I Have received the Book you sent me [An humble Apology for Non Confor­mists, with modest and seri­ous reflections on the Friend­ly Debate] and wish it had come to my hands before as it came after the last Term, that so it might have been considered by us when we discoursed together about Philagathus. This Apo­logist or Catechist (I know not which to call him) should indeed have been otherwise treated, because he is [Page 2] of another strain: And though he commits the very same faults, yet not with the same confidence and braving that Philagathus did; whose over­daring carried him in a ridiculous manner to catch a Tartar; that is, in plain English, to lose himself.

I You cannot but observe sure with what a grave and serious impertinence this N. C. Catechism begins: Alledg­ing these words (wherewith Bishop Bramhal concludes his Vindication of the Church of England) for a reason why an Answer was not given sooner to my Book; viz. We little imagine with what difficulties poor Exiles struggle, whose minds are more intent on what they should eate to morrow than what they should write. It was very unadvisedly done, methinks, to put us in mind at the very first dash how cruelly they used such excellent persons in time past, who, as the Bishop there feeling­ly complains in the words immediate­ly following, were chased as Vagabonds into the merciless World to beg relief of [Page 3] strangers See pag. 275 and his Pathe­tick Ad­dress to England, p. 277. He shews himself also a very careless Writer, who in the very entrance of his Work confesses that extreme rigour and severity against the men of the Church of England, which afterwards he denies; telling us, That scarce any man in those days, who was able sober and peaceable, but might, if he had pleased, have employment and a liveli­hood Humble Apol. p. 23. & 151. But to use the Bishop as their Advocate in this case (as he speaks) that is to make his heavy complaint a reason for their silence, is such an ab­surdity as none could be guilty of but one whose wit is turn'd Vagabond, and gone a wool-gathering. For suppose he be an Exile (which I do not be­lieve) are the rest of the Non-Confor­mists, and they who are best able to write a Book either banished into a strange Land, or exposed to those hardships which the Bishop there sighs under? One would think rather that this Apologist (for his part) is in so good plight that he hath time to be idle and trifle; or that he hath not yet lost that niceness and delicacy which I [Page 4] noted in this sort of men, who com­plain of every little restraint as if it were the hugest oppression. They are Exiles, forsooth, because some of them may not live within five miles of their former Dwelling: They are ba­nished, because they are confined to a Country Town, and may not dwell in a Corporation. I can make no other meaning of his application of those words to themselves; Unless you will have it, that he had a mind to sport a a little as Luther sometimes did; who was wont to call the place of his re­tirement, when the Pope thundred against him, by the name of his Pat­mos Melch. Adam. pa. 121, &c. though it was a good Castle where he lay obscured from his Ene­mies, was well entertained by his Friends, had the liberty sometimes to gather Strawberries, or to go a Hunt­ing in the neighbouring places; and which is best of all, had there the happy leisure to translate the New Te­stament into the German Tongue. And so indeed this Writer tells us (p. 47.) that the Non-Conformists are turned out [Page 5] to grass, and for that cause, the Cir­cingle will not become them. By which merriment you may see the Animal is in good case, and that you are like to find wonderfully serious reflections on the Friendly Debate. But let it be as he supposes, that they are poor Exiles, and that the Pasture into which they are turn'd out, is but short; yet I hope they are not such Evil Beasts, slow bellies Tit. 1.12. as the Cretians were, that is (as some understand their Cha­racter) such great feeders, but that they might have chopt a little Logick with me without pinching their guts, and given an Answer to a Book that hath so little reason in it, if he may be believed, without indangering the de­frauding of their stomachs. The great work of eating might have gone on, and this not have been neglected. For it would not have cost much more time to confute, than it did to read a Book, in which, as he tells youPreface, p. 5. the words are more than the matter, the Rhetorick far beyond the Logick, and which hath smitten them not so much [Page 6] with the Fist, as with the Palms of the hands. I should think it would cost him a great deal more to reconcile these words with those that follow in the end of his Preface, That I have made so many hard and desperate thrusts at them (which it is not easie to do with the Palm of ones hand) that it hath forced them at last to draw in their defence.

O, may some say, but to what pur­pose had it been to draw sooner? Be­sides, that they are Exiles, If an An­swer had stoln forth without Licence, would it not have been arrested for a seeming breach of a late Act about Print­ing? &c. This is another solemn piece of impertinence (to say no worse) wherewith he closes his Answer to the first Question of his Catechism, why a Reply came out no sooner. May not I better ask, With what Authority this comes out now? Was there a greater Priviledge for unlicenced Books this last Michaelmas, than there was in Hilary or Easter Term before? This very Apology confutes it self; and [Page 7] lets you see how little you are to ex­pect from this Undertaker who stum­bles in such a lubberly manner at his first setting out. For as that Bishop, now mentioned, speaks in another case, It were strange if he should throw a good cast, who soales his bowle upon an undersong Reply to S. W's Re­futation, p. 1.

II If he had not wanted substantial matter to alledge in excuse of their faults, he would not have faln, I per­swade my self, into so many of the Vices of Philagathus (whose sober An­swer stands but for a Cypher in this Mans account) being a little more modest. He wants not his, It may bee's, Pag 6. 29, 34, &c. it is possible, for ought I know, and such like words which signifie no­thing, but that he knew not what to say, and yet was big with an Apolo­gy. This barrenness of weighty matter, made him serve us up the same insipid Coleworts twice or thrice over. He be­gins his Preface and his Book tooSee Ans. to Quest. 2. with the same complaint, that I have smitten them on the right cheek, and on [Page 8] the left. And Bonners Beef and broth he sets before us three times at leastPag. 42, 89, 131. He is for Cookery too, Sauces, and gar­nishing of dishesPag. 99.. And tells vagrant stories very prodigallyPag 38, 41, 62, 64, 65, 68, 74, 89, 100, 104. out of their unwritten traditions, from whence they furnished so many brazen Legends in the beginning of the late Tumults: News from Hell, News from Rome, News from Court, News from Ipswich, Cathedral news from Canterbury, and many more. All which I shall pass by at this present, because they are Pec­cadillo's in compare with the other faults that he hath committed.

