Church of England? What think you of a quondam Bishop of Glocester, to mention no more? did he not speak well of the Church of England, yea even of the Pro­testant Religion? Is it therefore Popery?

For this Reafon it concerns me not to enquire after those Sto­ries insisted on by the Doctor, or to be found in that Pamphlet called Foxes and Firebrands. The great Enquiry must be after the Doctrines of the Jesuit, whether there is any suitableness be­tween the Dissenters pretences and the Jesuits Doctrines. For which Reason the Jesuits Writings were consulted, and the Doctor's Charge found untrue; the Dr. being mistaken as to matter of fact. He represented the Jesuits Doctrines to be other than indeed they are, which, to speak softly, was a Mistake.

If the Deans Defender would have spoke to the purpose, He should have searched those places I insisted on in Azorius, Filiu­cius, and Bellarmine, and have shewed wherein I had either made a false report of their sayings, or misinterpreted 'em. But this was impossible.

There being nothing else of moment in the Reply to what I offered against the Dean about Spiritual Prayer, I might fairly, without saying any thing more, proceed to the next particular. But seeing some have spoken contemptibly of the Spirit of prayer, which is said to assist such as use free or extempore prayer, as if those who spake of receiv'd help from the Spirit in prayer, were Enthusiastical, &c. and because our Author talks as if the Jesuits had the first hand in the Separation of the old Nonconformists from the Church of England, crying down the Common-prayers as a dull, formal, superstitious Worship, and the setting up free prayer in the room of it; I will shew,

• 1. The sense of the first Reformers about the aid of the Spirit. And
• 2. What was the great and chief ground of the First Separation.

§ 1. Concerning the Aid of the Holy Spirit, by which many are enabled to pray freely or spiritually, it hath been by some of the conforming Ministers asserted, That such as pretend to receive the aid of the Spirit, may as well pretend to inspirati­on, &c. That then they'l believe that persons can pray by the Spi­rit, when they hear the unlearned can pray in Latin, Greek, or in some other unknown language; as if the aids the Spirit affords unto such as pray freely, had been extraordinary, &c.

This I cannot but consider, as what doth very much reflect on the Dispensation of the Spirit, to the great dishonour of true Christian Religion. For such is the present state of true Religi­on, that whoever speaks contemptibly of the Spirits Aid, must be esteemed not only a Despiser of the first Reformers, but of that part of the present Constitution to which our Clergy on their entrance into their Function are principally concern'd.

1. Tis well known that what the first Reformers did in the Reforming the Liturgy, was by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons assembled in Parliament, recorded to have been done by the Aid of the Holy Ghost.

The Parliament in K. Edward's days passing an Act for the confirmation of the Publick Liturgy in the preamble thereof, de­clare, That those who drew up that Order of Divine Worship, did it by the Aid of the Holy Ghost. 'Tis true this expression could not escape the censure of such as were Popishly affected; they [Page 53]thinking it too much that it was said, the Book was drawn by the aid of the Holy Ghost, as if the import of those expressions had been nothing less than that those persons concern'd in the draw­ing it up, had been extraordinarily inspir'd. But 'twas well answer'd by such as said, That it must not be so understood; that 'twas only to be taken in that sense as all good motions and consultations are di­rected or assisted by the secret influences of Gods H. Spirit, which doth often help good men, even in their imperfect actions, where the good that is done is justly ascrib'd to the grace of God. For this consult that truly Judicious and Deserving Dr. Burnet in his History of the Reformation, Part 2. lib. 1. p. 94. The same that is said of this expression when applied to the first Composers of the Divine Service, may be said of such as are assisted in free prayer by the secret Influences of the Holy Spirit. Moreover,

2. The Clergy at their Ordinination were to receive the Ho­ly Ghost. In King Edward's days, whenever a Bishop, or Priest was Ordained, 'twas said, Receive thou the Holy Ghost in the Name of the Father, &c. But to what purpose, if not to aid and assist them in the discharge of their Ministerial Function, viz. in Prayer, in Preaching, in giving private Admenitions, and Exhortations? &c. Hence I argue, The Spirit accordingly is given them, or not. If not, no wonder they reproach its work, and gracious Influences, to say no more? But if they do at their Ordination receive a plentiful portion of the Spirit, how can they talk so much against the Assistances thereof, vouchsafed to others? What, is it confin'd unto the Clergy only, or unto the Episcopal Clergy, that none without canting must mention One word of the Spirit? But

3. 'Tis surprizing, that any of our Clergy should speak a­ny thing against the secret motions of Gods Spirit; for surely such of them as are just, and true, and faithful to God, and their own souls, have actually felt so much of the Internal workings of the Holy Ghost on their souls, that they were thereby quick­ned, and moved to enter on the work of the Ministry. Thus 'tis with them, or at least, they are conscientiously perswaded of as much; and can such as have felt the power of the Holy Ghost on their own hearts, speak evil of the Assistance it affords unto others? That the honest among the Episcopal Clergy are such as know what 'tis to be moved by the Holy Spirit, as they [Page 54]themselves trust, is evident from the answer they give to the que­stion propos'd to them, when they are presented to Orders, which is, Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this Office and Ministration to serve God for the promoting his glory, and for the edifying his people? To which the answer is, He trusts he is.

It may be some may inquire, How comes it to pass then that so many of the Clergy thus ordained, do not only neglect their own work, but by their uncomely discourses reflect on this very spirit? To this no other answer but that of the Learned and Pi­ous Dr. Burnet shall be given, who in his Hist. of the Reformation, Par. 2. l. p. 145. thus expresseth himself: ‘It has been oft lamented, that many come to receive Orders before they have seriously read o­ver these Questions, and examined themselves whether they could with a good conscience make the Answers there prescri­bed; since it is scarce credible that men of common honesty would lye in the presence of God on so great an occasion; and yet 'tis too visible, that many have not any such inward voca­tion, nor have ever considered seriously what it is. If it were well apprehended, that heat that many have to get into Or­ders would soon abate, who perhaps have nothing in their eye but some place of Profit, or Benefice, to which way must be made by that preceding Ceremony; and so enter into Orders as others are associated into Fraternities and Corporations, with little previous sense of that Holy Character they are to receive, when they thus dedicate their Lives and Labours to the Service of God in the Gospel. In the Primitive Church the apprehersion of this made even good and holy men afraid to enter under such bonds, and therefore they were often to be drag'd almost by force, or catcht at unawares, and be so ini­tiated; as appears in the Lives of these two Greek Fathers, Nazianzen and Chrys [...]stome. If men make their first step to the Holy Altar by such a lye, as is their pretending to a motion of the Holy Ghost, concerning which they know little, but that they have nothing at all of it, they have no reason to expect that Blessing which otherwise attends on such Dedications. And it had been happy for the Church if all those that are autho­riz'd to confer Orders, had stood on this more critically, and not been contented with a bare putting these Questions to [Page 55]those who come to be Ordain'd, but had used a due strictness before-hand, sutable to that grave admonition of St. Paul to Ti­mothy, Lay hands suddenly on no man, and be not partakers of other mens sins.’

How would the Church have flourish'd if this worthy Drs. counsel had been both given and taken at the beginning of the Reformation! If all that entred on the Ministry had felt the mighty power of the Spirit in turning them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God! How would they have labour'd for the conversion and edification of their hearers! The which work could not prosper in their hands, but such as were born of God, receiving the Spirit, would have been ena­bled by it to cry Abba Father. Spiritual and free prayer would have been from the beginning so well known, that the suggest­ing it to have been Jesuitical, would with the greatest contempt and scorn be rejected; and those many rash and indecent epi­thetes given it, would have been consider'd but as the overtacts of ill-will to the Reformation of the Church of England.

§. II. The Account our Author gives of the first Separation, is very unrrue. For, 1. It was not the laying aside All forms of prayer, that the old Nonconformists prest hard for. They were for the amending the Liturgy, but not for the removing all Li­turgies. 'Tis true in K. Edward's days there was a contest be­tween Hooper and Ridley, &c. about the old Popish Vestments, but not about Forms of Prayer. In Queen Maries days at Franckfort there were great contentions among some of them, who before had used the English Liturgy, but not that those who were against the use of the English Liturgy at that time, were a­gainst it as it was a Form of Prayer, but they apprehended that they being in foreign parts, they should rather accommodate their worship to those among whom they liv'd; whence in­stead of the English Liturgy, they used one near the Geneva and French Forms. Moreover in Queen Elizabeth's time, even long after the Separation, the old Nonconformists declar'd, that they look'd on Forms of Prayer to be lawful. It may be they were griev'd to see Q. Elizabeths Bishops to entertain more favoura­ble thoughts of the Pope than those blessed Martyrs, Cranmer, and Rid [...]ey did, as is to be seen by their expunging out of Q. E­lizabeth's Liturgy what was offensive to the Pope in K. Edward's; [Page 56]but against Forms they were not; or it may be they could not approve of any that would quench the motions of the Spirit they professed to have felt before their Ordination, whether in trust­ing unto it for help in the exercise of Prayer, or any other parts of their work. But to cry down all Forms in order to the set­ting up spiritual and free prayer instead of the Liturgy, and for this reason to separate from the Church of England, is more than can be proved.

2. The great and principal reason of the Separation of the old Nonconformists, was occasion'd by their pressing towards that Reformation expresly aim'd at by our English Reformers in H. 8. 's time, for the which they were burnt in Smithfield and elsewhere. Whoever would understand the true Reason of the first Separa­tion in Queen Elizabeth's time, must enquire after the first Refor­mation desir'd in H. 8. 's.

In Henry 8th's days, that wickedness that spread it self throughout the Western part of the World, sadly prevail'd in these Northern parts. This part of the earth was in an especial manner troubled with a vicious and sensual Clergy, whose ex­ample had a sad influence on the Common people. The off­spring of a lewd vicious Clergy, was a profane and extremely wicked Laity; so that if ever, it might now be truly said, The whole world lay in wickedness.