III He makes no bones for instance, as modest and humble as he seems, to talk of several things which he doth not understand, nor hath examined at all. The very Second Page of his Book gives you a proof of it; where he tells you, He humbly conceives that every transgression of an humane Law, though but Penal, is not so culpable or criminous, as is pretended. Truly, I conceive so too, that all Offences are [Page 9] not of equal guilt; but I must let him know, that as I did not pretend every transgression of a Law to be so culpa­ble as the transgression of that I spoke of, so, I humbly conceive, he pre­tends to skill in the nature of Laws but Penal, which he is utterly ignorant of. For both that Law which I mentioned, and all those that he instances in, are more than Penal, as is manifest to eve­ry one that hath made the least search into these matters. A Law that is but Penal, as every ordinary Casuist might have taught himInstead of all, let him con­sult Dr. Sanderson de oblig. conscientiae Prael. 82., commands nothing; but only exacts a Penalty in case a man think fit to do, or not to do some things therein expressed: As if a man be chosen Alderman of the City of London, and refuse to hold the Place, he is by a Law among them to pay a Fine to [...]em. Which is cal­led a Law but Penal, because it doth not require or bind a man to serve this Office (he is at liberty whether he will or no) it requires only the payment of such a Sum of Money if he think good not to serve. So that here indeed [Page 10] to pay the Money doth ordinarily sa­tisfie the Law; because a Law-maker binds us only by declaring his will to Oblige us, and he declares nothing as his will to oblige a man in this case, but the payment of a Fine. Which is called a Penalty in a large sense, as it is something which a man would not willingly undergo if it were left to his own choise, and is imposed on him in stead of another burden which he re­fuses, viz. that of Government. But what is this to the Law which I had occasion to mention? Which is not of this sort, but a Law Mandatory, as I may call it; requiring them not to inhabite in such and such places. Up­on which account it is a Moral Law, to regulate mens manners; and for that cause, it is a vertue to obey it, and a vice to disobey it. Nor doth the ad­dition of a Penalty to it alter its na­ture. For such Laws are a Rule of life given with an intention to oblige men to obedience; there being few that know of themselves what is best and most profitable for common life: And [Page 11] the Penalty is not to be undergone in stead of the obedience, but is added to contain Subjects in their duty by the fear of it, because even they who may know what is best will not otherwise do it. So that in conclusion, such a Law with a Penalty layes a dou­ble obligation upon us both ad poenam and ad culpam as they speak, to suffer the punishment, and to be sinners if we disobey it. There is no doubt of the former, and it is as unreasonable to question the latter; because the Law contains a Command, and Sin is nothing but the transgression of a Command: which transgression is greater or less according as the will of the Law-maker is more or less to ob­lige us; and that is to be known very much by the greatness or smalness of the Penalty whereby it is enacted to move us to obedience. This he might have learnt of Bishop Taylor, whom he quotes directly against his meaning. For that Question which this man re­solves Affirmatively [Is it not enough to satisfie the Law to pay the Mulct or [Page 12] Penalty in such Cases? p. 3.] he an­swers Negatively: And that within a few lines of that very place which this Apologist alledges to a quite contra­ry sense. You may find it in his Holy Living, Chap. 3. Sect. 1. Rule 7. which begins thus, Do not believe thou hast kept the Law when thou hast suffered the punishment, &c. Read the rest at your leisure; and do not believe this man who abuses the Bishop, and wrests his words (as their manner is) from their meaning: The Rule that he men­tions being directed to another pur­pose, and expressed in terms flatly against him. As long, saith the Bishop, as the Law is obligatory, so long our obe­dience is due, Ib. Rule the 4. quo­ted by this Apol. p. 4. &c. If obedience be due, then I hope it is not sufficient to suffer the Penalty; and then this Writer shamefully perverts the sense of that Rule, or else doth not under­stand it; which is no more but this, that a fixed Custome abrogates a Law, and makes our obedience no longer due to it. While the Law is in force, we sin if we do not obey it; but a [Page 13] fixed Custom makes it not to be in force, and then we are free from it. This is the sense of the Bishop; to which nothing need be added, but that whilst the Law-giver constantly declares his will that it should oblige, no Custom can be pleaded, nor ex­cuse be made for doing contrary to it.

But you think perhaps that he may find some relief in Mr. Perkins whom he also alledges. You may try if you please, but if you consult the place, you will see he had some reason not to tell you where to find it. For first he recites his words imperfectly, and doth not let you know that Mr. Per­kins declares, where the Law-maker intends obedience simply the Statutes are necessary to be kept. And again, that he doth not excuse men from all blame who break some of the lesser local Statutes, but only saith, Students may in some sort excuse themselves from the sin of Perjury, though not from all fault, in breaking some of the lesser local Statutes. They are his very words [Page 14] in his Second Book of Cases of Con­science, Chap. 13. in the latter end. But to pass by this: That part of his words which he cites, are so far from reach­ing his purpose, that they are against him. For first, the Law-maker intends obedience simply to the Laws that they break, as is manifest to all. For secondly, they are not Laws meerly for Decency and Order (which Mr. Perkins speaks of) but for the preservation of the being of Christian Society, which is destroyed by separa­tion and division. And therefore third­ly, the Penalty is not as beneficial to the state of the Society as actual Obe­dience.

As for that which follows in the end of his Answer to this Question (which he repeats again, p. 128.) it is altoge­ther impertinent. For we do not charge them with a bare omission of what our Governours command, but with a direct opposition to it, and that to the great scandal of the People, and contempt of the Royal Authority. All which things considered, I think in stead [Page 15] of making an Apology for the Non-Conformists, he had better have fol­lowed the counsel of Alcibiades to his Uncle when he found him busie about his Accounts; which was, that he should study rather how to give no account at all.

IV For he is grosly ignorant in other Learning as well as in this; as appears by his discourse about Ordination by Presbyters, which follows a little af­ter. The Friendly Debate gave him no occasion to mention any thing of this nature, but he had a mind it seems to give us a taste of his skill in this great Question; though it be so small that I know not how to excuse his bold­ness in medling with it. He supposes that the Chorepiscopi (which he makes the same with our Rural Deans) may lawfully Ordain. And next, that Suf­fragans were but such Presbyters; so that he who was Ordained by them had not Episcopal Ordination. And then thirdly, He would have you be­lieve that Archbishop Ʋsher and other [Page 16] Learned men concurring in judgment with him, were of this opinion. Every one of which propositions are noto­riously false, as I will plainly shew you by demonstrating these three things. 1. That those called Chore­piscopi, Rural or Country Bishops ne­ver had the Power of Ordination, be­ing not of the Order of Bishops, but Presbyters something advanced above the rest. 2. On the other side, that Suffragans had the power of Ordinati­on, being not meer Presbyters, but Bishops, as those in the City were. And lastly, That the late Primate saith nothing contrary to this.

For the first: The Country Bishops, saith the Council of Neocaesarea, About the year 314. Can. 13. were but of such a degree as the seventy Disciples, and appoin­ted after their Type: to whom the Antients, every body knows, make Presbyters to be the Successors, as Bishops are to the Apostles. And therefore that Council calls them only Assistants to the Bishops, in that part of their Diocess which was distant [Page 17] from the City. But that they had on­ly a part of the Episcopal Power committed to them, not the whole, we learn from the Council of Ancyra presently after, Can. 13. which decreed that the Chorepiscopi, or Country Bishops ought not to ordain either Ppesbyters or Deacons. [...]. To which purpose he that pleases may find many authorities in Justellus his notes upon that place. And in the Council of Antioch, Can. 10. the same is decreed again, that they should know their bounds or mea­sures, and appoint Readers, Sub-Dea­cons, and Catechists, but not dare to proceed further, nor to make a Priest or Deacon, without the Bishop of the City to which both he and his Region were subject. The same Ca­nons were in the Roman Church, as appears by the Body of the De­crees:v. part 1. Distinct. 63. c. 4. The words of which be­ing abbreviated by Sigebert he calls them Arch-Deacons. But afterward the Council of Laodicea decreed, Can. 57. that this sort of Officers should be abolished, and no Bishops should be [Page 18] appointed [...] in the Villages, and in the Countries: and that they who had been already con­stituted should do nothing without the consent of the Bishop of the City. But instead of them there should be [ [...]] Visitors, that should go about to find out what was amiss, and correct mens manners. In like manner we find in the Body of the Canon LawDistinct. 68. c. 5. a Decree of Pope Damasus to this purpose, That the Chorepiscopi have been prohibited as well by that See, as by the Bishops of the whole world. One reason of which prohibition might be that they did not [...]. know their own bounds, as the Council of Antioch de­termined, but ventured to appoint Church Officers, without the Bishops Consent. Upon which occasion St. Basil wrote a particular Epistle to the Chorepiscopi, requiring that no MinisterEpist. 181. p. 959. Tom. 1. [...] Readers and such Ministers as those Luke 4.10. whatsoever, though of the lower rank, should be made without him, contrary to the Canons. ‘It is a sad thing, saith he, to see how the Ca­nons of the Fathers are laid aside; [Page 19] insomuch that it is to be feared all will come to Confusion. The An­tient Custom was this, That there should be a strict inquiry made into the lives of those who were to be admitted to minister in the Church. The care of this lay upon the Pres­byters and Deacons, who were to report it to the Chorepiscopi, and they having received a good testimony of them, certified it to the Bishop, and so the Minister [...]. was admitted in­to Holy Orders: But now you Country Bishops would make me stand for a Cypher, and take all this Au­thority to your selves: nay, you permit the Presbyters and Deacons to put in whom they please, accord­ing as Kindred or Affection inclines them, without regard to their worth. But let me, saith he, have a note of the Ministers of every Village; and if any have been brought in by the Presbyters, let them be cast out again among the common people. And know that he shall be but a Lay-man whoever he is that is received into [Page 20] the Ministry without our con­sent.’

By this it is apparent that Presbyters had not power so much as to make the lowest Officers in the Church; and that the Chorepiscopi, though above the rest of the Presbyters, in Office, yet were not so high as Bishops, but were a middle sort of men between both. An image of whom was re­maining in the late Bohemian Church, as I learn from Comenius; who in his Book concerning the Discipline and Order among them tells us, that be­side the Seniors or Bishops,For they had Epi­scopal Or­dination after they had been made Pres­byters, and Epi­copal Ju­risdiction and Suc­cession from the Bishops of the Wal­denses. and Ministers or Presbyters, they had cer­tain Ecclesiastical Persons called Con­seniors, who were between the other two. For they were chosen out of the Ministers, presented by them to the Bishop, and then solemnly ordained by him to the Office of Conseniors by a new imposition of hands. But at the same time these Conseniors promised Obedience to the Bishop;Ratio Discipl. & Ord. Eccl. cap. 2. p. 37. as the Ministers when they were Ordained promised Obedience to them as well [Page 21] as to the Bishop.Ib. p. 33. Their Office therefore was among other things (as we are told, Chap. 1. page 23, 24.) to keep good Order, to observe what was worthy of correction, to inform the Bishop of it, to provide fit persons for the Ministry, to exercise Discipline with the Bishop, and visit with him, or without him if he re­quired it, to examine those that were to be ordained Ministers or Deacons, to give them testimonials to the Bi­shop, and in short, To supply the place of the Bishop in businesses of lesser mo­ment. So it appears by the Book, and by Comenius his Annotations upon that Chapter.page 92. Minoribus in negotiis Episcopi vices obi­rent.