This being the state of the Clergy and Laity, the fear of God and all true Religion almost lost, it pleased the Father of mer­cies to open the eyes of some, to shew 'em the evil of the times, &c. Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, and others beyond the seas, and Tindal, Frith, Barns, &c. here in England. These Worthies being deeply sensible of the Abominations of the times in which they liv'd, made diligent search after the causes thereof, in order to the carrying on a Reformation, &c. In which enquiry, they found the viciousness of the people to be occasioned by the sensuality and lewdness of the Clergy; the lewdness of the Clergy to be the product of an uninstituted Hierarchy, which was rather adjusted for Worldly grandure than the glory of God.

The great cause of all those Mischiefs was the want of strict and Scriptural Discipline, which (as it had not been in due exer­cise since the first degeneracy from the Apostolical Institution and Primitive Practice, even so) could not be faithfully exer­cised [Page 57]but by being reduced to its antient state. For which Rea­son Tyndall applies himself to the work, and so did the famous Lambert and Doctor Barnes. All which I will from good Au­thority evince.

1. Mr. Tyndall, a blessed Martyr burnt at Brabant for his firm adhering to the Truths of the Gospel, doth in those Discourses of his published by Mr. Fox shew, that the many Abominations of his Times proceeded from the viciousness of a Proud, Covetous, & Sensual Clergy, who having forsaken the Apostolical Rule, in process of time through the Bounty of some wealthy persons, who had embraced the Christian Religion, and divers other ways, got an abundance of Riches, which occasioned their Pride and Luxury, to the ruine of the true Religion: Thus in that Treatise of The Obedience of a Christian man, ‘There is no Mischiefs or Disor­ders (saith he) whether it be in the Temporal Regiment, or in the Spiritual, whereof they [i. e. The Spirituality, the Clergy] are not the chief Causes, and even the very Fountain and Spring, and as we say, the Well-head: So that 'tis impossible to Preach against Mischief, except thou begin at them; or to set any Reformation in the world, except thou Reform them first.’ This same Mr. Tyndall in another place shews us, how they occasioned so much mischief, in these words, ‘But after that the Devil was broke loose, and the Bishops began to purchase, and the Deacons to scratch all to them, and the Spirituality to climb on high, then because the Labour, [viz. of examining and confirming the Adult, who had been Baptized in their In­fancy] 'seemed too tedious and painful, they neglected it.’ Tyndal of Sacraments and Ceremonies.

The Clergy growing rich, labour'd that their Honour might equalize their Wealth, which was followed with Idleness, a Ne­glect of God and their Duty. Hence Preaching is let down, the Ceremonies being esteem'd as the most effectual means of In­struction. This occasions the multiplication of significant Cere­monies, which was the great Reason of the dreadful Ignorance, into which the whole European world was plundg'd, when Popery prevail'd. So Mr. Tyndall, ‘I impute this our grievous fall into so extream and horrible Blindness (wherein we are so deep and so deadly brought asleep) unto nothing so much, as unto the multitude of Ceremonies; for assoon as the Prelats had set [Page 58]up such a rabble of Ceremonies, they thought it superfluous to teach the plain Text any longer, and the Law of God, Faith of Christ, &c. forasmuch as all such things were play'd before the peoples faces daily in the Ceremonies, &c.’ Tyndall of the Ceremonies of the Mass.

Thus 'tis evident, that in Henry the 8ths time the great wic­kedness of that Age was grievous to such as aim'd at Reforma­tion; that these wickednesses were occasion'd by the Pride, Co­vetousness, and Sensuality of the rich Clergy. But

2. 'Tis as manifest, That the Pride of the Clergy was disco­vered by their Prelacy, their aspiring after a Dominoon over their Brethren. Whence the One gets the name of Bishop appropriated unto him, and with that name an Unaccountable, yea an Un­scriptural Power. So Mr. Tyndall in his Practice of Prelates; ‘The Office of a Bishop was a roume at the beginning that no man coveted, and that no man durst take upon him, save he that loved Jesus Christ better than his own Life. For as Christ saith, That no man might be his Disciple, except that he were ready to forsake Life, and all: Even so might that Officer be sure, that it might cost him his Life at one time or another, for bearing record unto the Truth. But after that the multi­tude of the Christians were encreased, and many great men had received the Faith, then both Lands and Rents, as well as other Goods, were given unto the maintenance as well of the Clergy, as of the Poor; because they gave then no Tythes to the Priests, nor yet now do, save in certain Countries. For it is too much to give Alms, Offerings, Lands, and Tythes also. And then the Bishops made them Substitutes under them to help them, which they called Priests, and kept the name of Bishops to themselves.’

‘But out of the Deacons sprang all the Mischief. For through their hands went all things, they ministred unto the Clergy, they ministred unto the Poor, they were in favour with great and small. And when the Bishops Office began to have rest and be Honourable, then the Deacons through Favour and Gifts climbed up thereunto, as lightly as he that hath the old Abbots Treasure succeedeth with us. And by the means of their practice and acquaintance in the world, they were more subtle and worldly wise than the old Bishops, and less learned in Gods word, as our [Page 59] Prelates are, when they come from Stewardships in Gentlemens Houses, and from surveying of great mens Lands, &c. —Then, while they that had the Plow by the tail, looked back, the Plow went awry, Faith waxed feeble and faint, Love waxed cold, the Scripture waxed dark, Christ was no more seen; He was in the Mount with Moses, and therefore the Bishops would have a God upon the earth, whom they might see; and thereupon they began to dispute who should be greatest.’ So far Mr. Tyndal in his Practice of Popish Prelates.

3. The Malady, and Disease of those times, with their Cau­ses, were no sooner understood, but several Worthy Persons ap­plied themselves to a diligent search after the most proper Re­medy, and found, that a Reformation must begin among the Cler­gy, that all things must be reduc'd to the Apostolical Institution. Dis­cipline must be strictly exercised, the which could not with effect be accomplished, but by bringing all things to the first Instituti­on; For which reason, Mr. Tyndall makes his enquiry after those Officers the Apostles ordain'd in Christs Church, and what their Of­fices were, concerning which take Mr. Tyndal's own sense, in his discourse of the Practice of Popish Prelates. ‘—Wherefore the Apostles (saith he) following, and obeying the Rule, Doctrine, and Commandment of our Saviour Jesus Christ, ordained in his Kingdom, and Congregation, Two Officers: One called after the Greek word, Bishop, in English, an Overseer, which same was called Priest after the Greek, Elder in English, because of his Age, Discretion, and sadness; for he was as nigh as could be, always an Elderly man. And this Overseer hath put his hands unto the Plow of Gods Word, and sed Christs Flock, and tended them only, without looking unto any other business in the world. A­nother Officer they chose, and called him Deacon, after the Greek; a Minister in English, to minister the alms of the people unto the poor and needy. For in the Congregation of Christ, love maketh every mans gifts and goods common unto the necessity of his neighbour. Wherefore the love of God being yet hot in the hearts of men, the rich that had the substance of this worlds goods, brought of their abundance great plenty unto the su­stentation of the poor, and delivered it unto the hands of the Deacons.’

Mr. Tyndall judg'd, that according to the Apostolical Institution, there were no other Officers in the Church but Elders and Dea­cons. The Elders being of the same Office and Order with the Bishops, they being two names belonging to one and the same person. ‘There is (saith he) Presbuteros called an Elder by Birth, which same called immediately a Bishop or Overseer to declare what Persons are meant—they were called Elders, because of their Age, Gravity, &c. and Bishops and Overseers by reason of their Offices. And all that were called Elders or Priests (if they so will) were called Bishops also, though they have divided the names now, which thing thou mayest evidently see by the first Chap. of Titus, and the 20th. of the Acts—Those Overseers, which we now call Bishops after the Greek word, were alway biding in one place to Govern the Congregation there. (Tyndal of the word Elder.) But Deacons were Overseers of the Poor and crept not into Orders till the Church grew Rich.’

Tyndal was not alone in this opinion, it being also the sense of Famous Lambert and Dr. Barns, who strenuously defended, and at the last sealed this Truth with their blood. One of the Articles for which they were burnt, being about the Order of Priest­hood.

I'le give you in the first place Lambert's own answer to the ninth Article, as I find it in Acts and Mon. Vol. 2. ‘As touching Priesthood (saith Lambert) in the Primitive Church, when virtue bare (as ancient Doctors do deem, and Scripture in mine opi­nion recordeth the same) the most room, there were no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishops and Deacons; that is to say, Ministers; as witnesseth, beside Scripture, full apertly Hierome in his Commentaries upon the Epistles of Paul; whereas he saith, That those that we call Priests, were all one, and no other but Bishops; and the Bishops none other but Priests, men ancient both in Age and Learning, so near as they could be chosen. Neither were they institute and chosen as they be now-adays, with small regard of a Bishop or his Officer, only ap­posing them if they can co [...]e a Collect; but they were chosen not only of the Bishop, but also with the consent of the people among whom they should have their living, as sheweth Saint Cyprian; and the people (as he saith) ought to have power to chuse their priests, that be men of good Learning, of good and ho­nest [Page 61]report: but alack for pity, such Elections are now banished, and new fashions brought in, which if we should confer with the form of the Election shewed of Christ by his Apostle Paul, we should find no small diversity; but all turned upside down. To conclude, I say, the Order or state of Priests and Deacons, was ordained by God; but Subdeacons and Conjurers, otherwise called Exorcistae, or Acolitae, which we call Benet and Collect, were instituted by the invention of men; and this you may find in the Law, Dist. 21. and other places, where it is writ­ten, Subdiaconatus tempore Apost [...]lorum non fuit sacer. Subdea­conship in the time of the Apostles was no holy Order.’

Dr. Barns in like manner had the same objected against him in the Articles for which he was burned. I'le give you the Ar­ticle, and his own sentiments concerning it, as Mr. Fox relates in a Discourse set forth with Mr. Tyndal and John Frith's Works.