Thus much may suffice for the Cho­repiscopi who had not such a power as he ascribes to them; and as the Suf­fragans, I shall now shew you, were invested withal; who were of the Or­der of Bishops as much as any other. Some have called them Titular Bishops ordained to assist and aid the Bi­shop of the Diocess in his Spiri­tual [Page 22] Function, and think they had their name from this, that by their Suffrages Ecclesiastical Causes were judged. But the better to understand what they were, you must know that all the Bi­shops of any Province were antiently called by the Metropolitan his Suffra­gans; being to advise and assist him in the common Affairs of the Church. So the word is often used in the Canon Law; and in latter times in the Pro­vincial Council of Salisburg An. 1420 Cap de Officio Or­dinarii.. The Archbishop Everard speaks to all the Bishops as his Suffragans being called together with him, in partem solicitu­dinis; into part of the care of the peo­ple under his charge. Which are the words of our Linwood also, who saith the Bishops are called Suffragans, be­cause they are bound to help and as­sist the ArchbishopArchiepi­scopo suf­fragari & assistere te­nentur. Annor. in cap. de Constitu­tionibus.. But since those times, they only have been cal­led Suffragans who were indeed or­dained Bishops, but not possessed as yet of any See, and thence called Ti­tular Bishops: which kind of Bishops are no stranger, than those Ministers [Page 23] at Geneva, whom they call Apostoli, who preach in the Country Churches, and administer the Sacraments, but have no certain charge. Yet in Eng­land I must tell you it was otherwise, as appears by the Statute of 26 Hen. VIII. chap. 14. where provision is made for Suffragans which had been accustomed to be had within this Realm, as it tells us both in the beginning and the middle of it. And it is enacted that the Towns of Thetford, Ipswich, Colchester, Dover, Guilford, Southam­pton, and twenty places more besides them, should be taken and accepted for Sees of Bishops Suffragans to be made in this Realm, &c. For this end every Archbishop or Bishop being disposed to have them for the more speedy administration of Holy things, had the liberty given them to name and elect two fit persons, and present them to the King: who thereupon had full power by the Act to give to which of those two he pleased, the Stile, Title, and Name of Bishop of such of the Sees aforesaid as he thought [Page 24] most expedient: and he was to be called Bishop Suffragan of the same See. After which the King was to pre­sent him by his Letters Patents under the great Seal to the Archbishop of Canterbury, or of York, signifying his Name, his Stile, Title, and Dignity of Bishoprick; requiring him to Conse­crate the said person so nominated and presented, to the same Name, Title, Stile, and Dignity of Bishop. For which purpose either the Bishop that nominated him, or the Suffragan him­self was to provide two Bishops or Suffragans to consecrate him with the Archbishop, and to bear their reason­able costs. This Statute though repeal­ed in the first and second of Philip and Mary Chap. 8., yet was revived among sundry other, in the first of Queen Elizabeth See ch. 1.. And it is sufficiently manifest from thence that these persons had Episcopal Ordination (being Con­secrated by the Archbishop, and two Bishops more) as much as any other. And therefore secondly, had Episco­cal Power and Authority as much as [Page 25] the Bishop of the Diocess, though being dependent on him, the Suffra­gan could not use or execute any Ju­risdiction, Power, or Authority but by his Commission under his Seal; as the Statute likewise provides. Up­on which score Mr. Mason calls them Secondary De Mi­nist. Angl. l. 1. c. 3. Bishops; and further ob­serves truly, that though in compare with others they may seem to have no­thing but a Title, because they had not their proper Diocesses to them­selves; yet if we speak absolutely, they had both the Title and the thing signified by it. For they had for their Episcopal Seat some great TownOppidum illustre le­ge Parlia­mentaria il­lis designa­tum. appointed to them by the Act of Par­liament, in which, and some certain adjacent places to which the Bishop of the Diocess limited them, they ex­ercised their Episcopal Function. From whence also they borrowed the name of Suffragan of Bedford: Suffragan of Colchester, &c. So that none of those who were Consecrated Bishops among us in England, whether Primary or Secondary (as his words are) were [Page 26] meerly Titular, but destinated all of them to the administration of a certain place, according to the sixth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Accord­ingly we find that such Suffragans be­ing made, acted like other Bishops in all things. For the Register of the Consecration of Archbishop Parker tells us, that at the time of it, four Chairs were set for four Bishops; one of which was John Hodgskin Suffragan Bishop of Bedford: who assisted also in the Consecration of the Bishops of London, Ely, Lincoln, and divers others: which he could not have done had he not had Episcopal Power, and con­sequently the Power of Ordaining Presbyters, as well as of Consecra­ting Bishops. And so much this Apo­logist might have learnt from him whom he calls a Learned Prelate, if he had read his Books with care: I mean Bishop Bramhall, who writes thus of the Power of Suffragans Romphaea Printed 1659. p. 93: The Office and the Benefice of a Bishop are two distinct things. Ordination is an Act of the Key of Order, and a Bishop [Page 27] uninthroned may Ordain as well as a Bi­shop inthroned. The Ordination of Suf­fragan Bishops who had no peculiar Bi­shopricks was always admitted and repu­ted as good in the Catholick Church (if the Suffragans had Episcopal Ordination) as the Ordination of the greatest Bishops in the world. Nay, if he had but read their own Authors, he would not have doubted that Suffragans were al­together (to speak in their stile) as bad as Bishops. For the Admonition to the Parliament puts them among the Titles and Offices devised by Anti­christ, and declares that though they take upon them (which is most horrible) to rule Gods Church, yet they are plainly by Christ forbidden, and utterly with speed to be removed. You may read more to the same purpose in the Pre­face, as I find it cited in the Censure of the Pamphlet called, Humble Mo­tives for Association, An. 1601. p. 23, 25. In which year I find this a part of the Secular Priests complaint against the Jesuites, that they would not be sub­ordinate in any manner to the Ordi­nary [Page 28] Prelates of England, as Bishops and Suffragans: and that they withstood their endeavours to have Bishops or Suffragans Dialogue between a Secular Priest, and a Lay Gentle­man, p. 73. 87, 90.. By which you may see they were numbred among the Pre­lates to whom all Priests were to be subject, which made those fiery Dis­senters from our Church to declaim so lowdly against them. And all this serves to convince our Apologist of un­skilfulness in these matters, who pro­nounces roundly that Mr. Gataker p. 13. of his Book. never had any Episcopal Ordination, because he was Ordained by (a Suffra­gan of one of those places mentioned in the Statute, viz.) the Suffragan of Colchester. Suppose he were,As Mr. Clark tells us he was. Collect. of Lives of ten Di­vines, p. 131. he had notwithstanding Episcopal Ordinati­on, as I have demonstrated; and as good as if he had been Ordained by the greatest Bishop in the World. But he did not understand I see by this what those Suffragans were, and con­trary to what became an humble and modest man, and the Title likewise of his Book, wrote about things which he had not studied or considered. [Page 29] Which made him also confound these with the Rural Deans, alledging the Primate of Armaghs judgment con­cerning the power of Suffragans, to prove it to be his Judgment, that the Chorepiscopi or Rural Deans might law­fully ordain. In which he hath done him a notorious injury; for there is not such a word in his Book, as that the Rural Deans may lawfully ordain, ‘But only that the number of Suffra­gans (which was 26) might well be conformed to the number of the se­veral Rural Deanries, and supply­ing the place of those who in the Antient Church were called Chore­piscopi, might every month assemble a Synod of the Rectors within the Precinct, and conclude all matters brought before them by the major part of voices.’ These are his words, which do not signifie that Suffragans were the same with Rural Deans, or Chorepiscopi, but that there might be as many of the one, as there are of the other; and Suffragans do all that which those antient Officers did, [Page 30] though they had power to do a great deal more: For I have proved a plain distinction between them. The Chore­piscopi were made by one single Bishop, viz. the Bishop of the City to whom they belonged, as the Council of An­tioch tells us, Can. 10. But the Suffra­gans being real Bishops were made as other Bishops are by three at the least, according to the fourth Canon of the first Council at Nice. And so they had power to Ordain Presbyters, and joyn in the Consecration of other Bishops, which the Chorepiscopi had not. Nor did our Church ever acknowledge any such power residing in the Rural Deans, or any meer Presbyters sub­ject to the Jurisdiction of our Bishops, to ordain Priests. But as Hadrianus Saravia tells the Ministers of Guernsey See Clavi Trabales, p. 142. in his Letter to them, As many Ministers as were naturally of the Coun­try being not made Ministers of the Church by their Bishop or his Demissories, nor any others according to the Order of the English Church, were not true and lawful Ministers. Where by Demisso­ries [Page 31] I think he means the Suffragans of the Bishop of Winchester, to whose ju­risdiction they belonged.

VI Yes, may some say, our Bishops have sometimes declared otherwise. For this Apologist Pag. 13. out of Archbish. Spotswood. alledges the story of the three Scots Bishops, who never had been ordained but by Presbyters, and yet Bishop Bancrofts opinion was that they need not be ordained again; which hath often been alledged hereto­fore by others, particularly by the Lancashire Ministers of the first Classis at Manchester, in whom he might have found a great deal more than this amounts unto. For they fly to a Let­ter of the late Primate of Ireland, with the Animadversions of Dr. Bernard upon itThe judgment of the late Archb. of Armagh, &c. 1658., in which this Story is ci­ted, and the judgment of many other learned Divines; but nothing at all to the business. For as the Gentlemen to whom the Lancashire Ministers wrote their Letter well observeExcom­municatio excommu­nicata, p. the Pri­mate did not make void the Ordina­tion by Presbyters, but it was with a [Page 32] special restriction to such places, where Bishops could not be had: Which are the very words also of Archbishop Bancroft in the case of the Scottish Bi­shops. As for the Ordinations made by our Presbyters the Primate decla­red himself against them in the very same Letter (which they craftily con­cealed) as you may read p. 112. of Dr. Bernards Book. The words are these; You may easily judge that the Ordination made by such Presbyters, as have severed themselves from those Bi­shops, unto whom they had sworn Cano­nical Obedience, cannot possibly by me be excused from being Schismatical. Which I find cited again in another Book of of his, called Clavi Trabales, p. 56. And both in that and the former BookJudg­ment of the Archb. p. 122, &c. Clavi Tiab. p. 55. he tells us the Primate thought their Ordination void upon another score. Because at the imposition of hands, they neither used those antient words, Receive thou the Holy Ghost, &c. nor the next, Be thou a faithful dispenser, &c. nor any other words to that sense (at least there is no order or direction for [Page 33] it.) And they also wholly omitted those words at the solemn delivery of the Bible inro the hands of the person ordained: Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God, &c. So that there be­ing no express transmission of Mini­sterial Power, he was wont to say, that such Imposition of hands (by some called the Seal of Ordination) without a Commission annexed, seem­ed to him to be as the putting of a Seal to a Blank. And if a Bishop had been pre­sent and done no more than they did, he thought the same quere might have been of the validity of such Ordi­nations.

As for other Reformed Churches, their case is widely different from that of these men, as he might have learnt from another Bishop, whom he cites now and then to no purpose, viz. Bi­shop Bramhall Replica­tion to the Bishop of Chalcedon, p. 71, 72., who rells you, that he knew many learned persons among them who did passionately affect Epi­scopacy, and some of them acknow­ledged to him that their Church would never be rightly settled till it [Page 34] was new moulded. And others, he tells you, though they did not long for Episcopacy, yet they approve it, and want it only out of invincible necessity. And that their principal learned men were of this mind appears from hence; that Dr. Carlton, afterward Bishop of Chichester, protesting in open Synod (which then sate at Dort) that Christ instituted no parity, but made twelve Apostles the chief, and under them seventy Disciples; that Bishops suc­ceeded to the Twelve, and Presbyters of inferiour rank to the Seventy; and challenging the judgment of any learn­ed men that could speak to the contra­ry: Their answer was silence, which was approbation enough. And after, saith he, discoursing with divers of the best learned in the Synod, and tel­ling them how necessary Bishops were to suppress their Schisms then rising; their answer was, That they did much honour and reverence the good order and discipline of the Church of England, and with all their heart would be glad to have it established among them; but [Page 35] that could not be hoped for in their State. Their hope was, that, seeing they could not do what they desired, God would be merciful to them, if they did but what they could. Upon which speech one well notesAnswer to a Let­ter writ­ten at Ox­ford, 1647. p. 13, 14. that if they hoped for mercy that might pardon what they did, then they supposed they were not in the best estate; and that their neces­sity could not totally excuse them from fault, for then in that particular there had been no need to hope for mercy. Nor could they well think otherwise; since being pressed they denied not but that Episcopacy was of Christs own institution.

To this necessity Mr. Calvin himself hath recourse, declaring that their cal­ling (being an extraordinary thing) ought not to be estimated by the common Rule. It were to be wished indeed (saies he in the same placeEpist. ad Regem Po­lo [...]iae, p. 142. that there were a continual succession of Pastors, that the Function it self might be delivered, as it were, from hand to hand; but the Pope having broken the succession of such as preached the [Page 36] uncorrupted Doctrine of Christ, God provided a remedy, exciting pious and learned men to reform the Church, and committing to them an extraordinary Office. This saith Melancthon Enarra­tis in E­vang. Joh. Cap. 1. God did in antient times, setting a greater value upon his Church, than upon the ordinary Power in it. If indeed the ordinary power would have done their duty, He is worthy, saith Mr. Calvin, of any exe­cration who will not submit himself to that Hierarchy that submits it self to the Lord. And I protest before God and in mine own Conscience, saith Zanchy, that I hold them no better than Schismaticks that account or make it a part of Reformation of the Church to have no Bishops Both these cited by Dr. Pe­ter Moulin the Son; in whom you may read a great deal more.. Of this mind were the first Reformers, who, as the Augustane Confession saith, had no intention to deprive the Bishops of their Autho­rity; but the Bishops refusing to ad­mit them into holy Orders unless they would swear not to preach the pure Do­ctrine of the Gospel Cap. ult. de potest. Eccles.; this com­pelled them, the publick ordinary [Page 37] door being shut, to enter into holy Orders in a private and extraordinary way. Yea, we have often testified, say the Authors of it, our great desire to preserve the Ecclesiastical Polity, and even those degrees in the Church which are but of Humane Authority. This we declare again and again to be our mind: And this will and desire of ours shall excuse us before God and all the World to all Posterity, that the overthrow of the Authority of Bishops may not be imputed to us. It was meer necessity you see which drove them to Ordina­tion without Bishops, which somtimes makes that lawful, which otherwise would be unlawful. They are the words of the Gloss cited by Dr. Craken­thorp in this very business, who com­pares the Case of the Reformers with that of Scipio Defens. Eccles. An­glicanae, Cap. 41. contra Spa­lat. 1635., as others I find have done since in his very words, without naming him. There being (as Vale­rius Max. tells us) a need of money to defray some necessary Charges of the Common-wealth, Scipio deman­ded a supply out of the Publick Trea­sury: [Page 38] Which the Quaestors refusing to open, because the Law seemed against it, He opened it himself by a private Key, and made the Law give way to utility and necessity. The same was done in some Reformed Churches. The Apostles had commended their Keys to Bishops; nor were they ever lawfully used, saith he, by any others than Bishops before that time. When the Roman Quaestors (he means Bi­shops) denying to open the door, and admit any to the Office of Pastors, un­less they would ingage not to preach the pure Doctrine of the Gospel, Some great men, like Scipio, chose ra­ther to lay hold on the Keys, and re­ceive Ordination from the hands of private persons, than that the Church should be unfurnished and the People perish. They would not have gone out of the Rode if they could have avoided it, as our Presbyterians did of their own accord. Who ought therefore to acknowledge their error, to return into the regular course from whence they voluntarily strayed, and [Page 39] not stand upon the justification of their proceedings by the example of those who are nothing like them: But with all their heart would have intertained such Bishops as our pretended Refor­mers thrust out of possession, and joy­fully received such Ordination as here they rejected. But if they resolve still to continue to maintain what they have done, I would wish them to get an abler Apologist than this man: and you, my good Friend, I would advise to keep this old Saying in your mind, Remember not to trust; no not those that pretend to learning, seriousness, humility, and modesty. For you see by what hath been said, that this person, who makes a shew of these qualities, is grosly mistaken (to speak no harsher word) and too boldly indeavours to lead others into errors. I acknow­ledge indeed that there are both lear­ned and modest men among them; but they are the confident talkers who ge­nerally carry the Bell away, and are cried up for all worth and excellency. Do what I can, I must think there is too [Page 40] much truth in the censure passed upon you by the Second fair warning to take heed of the Scottish Discipline Printed at the Hague 1651 by Ri. Wat­son, p. 152.; ‘That you are not wont to prick any in the List of the Learned, but the best read men in Synopsis's and Sy­stems, in Common place Books and Centurists, or in your own Reformed Fathers; whom you believe to be more proper than the antients, be­cause standing (as they tell you) upon their shoulders: When, if set on even ground, the longest arm they can make in true Learning and Elo­quence, will not reach half way up to their girdles.’