Article 6. ‘I will never believe, nor yet I can never believe, that one man may be by the Law of Ood a Bishop of two or three Cities, yea of an whole Countrey; for it is contrary to Saint Paul, which saith, I have left thee behind, to set in every City a Bishop. And if you find in one place of Scripture that they be called Episcopi, you shall find in many that they be call­ed Presbyteri.—I was brought before my Lord Cardinal in­to his Gallery, and there he read all my Articles till he came to this, and there he stopped, and said, That this touched him, and therefore he asked me, if I thought it wrong that one Bi­shop should have so many Cities underneath him? Unto whom I answered, That I could no farther go than to St. Paul's text, which set in every City a Bishop. Then asked he me, If I thought it now unright (seeing the Ordinance of the Church) that one Bishop should have so many Cities? I answered, That I knew none Ordinance of the Church (as concerning this thing) but St. Paul's saying only. Nevertheless I did see a con­trary custom and practise in the world, but I know not the O­riginal thereof. Then said he, That in the Apostles time there were divers Cities, some seven miles, some six miles long, and over them was there set but one Bishop, and of their Suburbs also; so likewise now a Bishop hath also but One City to his [Page 62] Cathedral Church, and the Countrey about it as Suburbs unto it. Methought this was far-fetcht, but I durst not deny it, because it was so great Authority, and of so holy a Father, and of so great a Divine. But this I dare say, that his Holiness could never prove it by Scripture, nor yet by any Authority of Do­ctors, nor yet by any practise of the Apostles; and yet it must be true, because a Pillar of the Church hath spoken it. But let us see what the Doctors say to mine Article. Athanasius doth declare this Text of the Apostle, I have left thee behind, &c. He would not commit unto one Bishop a whole Ylde, but he did injoyn that every City should have his proper Pastor, sup­posing that by this means they should more diligently oversee the people, and also that the labour should be more easie to bear, &c. Also Chrysostome on that same Text: He would not that a whole Countrey should be permitted unto one man, but he enjoined to every man his Cure, by that means he knew that his labour should be more easie, and the subjects should be with more diligence govern'd, if the Teachers were not di­stract with the governing of many Churches, but had cure and charge of one Church only, &c. Methinks these be plain words, and able to move a man to speak as much as I did. But grant that you may have all these Cities, yet can you make it none Heresie. For my Lord Cardinal granted that it was but against him, and against you, which be no Gods. But I poor man must be an Heretick, there is no remedy, You will have it so, and who is able to say nay? Not all Scripture, nor yet God him­self.’

By this time the Reader cannot but be well satisfied, that the great thing aim'd at by the first great Lights England had in Henry the 8ths days, as a most effectual way to carry on a Reformation, was the reducing the Popish Hierarchy to an Apo­stolical Presbytery. The Presbyterian Discipline, that is, The Government of Gospel-Churches by Presbyters and Deacons, being of Divine Institution, is most admirably suited to the designed End of promoting the Glory of God, the Power of Religion, &c. A Disci­pline, the truth of which hath been sealed by the blood of blessed Protestant Martyrs, a thing in which our Episcoparians cannot make the [...]r boast.

Moreover 'tis manifest, that this was not only the apprehension of Tindall, Barnes, and Lambert, but that all the Clergy in Henry the 8ths time, denied a Diocesan Episcopacy to be of Divine Institution, asserting, that in the New Testament there is no mention made but of Deacons or Ministers, and Priests or Bishops. This is in a Paper sign'd by Cromwell, and many others; Yea, and in the necessary Erudition of a Christian man, as is acknowledged by the Judicious Dr. Burnet, who in his Addenda to the first part of the Reformation, doth say, That both in this Writing, and in the ne­cessary Erudition of a Christian man, Bishops and Priests are spoken of as one and the same Office. Though I must confess, that the Dr. doth differ from those Divines; and although he gives us not satisfaction in his Reply, yet he speaks more ingenuously, and more to the purpose, than either this Gentleman, or Dr. Stilling­fleet himself.

4. The old Nonconformists in Queen Elizabeths days agree­ing with those worthy Martyrs, Tyndall, Lambert, and Barnes, concerning the most effectual way of carrying on the Refor­mation, applied themselves seriously to the Work. The Vici­ousness of some of the Clergy in Queen Elizabeths days was as grievous unto the Nonconformist, as unto those glorious Mar­tyrs; a Reformation in Manners, and in order thereunto in Church-Discipline, was what they aim'd at.

'Tis very evident, That a further Reformation than was car­ried on by Queen Elezabeth, was very desirable; for in some respects she carried it not so far as King Edward himself had done. 'For Queen Elizabeth (as Dr. Burnet most admirably expresseth it) though she had been bred up from her Infancy with a Hatred to the Papacy, and a Love to the Reformation; yet as her first Impressions in her Fathers Reign were in favour of such old Rites, as he had still retained, so in her nature she loved State and some Magnificence in Religion, as well as in every thing else: She thought that in her Brothers Reign they had stript it too much of external Ornaments, and had made their Doctrine too narrow in some Points: Therefore she intended to have some things explain'd in more general Terms, that so all Parties might be comprehended by them: She inclin'd to keep up Images in Churches, and to have the manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament left in some general words, that those who believe a Corporal Presence, might not be driven [Page 64]away from the Church by too nice an explanation of it. History of Reform. part. 2. l. 3.

As to this last Particular, the Rubrick that explain'd the Rea­son for the kneeling at the Sacrament, That thereby no Adora­tion is intended to any corporal presence of Christs flesh and blood, because that is only in Heaven; which had been in King Edwards Liturgy, is left out, and kneeling at the Sacrament, to many a Protestant much more offensive than formerly.

The great Propension in Queen Elizabeth's days to gain over the Popish party to her Communion by those Alterations made in the Liturgy in favour of the Papist, the ordering the Sacra­mental Bread to be made round in the fashion of the Wafers used in the time of Queen Mary, the requiring the Table to be placed where the Altar stood, &c. was attended with the Con­formity of many, who were cordially affected to the Interest of the Church of Rome, at which time there was not a sufficient number of learned men to supply the Cures; which filled the Church (as Heylin saith) with an Ignorant and Illiterate Clergy, whose learning went no further than the Liturgy, or Book of Ho­milies, though otherwise conformable unto the Rules of the Church.

The Old Nonconformists still desiring a further Reformation than was carried on in King Edwards days, but [...]ing rather a turning toward Rome, could not but be greatly grieved. They in their places wait a while, but at length humbly desire a Pa­rochial Discipline, instead of which they fall under the lash of new Impositions, unto which they could not Conscienciously con­form; hence many Learned, Jud [...]us, Godly and Faithful Mi­nisters are cast out, even at such a time when the Church had but a company of Illiterate Fellows to officiate in Publick. From whence proceedeth the First S [...]parati [...]n, as appears from what the old Smith said in his Answer to the Bishop of London's charge, where you will find, that although they separated from the Church, because their faithful Ministers were turn'd out, yet they even then made it manifest, That they left not the Liturgy, because it contain'd Forms of Prayer, for they made use of a Form at their Separate Meeting. Take Smith's words in a part of the Register. ‘Indeed as you said even now, for Preaching and ministring the Sacraments, so long as we might have the [Page 65]Word freely Preached, and the Sacraments administred with­out the preferring of Idolatrous gear about it, we never as­sembled together in Houses. But when it came to this point, that all our Preachers were displaced by your Law, that would not subscribe to your Apparel and your Law; so that we could not hear none of them in any Church by the space of seven or eight weeks, except Father Coverdale, of whom we have a good opinion; and yet God knows the man was so fearful, that he durst not be known unto us where he Prea­ched, though we sought it at his house. And then were we troubled and commanded to your Courts from day to day, for not coming to your Parish-Churches. Then we bethought us what were best to do; and we remembred that there was a Congregation of us in this City in Queen Marys days; and a Congreagation at Geneva, which used a Book, and Order of Preaching, Ministring of the Sacraments and Discipline, most agreeable to the Word of God: which Book is allowed by that Godly and Well-learned man, Mr. Calvin, and the Preachers there, which Book and Order we now hold. And if you can reprove this Book, or any thing that we hold by the Word of God, we will yield to you, and do open Penance at Paul's Cross; if not, we will stand to it by the Grace of God.’

Thus no Parochial Discipline being admitted, but those who desir'd it being Ejected, even at such a time, when those who remain'd in Publick for the most part were Illiterate and Vi­cious, the Separation begun. The Ejection of the Godly Now Con­formists, the Sensuality of the remaining Clergy, was a great Cause of the first Separation, and not without great Reason. For it be­ing as essential to every true Gospel-Minister, that he Govern the Church of which he is a Pastor, as that he teaches and instructs it; the taking from 'em so essential a part of their Office, which by woful experience has been of a very ill tendency, could not but occasion the Old Nonconformists to manifest their dislike to such proceedings, and refuse the giving in an Assent and Consent thereunto; for which Refusal they being Ejected, the multitude of such as remain'd being Illiterate, yea and Vicious in their Con­versations, the more sober People withdrew from the Publick, and run after the Ejected. The Scandals of the Clergy having had no inconsiderable influence on the Separation.

For which consult the Learned Dr. Burnet, who saith, ‘In the Sponsions made by the Priests, they bind themselves to teach the People committed to their charge, to banish away all erroneous Doctrines, and to use both publick and private Monitions and Ex­hortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within their Cures, as need shall require, and as occasion shall be given. Such as re­member that they have plighted their Faith for this to God, will feel the Pastoral Charge to be a load indeed, and so be far enough from relinquishing it, or hiring it out to a loose or ignorant Mercenary. These are the blemishes and Scandals that lye on our Church, brought on it partly by the corruption of some Simoniacal Patrons, but chiefly by the Negligence of some, and the Faultiness of other Clergy-men: Which could never have lost so much ground in the Nation, upon such trifling accounts, as are the contests since raised about Cere­monies, if it were not that the People, by such palpable faults in the Persons and behaviour of some Church-men, have been possessed with prejudices, first against them, and then upon their account against the whole Church: So that these corrupt Church-men are not only to answer to God for all those Souls within their charge, that have perished through their neglect; but in a great degree for all the mischief of the Schism among us; to the nourishing whereof they have given so great and palpable oc­casion. The importance of those things, made me judge they deserved this Digression.’

Having been thus large in removing the Mistakes the Dr's Substitute seem'd to lye under, let the Sober Reader judge, Whe­ther 'tis any way probable that the Jesuits had an hand in the first Separation; or whether the pretence about Spiritual Prayer was any ground of their Separation? that is, Whether they were against a Form of Prayer, crying down the English Li­turgy with a Design of setting up Free and Spritual Prayer in its stead.

SECT. II.

HIS Reply to what I offer'd to the Dean's second Argument, falls now under Consideration.

The Dean in representing the Dissenter, to the great Disad­vantage of the Party, insinuates as if their opposing Prelatical Episcopacy, had been the most effectual way to cast reproach on the first Reformers, and to introduce Popery.

In Answer unto this I did First prove, 1. That it was not the Principle nor the Interest of the Jesuit to destroy Episcopacy. A Truth the Dean's Substitute doth not deny. 2. That the Re­putation of the first Reformation is not in the least blasted by the Dissenter, which I evinc'd with so much Demonstration, that the whole that is returned by way of Answer, is, His not be­lieving some of those persons, on whose Testimony I insisted, (though he gives no Reason for his Unbelief.) His proving what I granted, and his Extravagant Interpreting an Argument brought to evince, That 'twas not the Jesuits Interest to destroy a Prelatical Episcopal Constitution, to be an admirable Address to the Lords and Commons, to pull down Bishops, and divide their Lands. All which is done partly in his Preface, and partly in the first Chapter of his great Book, to shew himself an excellent Metho­dist. But the whole is so little to the purpose, that if he had not given an occasion to enlighten the Reader concerning some momentous Instances, I would have pass'd it by as deserving no farther Consideration.

1. Every thing is said to be Misrepresented. But how the Doctor's own words should misrepresent his own sense, is not [Page 68]overeasie to apprehend. However, Whether there be any Mis­report, I'll leave it to the Impartial Reader, and consider what Reply is made to what I offer'd in Answer to the Doctor's Un­comely Accusation.

2. He grants, [p. 38.] That the Papists do not so much Envy and Malign the Episcopal Government. Neither is it their Prin­ciple nor Interest to destroy it. Why then should they be brought to act so contrary to their Principle and Interest, as to destroy what they so much endeavour to preserve, strengthen and esta­blish? But

3. He adds, Though they are for Episcopacy, yet they may design the destruction of a Protestant Episcopacy, &c. Reply. I said, That 'twas not the Destruction of Episcopacy, but the possessing themselves of our Bishopricks, that they would be at, which may be without any alteration of the Episcopal Constitution, so far as 'tis Episcopal.

His running then unto France is nothing to the purpose, un­less it may be looked on as an intimation of his good will to the Arbitrary proceedings of that Country.

However, I'le desire our Author to consider, That a change of Persons without any alteration of the Episcopal Constitution, may most effectually answer the end of the Jesuit. For hereby they would be capacitated (if ever a Popish Prince should come to the Crown) to argue with the common people concerning the Un­reasonableness of a separating from Rome, from the same Topicks with the [...]ean, thus.

The Episcopacy is not pull'd down, nor destroyed, 'tis rather strengthened, and more firmly established. There is not so vast a deference between the Church of England, and the Church (I do not say the Court) of R [...]me, as there is between the Ro­manist and the Factious Presbyterean; behold, you have your Bishops still in all their Glorious Vestments; a Surpliced Cl [...]rgy; an Excellent English Liturgy [for the Papists in Dublin have their Mass in English, which is exactly correspondent to the terms the Papists made the English in the days of Archbishop Laud] If you submit to the one, when Authority command you, why will you not to the other? What is the difference?

For this reason I cannot but be pretty confident that the Je­suits acting according to their own Principles and Interest, re­ceive [Page 69]greatest satisfaction from such as are most deeply engag'd to represent the Episcopal Constitution as one most Excellent and Admirable.

Do not the whole Land know what 'tis that gives life unto Jesuitical hopes? What are their designs and expectations from a Popish Successor? and consequently how mischievous the De­struction of Episcopacy would prove unto that sort of People, especially at this Juncture? But I must not insist on this, lest I be censur'd as an Addresser to the Lords and Commons to pull down Episcopacy, a thing the Jesuit would not be at, he being more unwilling, than by argument unable to oppose it, for which reason (as our learned Author says) Episcopacy is most easily defended against a Roman Catholick, (i. e.) against one that hath no heart to oppose it. But,

4. Our Author would by all means perswade the world, that the Dissenters cast the greatest Reproaches on the first Reforma­tion, because they manifest some dissatisfaction with such as im­pede a further Reformation; as if a good work was as soon con­summated as begun; or as if it had been either impossible in it self, or contrary to the design of the first Reformers, to carry on the Reformation; or as if the present Constitution of Episcopacy had been in every momentous respect as excellent as that begun in King Edwards days; whereas 'tis well known unto wise men, and fully prov'd in my Epistle to the Reverend Dean, that 'twas impossible the Reformation should be finished as soon as 'twas entred on; and that the first Reformers in King Edwards days did more in six years than all their successors have since done in almost six-score. All which is prudently past over by our Author.

5. They stick much on that great Agreement there is between the Present, and King Edwards Reformation; as if we could not complain on the latter, without reproaching the former. But this is so weakly urg'd, that any Reader of an ordi­nary capacity may see the vanity of this way of arguing; for there is a great difference between that and this time; what was almost impossible then, might since be easily done. But, 2. 'tis easie to demonstrate that the begun Reformation in King Ed­ward the 6ths days was more excellent than the Present; and that instead of carrying on the Reformation, it hath been [Page 70]carried back, to the great grief of sound Protestants.

This hath been in part prov'd, when I did shew the Pro­pension of Queen Elizabeth to favour Popery, out of Dr. Bur­net, and Dr. Heylin, two Sons of the Church; though I fear the mentioning of the latter in Conjunction with the former, may not be so meet; the former being a through Protestant, a man of great Worth; but the heart of the latter towards Rome; for which reason, as their Principles are vastly diffe­rent, so should they be kept at a distance by me, if Heylin had not acknowledged that to be a truth, which I rather be­lieve, because found in the incomparable Dr. Burnet.

He now take notice of another considerable difference, be­tween the very Constitution of Episcopacy in King Edward the 6th's time, and that in Queen Elizabeths: The former was such as was inconsistent with the Popes Supremacy; for they were to hold all their Courts in the Kings Name; but the latter, such as is most easily reduc'd to the exalting the Court of Rome. The Government of the Church being taken from the Prince, 'tis not so difficult to fix it on the Pope.

Thus there is a difference between King Edwards, and Queen Elizabeths Episcopacies. I may also add,

That there is a great difference between the present Consti­tution, and that in Queen Elizabeths, if we may believe the Lord Treasurer Cecil, who suggests, that the Bishops did not look on their Superiority above their Brethren, to be of Divine Right, as the Dean of Pauls, and his Substitute now do: For this I will give you an account we have of the Speeches used in the Parliament by Sir Francis Knolles, and after Written to my Lord Treasurer, Sir William Cecil, as I find it in the end of the Assertion.

‘To the end I may inform your Lordship of my dealing in this Parliament-time, against the undue claimed Superiority of the Bishops over their Inferior Brethren:’ Thus it was,

‘Because I was in the Parliament-time, in the 25th year of King Henry the 8th, in which time, first all the Clergy, as well Bishops as others, made an humble Submission to King Henry the 8th, acknowledging his Supremacy, and detest­ing the Usurpation of the Bishop of Rome's Authority: Up­on which Submission of the Clergy, the King gave unto [Page 71]the said Bishops the same ample Rule, that before they had under the Pope, over their Inferior Brethren; saving that the same Rule was abridg'd by Statute, by this Parenthe­sis following, that is to say (without offending the Prero­gative Royal of the Crown of England, and the Laws and Customs of the Realm): in the latter end of the Statute it was added, That whosoever offendeth in any one part of that Statute, and their Aiders, Counsellers, and Abetters, they did all fall into the penalty of the Praemunire. And after I had recited this Statute in the Parliament-House, I declared, that in King Henry the 8th's days, after this, there was no Bishop that did practise Superiority over the Infe­rior Brethren. And in King Edward's days the said Bishops obtained a Statute, whereby they were Authorized to keep their Courts in the Kings Name: the which Statute was repealed in Queen Maries days, and was not revived in her Majesties time that now is; whereupon it was doubt­ful to me, by what Authority the Bishops do keep their Courts now in their own Names, because it is against the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England, that any should keep a Court without sufficient Warrant from the Crown: Whereupon I was answered, that the Bishops do keep their Courts now by Prescriptions; and it is true, that the Bi­shops may Prescribe, that King Henry the 8th gave them Authority by the Statute of the 25th of his Reign, to have Authority and Rule over their Inferior Brethren, as ample as they had in the Popes time: For this was no special Warrant for them to keep their Courts by, and that in their own Names. And yet they have none other War­rant to keep their Courts (as they do now in their own Names) to my knowledg. And this was the Cause that made them obtain a Statute in King Edward's days, to keep their Courts by, in the Kings Name. Now it is a strange Allegation, that the Bishops should claim Authority at this present, to keep their Courts in their own Names (as they do) by Prescription, because the Statute of 25. doth re­strain them generally from offending of the Prerogative Roy­al of the Crown of England, and the Laws and Customs of the Realm. And no man may justly keep a Court with­out [Page 72]out a special Warrant from the Crown of England, as is a­foresaid. And the general Liberty given by King Henry the 8th to the Bishops, to Rule and Govern as they did in the Popes time, is no sufficient Warrant to the Bishops, to keep their own Courts in their own Names by Prescription, as I take it: And therefore the Bishops had done wisely, if they had sought a Warrant by Statute, to keep their Courts in the Queens Name, as the Bishops did in King Edward's days: in which time Archbishop Cranmer did cause Peter Martyr and Bucer to come over into this Realm, to be placed in the Two Universities, for the better Instruction of the Universities in the Word of God. And Bishop Cranmer did humbly prefer these Learned men without any challenge to himself of any Supe­rior Rule in this behalf, over his Inferior Brethren. And the time hath been, that no man could carry away any Grant from the Crown of England by general words, but that he must have special words to carry the same by: Therefore now the Bishops are Warranted to carry away the keeping of their Courts in their own Names, by Prescription, it passeth my understand­ing.’