VII But you may imagine perhaps, that though the Apologist be not so well versed in the Laws of the antient Church, yet he hath good skill in the Laws and Customs of our own Land. So indeed any body would think, that reads his Book, and relies upon his bare word; but he that hath so much distrust as to take the pains to examine what he saith, will presently discover [Page 41] that he writes as if he were as unac­quainted with them as with the Laws and Customs of Japan. The same heady forwardness possesses men now that did in Gregory Nazianzen's days, when, as he tells usOrat. 9. p 150. [...], &c. all were wild to teach and talk about the Spirit of God, without the Spirit: and therefore no wonder they venture to talk of our Laws, without any Law. Thus this modest Apologist puts in their excepti­onPag. 20. against our Church for commit­ting the power of Excommunication to men that are not in holy Orders. Which is notoriously false, and the contrary, I could shew him, hath been acknow­ledged in their own Books. But he needed have look'd no further than to a Book published not many years ago, concerning the Practice in the Ecclesi­astical Courts. Where he might have been informed in express termsFrancisci Clark Pra­xis in Cu­riis Eccles. Titul. 20, an. 1666. That the Judge of the Court having pronounced a man contumacious, and de­creed that he is to be excommunicated in punishment of his contumacy, next pro­ceeds to read the Excommunication, if he [Page 42] be in holy Orders; Otherwise, he deli­vers it to be read by the Priest appointed by the Archbishop for this purpose: Which Priest to this effect sits judicially with the Judge himself. ☞ Of if he ne­ver heard of this Book, yet he hath heard I am sure of the Third Part of the Friendly Debate: Where, if he had been pleased to read a Book before he had censured it, he might have found this bold Error corrected in Philaga­thus; and so avoided it himself. But I see plainly, and am heartily sorry for it, there are more of that mans evil humour; who love to talk of things upon Record, out of their own drowsie imaginations. The general cry against the continuation of the Friendly Debate was, that it was a breach of the Act of Indemnity, or Oblivion; which was raised meerly out of their own brains, that are stuft with words more than things, with­out consulting the Act it self. But this cry Philagathus followed with open mouth, and now he hath got another to bear him company; who deserves [Page 43] in like manner to be chastized for his bold folly. Especially since he menti­ons this so often; first in his Preface, then at least fivePag. 34, 73, 106. 112, 150. times in his Book, and in one place affirms my Book seems to be a continued breach of the Act of Indemnity in the very design of it: And all this after I had evidently de­monstrated in the further Continuation (which he also mentions p. 150.) that whatever it seems to him, this is a gross and impudent Calumny. But I shall spare him, notwithstanding this boldness, and have, I assure him, thrown away those apt illustrations of his Vanity, which offered themselves, because he hath more civility in him than the sober Answerer. I shall only desire him to follow his own advice which he gives me on this occasionPref. p. 8. viz. To do justice upon himself, and exe­cute his own Book in the flames, for com­mitting such crimes. For I must tell you there are a great many more of them. He tells you confidently that the Notes, commonly called the Assem­blies, came out before the Assembly [Page 44] convened, p. 15. By which I see he is no better skill'd in Ordinances than in Laws. For the Ordinance for their convention bears date June 12. 1643. requiring them to meet the next first of July: And the Annotations came not out till two years after, in 1645So it should be Printed in the Friend­ly Debate, not 1646.. But you may think perhaps they did not convene at the time appointed. Know therefore, that on June 24. 1643. all Ministers were required by an Or­der to pray on the next Fast for a bles­sing on the Assembly, who were to meet on Saturday July 1. and that ac­cordingly they did meet on that day, as Mr. Fuller (quoted sometimes by this man) observes in his History: And not long afterJuly 19. 1643. I find presented an humble Petition for an extraordina­ry Fast, beseeching among other things, that Justice might be executed on all de­linquents; and after this an OrderAug. 10. 1643. that those of them who were Residents in the Associated Counties should be de­sired to go down and stir up the Peo­ple to rise in their defence. By which it appears they not only convened, but [Page 45] began at least to be busie about that which did not concern them long be­fore those Notes saw the light. But let us pass by this: And observe rather how he satisfies in the lame excuse he makes for their not calling the Apo­stles alwaies by the name of Saints. In the judgment of our Church, saith he, it is not necessary, as may hence be concluded, That in all the Collects for the days set apart to commemorate the holy Apostles in, there are but two where­in they are stiled Saints. These are his wordsPag. 43.; but if you love truth, call to mind the Rule I gave you, and remember not to trust. Even they who call one another frequently by the name of Saints have not such a care, as one would expect, of common honesty, nor of their own fame nei­ther; but will assert such manifest un­truths as lie open to every eye. Turn to the Prayers for particular days in the Service Book, and you shall find that they who told him this (for I cha­ritably suppose he took it upon trust) made no conscience of what they said. [Page 46] For those glorious persons, whose me­mories are celebrated in our Church (and I hope always will be) are called no less than nine times in the very body of the Collects by the names of Saints St. Ste­ven, St. John, St. Andrew, St. Paul, St. Mark, St. Philip and St. James, St. Peter and St. James.. Seven of which were Apostles, and the other an Evangelist, and the first Martyr. And lest any one should imagine he made his observation by the old Common-Prayer Book, and thence may justifie himself: you may understand that there is no difference in this point, but only in two of the Collects: in one of which in stead of St. John the Evangelist (as it is now) the words were the blessed Apostle and Evangelist John; and in the other, instead of St. Philip and St. James, it was, St. Philip and other Apostles. This may teach you to suspect the reason­ings of these men (which may very well be thought to be exceeding care­less) who are no more exact in report­ing matters of Fact which lie before their eyes. But as for their stories which they spread up and down, and indeavour to propagate to posterity [Page 47] by stuffing their Books with them (as this man doth) there is the greatest cause to think that either they have no truth at all in them, or are very much altered from their original. You ought to let them pass for idle tales, unless you have better authority for them than these mens Books, who you see are so bold as to report notorious falshoods which every body can con­fute. Their Traditions you should look upon as of no more credit than the Popish Legends: It being so easie for men to forget the very words they heard, and to place others in their room; so common to add or leave out what is most material; so hard and often impossible to know all the circumstances in a business, which very much alter the case; and lastly, there being such a proneness in men to invent down-right falshoods, and to publish them for their own advantage. I have now given you an instance of it, and I can give you more. The three Covenanting Ministers, I find, in their answer to the Queries of the Di­vines [Page 48] of Aberdeen, had the boldness to declare in Print, and positively aver, that his Majesties Commissioner rested satisfied with their Covenant, accord­ing to their explication of it: by which report they hoped to draw the people to a liking of it. But this was such a calumny that the Commissioner thought it necessary to clear himself of it by a Manifest and Declaration See his late Ma­jesties Large De­claration, 1638. p. 111, 112. to the contrary. Which brought them to a confession that indeed they never heard him say he was satisfied, but had only some probable reasons whereby they were induced to believe that he was. And indeed men easily believe what they have a mind unto. They believed, or at least gave it out even in the Pulpit (saith his Majesty)Ib: page 405, 406. that we intended to bring in Popery into all our Kingdoms, or at least a to­leration of it: It was preached that the Service-Book was framed at Rome, and brought over by a Country man of theirs. They told the people that all England was of their opinion. And some desired them publickly to give [Page 49] thanks to God for the overthrow which the Hollanders had newly given the Spanish Fleet before Dunkirk, as­suring them that it was no less to be celebrated than the deliverance in 88. all that Fleet being prepared at the Kings charge for their ruine and sub­version. A most horrible thing, that in the House of God, and in that place of his House, which they called the Chair of Truth, men should deli­ver such things as either they did not know to be true, or did know to be false.