‘Moreover, whereas your Lordship said unto me, that the Bishops have forsaken their claim of Superiority over their inferior Brethren (lately), to be by Gods Ordinance, and that now they do only claim Superiority from her Majesties Supreme Government. If this be true, then 'tis requisite, and necessary, that my Lord of Can­terbury that now is, do recant, and retract his saying in his Book of the great Volume against Cartwright, where he saith in plain words (by the name of Dr. Whitgift), that the Superi­ority of Bishops is Gods own Institution: which saying doth impugn her Majesties Supreme Government directly; and therefore it is to be retracted plainly and truly. For Christ truly and plainly confesses, John 18.36. That his Kingdom was not of this world; and therefore he gave no worldy Rule or Preheminence to his Apostles, but the Heavenly Rule, which was to Preach the Gospel, saying, Ite, praedicate in omnem mundum; Quicunque crediderit & baptizatus fuerit, sal­vus erit: qui non crediderit, condemnabitur: Go and Preach in all the world, whosoever shall believe and be baptized, shall be saved; but he that will not believe, shall be condemned, Mar. 16.16. [Page 73]But the Bishops do cry out, saying, That Cartwright and his Fellows would have no Government, &c. So belike the Bi­shops care for no Government, but for worldly and forcible Government over their Brethren, the which Christ never gave to his Disciples nor Apostles, but made them subject to the Rule of Princes, who ought not to be resisted, saving that they might answer unto Princes, that they must rather obey God than men, Act. 5.29. And yet in no wise to resist the Prince, but to take up the Cross and follow Christ.’ So far Sir Francis Knolles Discourse in Parliament concerning the Episcopacy, &c.

But to return: I would fain know, why we may not think honourably of good beginnings, even when we cannot approve of such as put a stop thereunto? Is the Episcopacy of King Edward so much the same in all respects with the present, that who­ever dissents from this, must thereby cast a reproach on that? Surely the Dean won't say so, after so many Months conside­ration.

6. There is an admirable distinction insisted on, which will bring off the Dean without all doubt, viz. There is a Popish and a Protestant Episcopacy: But where lies the Difference? What Difference is there between our present Episcopacy, and that in Henry the 8ths time?

Is not the Episcopacy, so far as 'tis an Episcopacy, the same? What is there Intrinsecal to this Episcopal Constitution, that differs from that? Whence if that be Popish, why may not this, see­ing 'tis the same with that, be in like manner so? That Henry the 8ths Episcopacy was Popish, Bishop Bramhall hath evinced, in proving, that the Papists begun the Separation from Rome. In fine, Let our Author tell me the Difference between Queen Ma­ries Episcopacy and Queen Elizabeths Episcopacy on her first en­tring the Throne. Is not the Episcopacy now the same with that at the Reforming the Liturgy by Act of Parliament? and was not that Episcopacy the same with Queen Maries? The only specifying Difference that can be suggested is, that though the Episcopacy as such, is the same, and the Persons in both may be the same, yea and their Principles, for so it hath been in King Henry the 8th, King Edward the 6th, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth; yet the outward profession of the Bishops is not the same. But is this Extrinsecal Consideration sufficient to occasion [Page 74]a Difference that is Intrinsecal? Moreover, to return to his French Monarch; Hath not the Experience of many a year as­sured us, That when Monarchs design not the enlarging their own Monarchies, they have done all they could to preserve other Monarchies? An Aristocracy, or a Democracy, being things detestable in their eye.

7. His answering the Letter of the Council by transcribing part of Sir Francis Walsingham's Letter, as recorded in Dr. Bur­net, bing little to the purpose, might have escaped my Consi­deration, had it not been very necessary to suggest, How pru­dently he overlook'd the great Principles on which the Queen grounded her proceedings; the one being, That Consciences can­not be forced, but to be won and reduced by force of Truth, with the aid of time, and use of all good means of Instruction, and Perswa­sion. A Principle unto which if our Clergy would adhere, it might have conduced very much to the Peace of the Church. This I suppose is a sufficient Reply to the Dean's Substitute.

The Dissenters oppose Episcopacy and Ceremonies, notwithstanding their Antiquity, &c. The Doctor's Argument was here set forth to the greatest advantage of his Cause in his own words. To which I reply'd, That our not embracing Episcopacy, &c. does not advantage the Papist, neither doth our rejecting it, even when it pretends to so much Antiquity. I having shewn that there was no such strength in their Argument of Antiquity, if it fell short of an Absolutely Primitive or an Apostolical Antiquity, as theirs really doth; they not being able to shew in what part of the Scriptures their Dio [...]san Episcopacy is found, it being consider'd as a Creature of Human make, by many a Son of the Church, yea and once by our great Doctor himself; and it hath been prov'd by other hands unanswerably, That there is no evidence for such an Episcopacy in the Church the first two hundred years; for which reason Mr. Chillingworth's Argument, shewing the va­nity of such mens pretences about Antiquity, that can ascend no higher than the fifth, or fourth, or third, or second Age, is, it may be, as pertinently urg'd, as the little intimation of Mr. Ch's sense of the Antiquity of Episcopacy. 'Tis pleasant then to see with what pertness our Author hopes, that our Enquirer will now grow so modest, as not to cite Mr. Chil. any more against an Argument from Antiquity.

The other part of his Reply is as little to the purpose, unless a declaiming against Protestant Arguments, such as are too strong to receive an Answer, be the most effectual way to ruine Popery. 'Tis true, we reject the Popish pretences about Anti­quity as futilous; many Protestants (in the number of which some Nonconformists may be listed) having unanswerably proved Popery to be a Novelty.

However, If Popery or Episcopacy be not agreeable to the Scriptures, whatever their pretences are to Antiquity, they will be found unworthy the consideration of a solid Divine; and therefore because he sends me to Bishop J [...]wel, [Part 1. p. mihi, 539, &c.] I'll give the Reader an account of his sense against Harding. The Truth of God (saith the Bishop) is neither further'd by the Face of Antiquity, nor hinder'd by the Opinion of Novelty. For oftentimes the thing that is New is condemned as Old; and the thing that is indeed Old is condemned as New. If Newness in Religion, in all respects, and every way, were ill, Christ would not have resembled his Doctrine to New Wine, &c. Arnobius saith, The Authority of Religion must be weighed by God, and not by Time. It behoveth us to consider not upon what day, but what things we begin to Worship. — The thing that is true, is never too late. Saint Augustine saies, The Heathen say, The Religion that was First, cannot be False; as if Antiquity and old Custom could prevail a­gainst the Truth. The old Learned Father Tertullian saies, What­soever thing savoureth against the Truth, the same is an Heresie, yea although it be a Custom never so Old, &c.

This surely is the Protestant Doctrine; whence to talk of An­tiquity, in order to the countenancing that in Religion, which finds no favour from the Scriptures, is but to advance the Papal Interest; who have but little beside the pretence of Antiquity to support their Abominations.

SECT. III.

1. THAT our Divisions advance the Popish Designs, is ac­knowledged. But the 2. Enquiry is, Who is the Faulty Divider? It being the Faulty Divider alone who gives the Papist the advantage. The great Enquiry then must be after the Faulty Divider, Whether the Conformist, or the Nonconformist be the Divider?

The state of the Case was given in the Enquiry, [p. 23.] where the Principle on which the Dissenters proceed was laid down, and improv'd; this should have been consider'd by our Author, but he was so prudent as to pass it by: For which Reason, without any Reflections on my Learned Adversary, I must mind him of the state of the Controversie, and shew wherein he hath exer­cised his Wisdom in leaping over what he could not handsomly remove out of the way.

In the Enquiry after the Faulty Divider, I shewed wherein the Parties at variance agreed, and wherein they differ'd. 1. They agreed in those Points commonly called Docirinal or Substantial, in contradistinction to lesser things, about Worship and Church-Discipline, &c. They differ'd about what was in the Judgment of the Dissenter Sinful; but in the Opinion of the Episcopal, only Indifferent.

'Tis true, the Episcopal represent us as a weak People, whose Consciences as to those particulars are Erreneous; that there­fore we must cast off these erring Consciences, and sub­mit.

Our Reply is, We seek Heaven for Counsel, we study hard for the Truth, read with the greatest Impartiality and Freedom the Discourses the Episcopal have written; For we can solemnly and with much sincerity declare, as in the presence of an Heart-searching God, We would with the greatest chearfulness Con­form to all the Impositions, if we thought we could do it with­out sin. That we are so peevish as to lose the Comforts of a good Benefice, merely to gratifie an obstinate Humour; if we are in danger of being biass'd one way more than another by [Page 77]carnal considerations, 'tis towards Conformity. For if we con­form, we are freed from the reproaches and contempt of many, from the continued fear of Imprisonment, and other uncomfor­table severities, and in a fair way of abounding with the good things of this life for the supporting our selves and Families. But if we conform not, we are represented as Factious and Sediti­ous, expos'd to the Rage of every vile Informer, in constant dan­ger of Fines, &c. and of more miseries than I can with delight reherse.

However, though there are considerations enough from the world to byas our minds, in a seeking for the Truth, to lean to­wards Conformity; yet desiring to approve our selves sincere to­wards God, we find, That we cannot without sin conform; we can­not without sinning deliberately, and knowingly comply with the Episcopal Impositions; and if we should notwithstanding con­form to live and die Conformists, we should knowingly, and deliberately sin, yea, and die under the guilt thereof, which is a thing so hazardous to the soul, that we durst not touch with Conformity, lest we die, lest we die eternally.

We censure not such as do conform, because they not lying under the same convictions of Conscience as we do, may not by their Conformity run that hazard, which we unavoidably must, should we against the light of our Consciences comply. There is a great difference between those that act according to the dire­ctions of their Consciences, and such as act contrary thereunto: For which reason I wonder, that our great Church-men should say, that Mr. Baxter represented all Conformists as a company of Perjured Villains, meerly because he shew'd, that if the Noncon­formists should contrary to the Dictates of their Conscience con­form, they should be guilty of Perjury, and several other great sins.

But though this be the truth, yet there are some who will not believe it, who say we, do we what we can for their satisfaction, will count us a pack of Hypocrites. For which reason, that I might anticipate the censure, I laid down the Principle unto which Dis­senters do most firmly adhere, the discussing which is what they do most sincerely desire.

The Principle is this, That the word of God contained in Scrip­ture, is the only Rule of the Whole, and of every part of true Reli­gion. [Page 78]As for external circumstances, as time and place, &c. being no part of, though necessary appendages unto our Religion.

From this Principle I proceed to this Conclusion, That whate­ver part of the Service of the Church of England is impos'd on us, as so necessary a part of our Religion, as to be a term of Communion, if not agreeable to the word of God in Scripture, that Imposition is sinful.