VIII But you will say we must be distin­guished from the Scottish Presbyteri­ans; they and we are not all of a mind. For they, for instance, believed Ruling Elders to be Jure Divino, but I knew few in England, saith this Wri­ter, if any, that held that Office so; save only in a large sense, i. e. lawful and not contrary to Gods Word See p. 141.. Goodly! he knew few or none; therefore there were none here in England that held Lay-Elders to be of [Page 50] Divine right. This is his reasoning (for he satisfies a question by these words) and a rare one it is, built alto­gether upon his own Ignorance. For we know not a few but many who were of this opinion. And if he had not been negligent where he was con­cern'd, and busie where he needed not have medled, he might have more easi­ly known the mind of the English than of the Scottish Presbyterians. He, being one of that Party, should have here known one would think better than I, that the London Ministers and Elders met in a Provincial Assembly, Novem. 2. 1646. put forth a Vindication of the Presbyterial Government. In the very Title Page of which, they set this down among the Contents of the Book, that the Ruling Elder is by Di­vine Right; and that it is the will of Jesus Christ, that ALL SORTS of persons should give an account of their Faith, to the Ministers and Elders be­fore admission to the Supper of the Lord. Which is more, I hope, than not be­ing repugnant to Gods Word. In like [Page 51] manner the Lancashire Ministers of the first Classis at Manchester declared af­ter thisAn. 1657. in the Book called Ex­communi­catio Ex­comm. p. 46., that they could not consent to part with the Ruling Elder, unless they should betray the truth of Christ, Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 5. These are the places they alledge to prove the Di­vine Authority of this new Order of Ecclesiastical Officers. By which you may see that I said they are Change­lings with more reason, than this Apo­logist had to excuse them from it: For I wrote from what I knew, and He from what he knew not. But there is another thing which he apologizes for after the same manner, in the very language of his predecessor Philaga­thus, whom he was ashamed to own. The horrid Murder of his late Majesty, saith this Writer, was never underta­ken (that I know of) to be justified by any Minister in Print, but by J. G. that great Goliah and Champion of the Ar­minians, p. 74. It is very likely that he is ignorant of this, as well as of other matters: but he must excuse us if we know more of these men, and [Page 52] such as were none of J. G.'s Disciples. There was one L.S. for instance, whom I have read, who maintains that de­sperate Fact, in a Book called Natures Dowry, or The Peoples Native Liberty Asserted. It was not Printed till the Year 1652. but written (as he tells us in the Epistle) three year before (just upon the Kings Murder) on occasion of a Question propounded to him by a Member of Parliament and Com­mittee of State. In the first Chapter he determines; Should any one (it is easie to know whom he means) by a reser­ved and merciless obstinacy be shut up and barricado'd against the Law, Coun­sel, and Prayers; I see not but a people may warrantably go about to break such a one, seeing he will not be bended by reason. But look farther and you will find this to be the Title of the tenth Chapter, That Kings agreeable to the Law of God, may in some cases be for­cibly resisted by their Subjects, and like­wise deposed. In some cases indeed, he resolves, ‘it may be the prudence of the people to pardon their Prince, [Page 53] not observing his stipulation, but their promise is out of date, and cannot bind them to further subje­ction. Nay, he saith, A people whose Ancestors have for themselves and their posterity either gratis, or upon inconvenient Articles promised sub­jection and obeysance to any one and his Heirs, may lawfully re­nounce the ingagement and cast off the Yoke.’ And at the end of that Chapter cites the Vote of Parliament at the beginning of the Wars to justi­fie his Doctrine, That if the King raised Forces against the Parliament, he forfeited his Trust. But proceed fur­ther to the next Chapter, and you will find he comes home to the busi­ness, and determines, That Kings may render themselves obnoxious to the pe­nalty of death, according to the Law of God, in some cases to be inflicted by pub­lick Authority, in others by private men. This is the Title of the Chapter. And immediately he betakes himself to that very Scripture upon which Mr. J. Goodwin grounded his whole discourse: [Page 54] For the Chapter begins thus. ‘That Law, Gen. 9, 6. Who so sheds man's Blood, by man shall his Blood be shed: reaches all the Sons of Noah, Princes themselves, though they be taller than their Brethren by the head and shoul­ders.’ And he explains it thus; Whether he shed it by himself, or by the Ministry of some other; whether a stranger or a neigh­bour, whether alone, or with the help of others, he is a Son of Death: no mortal is excused by his greatness. And adds, most ridiculously, ‘Plato is very Or­thodox in this point; and concludes that Princes in some other cases are liable to capital punishment to be inflicted by private men.’ As if a Prince attempt to murder another, that person invaded may lawfully kill him in his own defence, nay, is bound by the sixth Commandement to do it, ra­ther than suffer himself to be murdered. The rest of the Book is an answer (af­ter a strange fashion) to those places of Scripture which are brought (as he speaks) for the impunity of Tyrants. I will mention but one of his desperate [Page 55] devices, which you may find in the 18 Chapter to excuse Davids sparing of Saul. It is not impossible (you see the stile wherein they deceived the people and put off their Ware) that Davids interest might insensibly biass him into a tender care of the King. How­ever, this he determines, ‘That either David sinned in sparing of Saul, or else his clemency was warranted by some precept, or permission, which is not extant in Scripture; and which in all probability was pecu­liarly given to David.’ Here is enough to shew what Divines have come out of their School, and how readily they can suppose a Divine Pre­cept for any thing they have a mind to, though there be not the least foot-step of it in Holy Writ. If he be not sa­tisfied, but hath a list to stir further in this business (which he had better ne­ver have touched) I will furnish him with more, whom I am unwilling to mention. Let me only add that they were the Presbyterian Principles, out of which the Independent Army drew [Page 56] their worst Conclusions. The discourse of this man now named is bottom'd upon this Maxime, that the People are the Original of Power. A doctrine as­serted in another Catechism Politick Cate­chism, Li­cenced by Mr. White, May 20. 1643. of yours, & Licenced by a known person, of the highest esteem (as I can prove) among you. And this consequence is thence drawn from it, That whatso­ever the people have not expresly gran­ted, they keep to themselves: The King must produce his Grant, and not the people shew their reservation, for all is presumed to be reserved, which cannot be proved to be granted. Which being once supposed, he is stark blind, I think, who sees not the unavoidable consequence of all the mischief that insued. And to speak freely, he that considers, saith a History History of the En­glish Scot­tified Presbyte­ry, written in French, 1650. translated, 1659. in those days, ‘The terms to which the King was held, even when the Presbyteri­ans had the better end of the staff (as that he should not dispose of the Militia, of the Officers of the Crown, of his Children, have no Negative Vote, &c.) will conclude [Page 57] that he was only left to his choice, whether he would be destroyed by his Enemies, or by his own proper Act. For if he condescended not to these demands, being then in their hands that made them, the least he could expect was to be deposed, and if he granted them, he deposed him­self. Nay, he that considers how all along they supposed they were his Superiours, to whom he was ac­countable, will clearly discern, that it was upon the Presbyterian Princi­ples that the Independents built their conclusions. And if it were lawful for them to wrest out of his hands, the Sword of the Militia, and to use it against him, it was no less law­ful, thought the other, to imploy the Sword of Justice against him. At least after they had taken from him his Sword, his Revenues, his Servants, his Children, the liberty of his Per­son, and, which is more, of his Con­science, they left the Independents but one step further to go, which was to take away his life: and all [Page 58] that in which they surpass'd the others was, that they gave the last blow to him.’ All which I have re­membred, not to load any man with reproaches, but to make them all humble in consideration of their past miscarriages (to say no worse) where­of I truly hope many of them repent. The latter day is the scholar of the for­mer: and no man is too old to learn; especially the amendment of his faults. Which the more ingenuously he con­fesses, and the less he defends, the more likely he is to become a new man. I should have been glad to have seen something of this in this Apolo­gist, which would better have becom­ed him than to talk of Noli me tan­gere's in my Book, and to hunt about for excuses of all things, nay, to waste his time in impertinent reflections on others, in stead of acknowledging or taking off the blame from themselves. J. G. he tells you, who justified the Kings Murder, was the Great Goliah and Champion of the Arminians. What of all that, I pray you? what affinity [Page 59] hath Arminius his Doctrine with King-killing, or what Antidote is there in Mr. Calvins against it? I never heard the former taxed with any thing of this nature, though there is a dangerous passage in the last Chapter of Mr. Cal­vins institutionsNum. 31; which many have observed, if the three orders of a King­dom have such a power of Kings as he thinks, it is possible, they may have. And yet I believe a man may be a Cal­vinist (as they speak) and be a good subject, and of the contrary perswasi­on, and be a bad: those things where­in they differ having nothing to do with this matter. But he was resolv'd to have a fling at the Arminians (whom he thinks to hit, I cannot tell: me he doth not hurt, who belong to neither of those parties) nay, he touches this difference I know not how oft, in his Apology; though I gave him no occasion for it: loving, lapwing-like, to make the most pewing and crying when he is farthest from his nest. He should rather have minded what I cited out of Mr. Calvin, whom I perceive he favours more than [Page 60] the other, concerning the points in de­bate between us. I told you his thoughts of Schism, and I could add a great deal more (out of other places of his works) of the great dread he was in of this sin; of the dislike he expressed that Bish. Hooper should con­tend so much about a Cap and a Sur­plice; and of his opinion about Hu­mane Traditions; but that I should then digress too far out of the way, and prevent my self in that which remains of this Apology.