Our Adversary considers, that such as live in England, and yet are not of the Church of England, do not belong unto the Ca­tholick Church; that is, they are all in a state of damnation. Hence 'tis we must, according unto him, be a member of the Church of England, or be damned. We are willing with all our hearts to be members of the same Church with them, i. e. to be members of the Catholick Church is what we desire. But this, say they, we cannot be, but by complying with their imposed terms. To which we reply, Let their terms be as Catholick as they pretend their Church is, and we'l comply: i. e. Let them keep to a few, certain, and necessary things; let them not impose as terms of Union, any thing but what is according to the Word of God in Scripture, we are satisfied, the Controversie is at an end. But if they will take on 'em to make that a part of true Religion, yea so necessary a part, as to make it a term of our com­munion with the Catholick Church, 'tis a sinful encroachment on the Prerogative of the Lord Jesus Christ, with which we dare not compl [...].

If they expe [...]t our compliance, why do they not shew the Scriptures that declare the things they impose, to be so necessary a part of true Religion, as to be a form of our communion with the Catholick Church? They must not only shew that those things are a [...]reeable to true Religion, but moreover that they are so necessary a part thereof, that whoever conforms not to them when impos'd, is [...]pso [...]sact. cut off from the Catholick Church. This they can never do, and therefore can never clear themselves from being the Faulty dividers.

When we provoke 'em to shew us what Scriptures direct them to their Impositions, we are turn'd off with Where is it forbidden? as if they had acted exactly to the RuleSi objiciant in sacris literis non haberi In­vocandos esse Sanctos, vene­randas Imagi­nes, abstinendum à Carnibus, int aliquid ej [...]s [...]no­di; non ergo ista esse faci­enda: nos con­tra objiciamus & quidem Effi­cacius: H [...]c Sacris Literis non Prohiberi, atque sine pic­cato fieri posse, quia [...]hi non est Lex ibi nec pr [...]e­varicatio. Cos [...]. Irstit. Chri [...]t. l. 2. c. 1. Costerus the Jesuit gave his young Scholars. If any object, Where are those points, viz. The Invocation of Saints, The worshipping of Images, The abstaining from [Page 79]flesh, and the like, found in Scripture; and because not found in Scri­pture, therefore to be rejected. To which, saith the Jesuit, answer thus: Ask where 'tis forbidden in Scripture? if not forbidden in Scripture, 'tis no sin to observe 'em; for where there is no Law, there is no transgression. So far Costerus.

To whom we rejoyn, That the holy Scriptures being the only Rule of the Whole, and of Every part of true Religion, if these things be not according to the Scripture, 'tis because there is no truth in 'em. There must be an exact correspondency and a­greeableness between the Rule and its Regulate. The Regu­late must be brought to the Rule, and if it doth not agree with it, 'tis because the Regulate is not Right. The word of God in Scripture is the Rule, what Religion soever varies from the Rule, 'tis a false Religion. Rectum est Index sui & obliqui.

There are some Religions are larger than the Rule. There are other Religions that fall short of the Rule. They who embrace any Notion as a part of their Religion, which is not to be found in Scripture, is too large for the Scripture; and such as reject what the Scripture injoins, have a Religion too short. The one puts the Scripture on the Rack, to stretch it to their Religion; but the other pares off a considerable part of Scripture, that the Rule may not exceed their Religion. But such as keep exactly to the word of God in Scripture, who neither go beyond, nor fall short of it, are in the right.

To make that a part of our Religion which is not to be found in Scripture, is to take that for a part of our Religion which God hath not made a part thereof, which is sinful. How much more so is the making it a term of communion?

That the things in controversie between the Church and the Dissenter, are not to be found in Scripture, and consequently are no part of true Religion, is evident, not only because we can't understand where 'tis to be found, nor because the Church­men cannot direct us where to find it; but because they them­selves look on 'em as indifferent, i. e. as what is not injoin'd us in the word of God, q. d. as what is not according to the word of God.

All this being most plain and obvious to an ordinary Capa­city that is not biassed by Prejudice, &c. Let the world judge who is in the FAULT, They who keep close to Scripture, or [Page 80]they who recede therefrom. They who will do any thing, but Sin, for Peace; Or they who will exercise their Authority, and impose unnecessary things with the greatest Violence imaginable: I say, with the greatest Violence imaginable; for they are im­pos'd with such a severe Threatning anrex'd, that whoever re­fuses a compliance, is cut off from the Catholick Church, and given over to the Devil. Hence 'tis, that they imposing Indif­ferent things as necessary to Salvation, do according to Dr. Stil­lingfleet's own Rule, declare themselves to be the Schismatical Dividers.

I say, according to Dr. Stillingfleet's own Rule, compar'd with his Substitutes Notion. In the Doctor's Unreasonableness of Separa­tion, p. 213. he saith, That there are three Cases wheren the Scri­pture allow of Separation. The last of which is, When men make things Indifferent Necessary to Salvation, and divide the Church upon that account; and this was the Case of the false Apostles, who urged the Ceremonies of the Law, as necessary to Salvation.—Now although St. Paul himself complied sometimes with the practice of them. — Yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the Obser­vation of them as necessary to Salvation, then he bids the Christi­ans at Philippi to beware of them; i. e. To fly their Communion, and have nothing to do with chem.

From this Rule of Dr. Stillingfleet it must follow, That if the Church of England make things Indifferent Necessary to Salvation, our Separation from the Church is allowed by the Scriptures; yea commanded and enjoyned. We must beware of 'em, (i. e.) to fly their Communnion, and have nothing to do with them. But that things Indifferent are made necessary by the Church of England, according to his Doctrine, doth appear irre­fragably.

That which is Necessary to our Communion with the Catholick Church, is, according to his Doctrine, necessary to Salvation. But Indifferent things are Necessary to our Communion with the Church of England, which is One with the Communion with the Catholick Church, in that, according to him, they are made necessary to our Communion with the Church of England, which is One with the Communion with the Catholique Church, according to his constant Judgment. Ergo.

Or in other Terms, Whatever is made necessary to our be­ing [Page 81]Members of the Catholique Church, is made necessary to Sa­vation; for to be Members of the Catholick Church, and to be in a state of Salvation, is the same; and to be Members of the particular Church of England, and Members of the Catholick Church is one and the same with our Author, [p. 248.] As if it had been said, To be Members of the Church of England, is to be in a state of Salvation; but not to be Members of the Church of England, is to be out of a state of Salvation. Whence what is made necessary to our being Members of the Church of En­gland, is made necessary to our Salvation; that is, The many in­different Ceremonies impos'd, as terms of our Communion with the Church of England, are made necessary for Salvation, according to our Author.

For which reason the Scripture allows our Separation, yea the Scripture bids us beware of her, that is, to fly her Communi­on, and have nothing to do with her. Thus the Doctor in con­junction with his Substitute furnishes us with an unanswerable Argument to clear the Dissenter from the odious Sin of Schism, which in short is this;

From such as make Indifferent things Necessary to Salvation, we must Separate. This is Dr. Stillingfleet's.

But the Church of England makes Indifferent things necessary to Salvation. This is the Dr's Substitutes Notion.

Ergo, We may, yea we must Separate; that is, 'Tis the Will of God we should Separate, or 'tis our Duty, and therefore not our Sin to separate; (i. e.) We are not the Schismaticks.

This is Argumentum ad Hominem; and either this Author must quit his Doctrine, or acquit us of Schisme.

But to treat our Author with the greater Civility, we'll sup­pose him to be so tenacious of his own Doctrine, that he'll ra­ther discharge us of Schisme than abandon his beloved Notions; for which reason, seeing 'tis on all sides acknowledged that there is a Faulty Division among us, and consequently a Faulty Divider, who is the Schismatick; He must be either the Dissen­ter, or the Conformist; but not the Dissenter, as we have al­ready prov'd from our Author's own Topicks; Ergo, the Con­formist. Here we might have put an end to this Discourse, and would do so, had not our Author's fertil Brain furnish'd us with another Argument, that doth as fully evince the Conformist [Page 82]to be the Schismatick, as the former clear'd the Dissenter.

In the management of this Argument, we'll consider the Ne­tion of Dr. Peter Gunning and Peirson, as compared with our Author.

The I earned G. and P. in a Conference with the Papists, assert, That a Superiours unjust casting any out of the Church, is Schismati­cal. If the Governours of the Church do by sinful Impositions, or unjust Excommunications cast any out of the Church, they are Schismatical. This our Author won't deny.

But according to his Notion, The Church of England are guilty of such Impositions, and do unjustly Excommunicate Dissen­ters.

1. That the Impositions are sinful is evident, in that Indifferent things (as has been prov'd) are made necessary to Salvation. The making any indifferent thing Necessary to Salvation, is sin­ful. But the imposing indifferent things as terms of Catholique Communion, is the making such things Necessary to Salvation. Ergo, Sinful. Ergo, The Imposer is Schismatical. But

2. Whoever doth unjustly Excommunicate any, are Schisma­tical. This is Dr. Gunning's sense. But the Church of England (if they agree with our Author) Excommunicates the Dissenter unjustly. Ergo, &c.

That the Church of England Excommunicates unjustly, ac­cording to the Doctrine of our Author, is demonstrable; even in that the Church doth, as he would have it, by Excommunication cast thousands out of a state of Salvation, for not complying with little uncommanded things. Whence I argue thus, To Excommunicate, or cast us out of a state of Salvation, merely because we cannot comply with what God never commanded us, is to Excommunicate unjustly: But so doth the Church of England, if we may pass a censure on her as our Author pro­vokes us to do; for the Church according unto him doth Ex­communicate, that is, shut Heaven-gates against such to whom our Lord Jesus Christ hath promised the opening them.

To illustrate this with the greater clearness, I beseech the Reader to consider, That Salvation is promised by Jesus Christ unto all such as do sincerely Believe, truly Repent, and lead an Holy Life in all Godliness and Honesty. Though a man may be daily guilty of lesser Evils, yet if he believe in Christ, [Page 83]and renders sincere Obedience to the known Will of God, he shall be saved. All which may be, even with those, who being verily perswaded that their compliances with the present Impo­sitions are sinful, durst not Conform; that is, The Promise of Salvation is made by Christ to many, who do not conform to the Imp [...]sitions of the Church of England. But Salvation by our Au­thor is denied unto such, their Non-compliance is enough to make 'em Schismatical, to cut them off from Christ, and the hopes of Salvation, which being no ways justifiable in the Conscience of any sober man, the Dissenters are unjustly Excommunicated; and he that so Excommunicates, is Schismatical.

'Tis most certain, That many good Christians cannot con­form to the imposed terms of Communion with the Church, and that for this single Reason they are Excommunicable, if not actually Excommunicated from the Church; that is, put out of a state of Salvation. The which being so, 'twill unavoidably follow, That either the Excommunication is unjust; or, That the Church hath greater Power, than he that is the Lord of it, to open and shut the gates of Heaven. If the latter, then the Church sets itself up above all that is called God in this world, and Christ in the other. For whereas Repentance towards God, and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, is sufficient for our Salvation; these add somwhat more, to wit, an Obedience to new Impositions, threatning the neglect with Damnation. But if the former, if the Excommunication is unjust, then according to Dr. Gunning, with the addition of our Author, Our Ecclesiastical Governours are the Schismaticks. The Argument here in short is this;

He that doth unjustly Excommunicate any out of the Catholick Church, is a Schismatick. This is Dr. Gunning's.

But the Church of England, shutting those out of Salvation to whom Christ hath promised it, Excommunicates unjustly. This is our Authors.

Therefore the Church of England, according to the Position of our Author, is the Schismatick.

Hereby we may easily perceive, what an admirable Defender the Church of England hath, in the Defender of the Dean; and how little the true Protestant Clergy of the Church are beholding to this man, who insists on such Notions as do necessarily lead judicious men to conclude the Church of England Schismatical.

But to return to our Author, who leaping over all the diffi­culties, though but hinted in the Enquiry, runs unto another Question, viz. From Ceremonies to Circumstances; form the Parts of their Religion, to the external Appendages thereunto, confoun­ding the one with the other, and then runs triumphantly, as­suring his Reader, That 'tis impossible to worship God, or ex­ercise any act of Religion, but it must be in some time, or in some place; it must be done in some circumstances, therefore we may make some things a part of our Religion, which God has not. At this rate he fills up a great part of his Second Chapter. Insisting on nothing but what had its answer in that Enquiry he attempted to confute. Therefore if I should say no more than what I have in giving the true state of the Controversie, it would be sufficient: For it lies on him either to prove to our Conviction, that We may without sin comply with their Impositions, (i. e.) He must so far effectually enlighten our Conscience, as to help us to see, that the Impositions are not sinful, and that we may law­fully Conform; or shew, That we must Conform contrary to the Convictions of our Consciences, and render a blind Obedience unto their Commands, Believing as the Church believes; or they ought to remove the Impositions, or acknowledge that our Complian­ces are not sinful. One of these must be done. Let him do either, and the Controversie will be ended, and the Dissenters freed from Schisme. But if he cannot enlighten us to see the Lawfulness of their Impositions, nor perswade us to render a blind Obedience, nor remove the Impositions, but plead for their continuance, 'twill appear, That they by imposing what in their Judgments is but Indifferent, as things necessary to our Salvation, are the Schismaticks. This might suffice as a full Answer.

But that nothing may escape consideration, that our Author may think deserves it, Ple reflect a little on his main strength. If there be any force in this Argument (says he) it consists in these two things: First, That all things which are in their own nature indiffe­rent, may without sin be parted with. And secondly, That the Opi­nion of Dissenters, That indifferent things are unlawful in the wor­ship of God, is a just reason for parting with them: For if it be not lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent, those who retain the use of some indifferent things, cannot meerly upon that account be called Dividers or Schismaticks; and if the opinion of Dissenters that [Page 85]all indifferent things are unlawful, be not a sufficient reason for part­ing with them, then there may be no fault in the Episcopals will not, nor a sufficient justification or excuse in the Dissenters cannot. p. 9.

First, saith he, If there be any force in this Argument, it consists in two things: First, That all things which are in their own nature indifferent, may without sin be parted with. This is his mistake; he should have said, That if there be any strength in the Enquiry, it lyes in this, viz. No one indifferent Ceremony must be made so ne­cessary a part of Religion, as to be a term of Communion. 'Tis this he should have considered. For you sin by insisting on any one, or more indifferent things so zealously as to make 'em terms of Communion with your Church, and consequently with the Church Catholick; so as to deny us a right to Christ and Salvation, for a mere non-compliance. You can part with your indifferent Ce­remonies without sin, and open the door of Salvation to the wretched Dissenter if you will, even when they cannot without sin comply with your intolerable Impositions. The indifferent things you impose, you impose as terms of our Communion with you, which you make to be the same with Catholick Com­munion, that is of Salvation.

2. You add the second thing, viz. That the Opinion of Dissenters, That Indifferent things are unlawful, is a just reason for parting with them. For if it be not, say you, lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent; those who retain the use of Indifferent things, cannot merely upon that account be called Dividers, or Schismaticks, &c.

You should remember, that I distinguished between Ceremo­nies and Circumstances, between what is a part of Religion, and Intrinsecal thereunto, and what is Extrinsecal only: But you run to external Circumstances that are necessary in Thesi, which is off from the point in hand.

You run from what is Indifferent to what is Necessary, as if we called you to part with any necessary thing; whereas there is never any indifferent Ceremony that is grievous to our Con­sciences, but you may part with, or cease to impose 'em, and yet worship God. But to divide necessary circumstances of Action from the Action, is impossible. A thing we no way de­sire.

'Tis true as you assert, A man who is to remove from London [Page 86] to York, is not bound either to go thither on foot, or on horseback, or in a Coach, or in a Waggon, each of these ways are in themselves indifferent; but yet if he will travel to York, he must use one or ether of those ways of Motion; not one in particular is necessary, yet one or other is. But what is this to our purpose? What though the Partition-wall between Ceremonies and Circumstances be broken down, and they all mingled together, and all must be consi­der'd alike but as Circumstances, What will this help you? To keep to your pretty Allusion with one necessary Addition, viz. One hath not strength to walk on foot from London to York, another cannot bear the riding in Coach, yet to York they must go. If you'll keep to the point before us, you must say to the person that cann't walk to York, Some way of Motion is necessary to your going to York, if you'l go thither; therefore you shall walk, or not go thither: And to the other that can't ride in a Coach, if you'll not go thither in a Coach, you shall not go at all; and yet give him the Strapad [...] for not going thither.

This is the Case; and how easily may they reply unto you on your calling them to hasten to York on these impossible terms, or to the Bisli [...]ps Colehouse? We would go to York with all our heart on Horseback, or in a Waggon; but to walk or to ride in a Coach we cannot. You can give us leave to go thither on hors­back, if you will, but you will not; we would go, but go in Coach, or walk, we cannot. Here is a division, your will not, and our cannot; who now is in fault? That they cannot, is evident because of weakness and Infirmity of body; That you can per­mit 'em to go on Horseback, is as unquestionable; but yet you will not.

Thus we have the strength of our Author's Reply; You must get into the visible Catholich Church, or to prison; and you can­not get in, but you must either use some external circumstances in some time, or in some place, &c. therefore this time, or no time; this place or no place. Sir, by your good favour, as you acknowledg this or the other particular circumstance to be in­different, and that other circumstances may be chosen, if not this; to make either of these indifferent circumstances a necessary t [...]rm of communion, is sinful and schismatical. To make of a lit­tle thing so great a bar to shut thousands out of heaven, is what you will never be able to answer when you shall appear before the Tribunal of a righteous God.

But as to the true state of the Controversie, 'tis another thing; you make that a part of Religion which God hath not made; you impose uninstituted ceremonies, and in many things recede from the Apostolical Institution, and call on us on pain of damnation to comply with you. We must comply, or be cut off from the Catholick Church, even from the body of Christ, from all hopes of salvation.

These things being thus plain, I'le gratisie our Authors desire in considering his Logick. If the Dissenters can without sin (says he) obey their Governours in indifferent, that is, in lawful things, but will not; and the Episcopal would be content to part with in­different things for union, but cannot, who is the Divider? What must be done for Union? Must the Dissenters comply in things where­in they can without sin; or must the Episcopal sin and lose their peace with God fot Union? p. 29.

This is called by our Author an Argument, but why, I cannot imagine; however let it be so, wherein lies its strength, or how comes it to pass, that this cannot be answered, without a shew­ing Sophistry to be where 'tis not?

If there be any force in this Argument, it must be either in this, viz. That the Impositions are in the judgment of the Dissenters Law­ful, or Indifferent, which may be submitted unto without sin. Had this suggestion been true, we would grant him the whole he desires, viz. That the Dissenters refusing to do what is Law­ful in their own judgment to be done for Union, they are Faulty. But 'tis notirious, That the imposed terms are of such a nature, that they cannot be submitted unto by the Dissenter, but he must grievously offend the most high God, to the wounding his own conscience.

If its strength lyes not there, it must in this, That the Epis­ [...]pal would be content to part with indifferent things, but cannot. And why can they not? What is the matter that they cannot part with toys and trifles to take many a thousand within the pale of the Church, and thereby help 'em to Heaven? The things are still supposed indifferent by our Author, and therefore a parting with 'em is not contrary to any Law, nor sinful. Why then can they not without sin part with, what they can part with without sin? This is surely mysterious! They cannot part with that without sin, which they can part with without sin, and [Page 88]Yet will not part with it, though according to their own judg­ment their not parting with their indifferent things tends to the unavoidable destruction of souls. They know the Dissenters, un­less these indifferent things be past by, must be kept out of the Church of England, that is, out of the Catholick Church say they, and remain to the last hour of their life in a state of damnation. Whence then did I say, What must must be done for Union? I may now say, What must be done to save the thousands of Souls for whom Christ died? Must the Episcopal part with what they can without sin, and take the Dissenters into the Catholique Church, and there­by save their Souls; or must the Dissenters sin that they may be saved? What, Is there no way to Heaven for English Dissenters, but their complying with sinful Impositions? "Twas said in the Apostles days, that We must not do evil, that good may come there­of. Then surely, if we will be of the Apostles judgment, We must not sin, to save our Souls. Our Unrighteousness doth not, can­not commend the Righteousness of God. But

Before I dismiss this Point, that the Reader may be fully satis­fied that I abuse not our Author, I must beseech him to consi­der;

• 1. That our Author hath, in a way different from the greatest, or rather the better part of the Clergy, asserted, That our not holding external communion with the Church of England, is a cutting our selves off from the Catholick Church, a putting our selves out of the Way of Salvation. This is the main scope of his discourse. A notion concerning which Dr. Stillingfleet's thoughts are desired.
• 2. That notwithstanding the absolute necessity there is of the Dissenters returning to the Church of England, that they may become members of the Universal Church, and be sav'd, they will not part with any of those things that are in their own judg­ment little, though it be to save the Dissenters souls. If they would remove what is in their own judgment but little, and what may be done without their sin, but what cannot be complied with by the Dissenter without his great sin, the Controversie is ended, the Schis [...] lost, and the Dissenter restor'd to the Catholick Church, and may be sav'd. Let the World judg then who is in the fault.

There remaineth nothing more that is worthy our considera­tion, unless the many slips of our Author may be esteem'd as [Page 89]such, by the Authors insisting on my parallelling Dr. Stillingfleet and Bellarmine, not only in their Dividing Principles, but also in that, even when by their Impositions; they make the greatest rents in the Church imaginable, they speak well of Union, but this is only an overt-act of his inadvertency. For the reason why I mentioned this, was to obviate a common Objection, viz. How can you parallel the Doctor and Bellarmine in this, seeing the Doctor cries up Union so much, as the designe of his great Book, as well as of his Sermon? To which I reply, That though the Principles of Bellarmine were Dividing, yet he cries up Union; for which reason though the Doctor applauds Union, yet in doing so, doth no more than Bellarmine, and therefore may be as much a Divi­der as Bellarmine, notwithstanding those many plausible Discour­ses concerning the excellency of Union; for Union is a lovely name in the judgment of such as will do nothing to obtain the thing.

His passing over the most momentous parts of the Enquiry, without saying any thing considerable unto 'em, makes a further Defence, at present, unnecessary; I say for the present, because he seems to threaten, as if I should hear more of it in DUE TIME.

To close then this discourse, it only remains, that in Charity to our Author, whose Affections to Dr. Stillingfleet have so abun­dantly blinded his Judgment, that he cannot, though in search­ing till he hath wearied himself, find out any Mistake in the Dr's Preface, I'll give him an Account of a few among many, and then shew what little Reason such of the Church of England, who are for the Grotian, or Bishop Laud's Model, have to reproach Dissenters, as a People carrying on Popish Designs, in blasting the honour of the first Reformation.

§ 1. An Account of some of those Mistakes, which are found in Dr. Stilling fleet's Preface to his Unreasonableness of Separation, not to mention any thing of the Parallel between the Dean and the Jesuit, so much insisted on in the Enquiry.

• 1. THE Dean asserted, p. 14. a suitableness between the Dis­senters Pretences, and the Jesuits Doctrines, about Spiritual Prayer: whereas I have evinced the contrary.
• 2. That the Grounds and Reasons of the first Separation of the old Nonconformist from the Church of England, are said to be the Jesuits crying down all Forms of Prayer, and setting up Spiritual Prayer in the room thereof. But I have proved, that the first who separated, did keep to a Form of Prayer.
• 3. That the Dissenters do blast the honour of the first Refor­mation; but they so far countenance it, as to endeavour the carrying it on.
• 4. That the Dissenters are the best Proctors the Papists could meet with, their fittest and aptest Instruments; that they were made the Engins of the Roman Conclave, p. 16. All which the Doctor takes out of Archbishop Whitgift. But an unjust Cen­sure, if not a great Mistake.
• 5. That the Episcopacy now and in King Edward's days was the same; whereas in King Edward's days they held all their Courts in the King's name, but now in their own.
• 6. That there is no considerable difference between the Re­formation begun in Edward the 6ths, and that carried on in Queen Elizabeths time: Whereas 'tis most apparent, that in King Edward's time they judged the Pope to be Antichrist; but in Queen Elizabeths not a word of it; and many other diffe­rences.

All which relate unto matter of fact, and therefore may be rightly called Historical Mistakes. Many more might be insisted on, but these are sufficient to help our Author to see, that if his eyes had been good, he needed not to weary himself in making a search after them without effect. If this will not satisfie our Author, if he will call for a larger list of the Dean's Mistakes, I [Page 91]do assure him 'tis easie enough to add a multitude more, al­though I delight not in a detecting the Weaknesses of any.

§ 2. Thus having given an hint of some of Dr. Stillingfleet's Mistakes found in his Preface; I shall conclude, by shewing what little Reason, such as our Author, have to make such a prodi­gious noise about the Dissenters subserviency to Popish Designs, in blasting the honour of the Reformation.

Sir, If the case be narrowly searched into, you will find, that in all times since the first Reformation, those call'd Puritans were a block in the way to the Church of Englands passing over towards Rome. Had it not been for the Industry of the Nonconformist, as all the forreign Protestant Churches beyond the Seas are Unchur­ched by our high-flown Episcopal men, even so they should have been abandon'd as Heretical, but that the Dissenter makes such a clamour on all occasions about Popery.

You have very ingeniously distinguish'd between the Church, and the Court of Rome, and have taken the most effectual care to endeavour that favour might be shewn the Church of Rome, even when you cry down Popery; as if the common People had understood by Popery no more than your self, namely the Court of Rome; whereas they think, that when you cry down Popery, you are enemies to the Church of Rome. A pretty juggle! Po­pery is an odious thing, even when to be a Roman Catholick is worthy of all applause. Laud was no Papist, he was an enemy to Popery, when a cordial Friend to the Church of Rome. Popery is detestable, when all the care imaginable must be taken, that nothing be done to the disgust of the Roman Church. Consult Bramhall and Heylin, to mention no more, to see whether these be not their Sentiments.

You boast strangely of King Edwards Reformaton, not con­sidering how short of it, in some things, you are fall'n. You represent us as blasters of the Reformation begun in his days, not duely minding what one of your own Faction, Dr. Heylin, hath said on't in his Preface to the History of the Reformation: [Page 92]Take the Character he gives of Edward the 6th, and make the most of it; 'tis this, Scarce had they (saith he) brought it, [viz. the Reformation] to pass, when Edward died, whose death I cannot reckon for an Infelicity to the Church of England. For being ill-principled in himself, and easily inclin'd to embrace such Counsels as were offered to him, it is not to be thought but that the rest of the Bishopricks (before sufficiently impoverished) must have followed Durham, and the poor Church be left as destitute of Lands and Or­naments, as when she came into the world in her natural Naked­ness.

From these words of Heylin 'tis evident, That such as are of this Grotian Faction, do reflect sufficiently on the Reformation then begun, and also plainly enough suggest, That if K. Edward had lived longer, the Reformation had gone on further than you or your party desire; it may be they would have gone on so far as those you now call Schismaticks. If so, how comes it to pass that the Dissenters by acting so agreeably to what King Edwards Protestants would have done, cast any reproach on that so hap­pily begun Reformation?

In fine, It cannot but amuse wise men, to observe how pru­dently Dr. Stilling fleet and his Substitute insist on the Dissenters subserviency to the Popish Interest: Whereas 'tis most manifest, that the Papists themselves do with the greatest confidence con­clude none more opposite, nor more injurious to their Designs than the Dissenter. However, seeing one Dissenter spake but a word for the forbearance of a meer conscientious Papist, this is enough to animate those Gentlemen to load the whole Party with the reproach of being great friends to Popery. The which is the more remarkable, because all this cry is even when a Son of the Church, yea a Reverend Divine of that name hath writ­ten a Volume in favour of the Church though not of the Court) of Rome, without any notice taken of it. And the Dean himself in that very Preface in which he so much declaims against the Dissenter, doth speak much more in favour of the Papists, than any Dissenter ever did; for he himself asserts, That it will be thought great hardship when mens heats are ever, for them only (viz. [Page 93]the Papists) to be deprived of the liberty of their Consciences, when the wildest Fanaticks are allow'd it. p. 79.

Moreover, what is matter of greater surprise is, That all this stir is rais'd from one word out of a Dissenters mouth, even when great things have been done by some who pretend to be sons of the Church, in favour of the Papist, to the turning the edg of those Laws that were made against Papists on Protestant Dissenters, without any remark; as if it had been highly merito­rious in a Church-man to act for all Papists in the general, tho' an unpardonable crime in a Dissenter to speak but one word for the supposed conscientious only.

That some of the Church of England have acted in favour of all sorts of Papists, to the advancing Popery, is notorious, as hath been observed by Sir Francis Winnington at the Trial of the Lord Stafford. Another encouragement, my Lord (faith Sir Fr. W.) which the Papists had, was, That by the means of those Ministers who were secretly of their Faction, whenever his Majesty was pleased to command the Laws made against them in the Reign of Q. Eliza­beth and K. James, to be put in due execution, his good intentions were frustrated, and the severity of those Laws was turn'd upon the Protestant Dissenters. This was a Master piece of Rome, not only to divert from themselves the edg of those Laws which were design'd against them; but to turn them upon the Protestants, and to make them useful to advance the Romish Interest.

The same is also the sense of the Commons assembled in Par­liament, as is to be seen in their Address unto his Majesty, No­vember 29.1680. Where they declare unto his Majesty in these words, At home, if your Majesty did at any time by the advice of your Privy Council, or of your Two Houses of Parliament, command the Laws to be put in execution against Papists, even from thence they gain'd advantage to their Party, while the edg of those Laws was turned against Protestant Dissenters, and the Papists escap'd in a manner untouch'd.

Thus many a Son of the Church have heretofore taken an [Page 94]especial care to turn the edg of Laws against Popery, on the Dissenter. But this is not speaking for a forbearance; 'tis but an actual affording forbearance to 'em all in general. Of which one word must not be spoke. As if such men as our Author would that all the Respects which are had for Papists, must be confin'd to them, who alone without offence may shew it 'em.

But 'tis pretty evident, that there are other Conformists of a­nother mind, as may appear by the Countrey-Conformists further Reply to this Defence, or Vindication, which we have received from him in these Sheets following, and to which I refer my Reader.