IX Let us therefore return back to it, and, that you may be more wary here­after in trusting these men, let me mind you of as notorious a Calumny, as ever I read, wherewith he asperses some Members of this Church. You will find it in his Preface, p, 11. where he saith, I cannot but own my utter dis­like of the Principles and Practices of some high Conformists, or Hectors for Conformity; namely, such as prefer the Romish Church before the Reformed trans­marine Churches; Arminius before [Page 61] St. Austin; who judge Aerius a grea­ter Heretick than Arius; who have more charity for those that deny the Dei­ty of our Saviour, than for those that scruple the strict Jus Divinum. of Episco­pacy; and who can with more patience bear a dispute against the very being of a Deity, than about the taking away of a Ceremony, &c. This is the language not of the bold blades, but of a modest Presbyterian, of one that uses hard reasons and soft words, if you will be­lieve himself in the very leaf before­goingPreface p 9.. Whatsoever charity they have for us, their good words shall never be wanting to themselves. They will call themselves humble and modest, whatsoever they say or do: Though they blush not to defend themselves by injuring any body, nor fear to cast reproaches on whomsoever, that for defence of the truth stand in their way. For every part of this Charge is a vile slander, and some of it is confuted, you shall see, by himself. Which that I may demonstrate, let me tell you,

In the first place, that it is no Hecto­rism [Page 62] to assert the Divine Right of Epi­scopacy in the strictest sense. This is no upstart opinion, broached by some swaggering hot-brain'd men, who love to rant and vapour beyond other Folk (which is the proper quality of a Hector) but hath been antiently belie­ved in this Church, from the very be­ginning of the Reformation, and main­tained by the soberest men in it. I know they would have you to think otherwise, and have endeavoured to perswade the World that it is a novel Doctrine advanced of later times by some proud and haughty Divines. Mr. Robert Baily made bold to say that before Bishop Bancrofts time, the Bi­shops did unanimously deny Episcopacy to be of Divine Right Reply to fair warn­ing p. 49. Printed at Delf, 1649. And the Let­ter to Dr. Samuel Turner, Printed 1647. will not allow it to be so Antient; but affirms (p. 3.) that it is an opinion but lately countenanced in England, and that by some of the more Lordly Clergy. He means, I think, Archbishop Laud, as some since have explained it. But both the one and the other of these, [Page 63] talk'd at random, out of their own imaginations, not from Historical ob­servation. Archbishop Whitgift, and Bishop Bilson, as the Answer to that Letter suggests, were both of a con­trary perswasion. And I can name a Divine of their Opinion elder than either, and much reverenced even by the Presbyterians, who was offered a Bishoprick also, but refused it: And that is Old Bernard Gilpin, who left the World that very year in which Bi­shop Whitgift was advanced to the See of Canterbury, 1583. For when Mr. Cartwrights book was newly come forth, a certain Cambridge man, who seemed a very great Scholar, came to this famous Preacher, and dealt very earnestly with him about the Disci­pline and Reformation of the Church. But Mr. Gilpins answer was, That he could not allow that any Humane inven­tion should take place in the Church in stead of a Divine Institution. How, said the man, do you think that this Form of Discipline is an Humane Invention? I am, said Mr. Gilpin, altogether of [Page 64] that mind; And as many as diligently turn over the Writings of the Fathers will be of my opinion. O but the later men, replied the Disciplinarian, see many things which those antient Fathers saw not; and the present Church seems better provided of ma­ny ingenious and industrious men. At which Mr. Gilpin, saith my AuthorLife of Bernard Gilpin, Edit. 4. 1636. p. 106, 107, &c. seemed somewhat moved, and answe­red; I, for my part, do not hold the virtues of the later men to be compared to the Infirmities of the Fathers. Which words he used on purpose, because he perceived this young man had a strong conceit of I know not what rare vir­tues in himself; which opinion the good old man was desirous to root out of him.

But there is an Authority ancienter than all these, viz. The Form and Order of making and consecrating Bishops, &c. confirmed by Act of Parliament. In which three things are considerable; The very first words of the Preface are, That, it is evident to all men reading the holy Scriptures and antient Authors, that [Page 65] from the Apostles time, there have been these Orders in Christs Church, Bishops, Priests; and Deacons. Then secondly, the Prayer after the Letany at the Con­secration of a Bishop, begins in this manner: Almighty God, giver of all good things, which by thy holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Mini­sters in thy Church, &c. (which must needs be understood of those before named) And, lastly, the first question to the person to be Consecrated is, Are you perswaded that you be called to this Ministration according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ? To which the Answer is, I am so perswaded. Put now all these together and you will not be able to conceive (as the Answer to the Letter page 12, 13. observes) how these words should fall from any men not possessed with this Tenet, that Episco­pacy is of Divine Right, in the strictest sense. For if God by his holy Spirit hath appointed divers Orders of Mini­sters in the Church; and we may find evidently by Scripture and antient Writers that there are three Orders, [Page 66] whereof Bishops the highest; and this is made the ground of praying for the Bishop to be Consecrated; and he must profess he is perswaded that he is called to that Ministration according to Christs will, then Episcopacy (in the opinion of those who composed and confirmed this Book) is in such a manner according to Christs Will, that it is grounded in Scripture, and appointed by the Spirit of God; and all this hath not been said only of late, nor countenanced only by some few, and those of the more Lordly Clergy.

2. For which cause, no man ought to be disgraced with any odious name, much less be called an Hector, who is now of the same Perswasion. The most illustrious persons that have been in our Church, men far from that boi­sterous humour, have declared them­selves for this Doctrine, and doubted not but they could maintain it. I need instance in no more than two: Bishop Andrews, whose mind is well known from his three Letters to Peter du [Page 67] Moulin, 1618.Transla­ted and Printed, 1647. to which I refer you: and the late Bishop Sanderson, whom the best of you have spoken of with honour and reverence. He de­clares his opinion to be that Episcopal Government is not to be derived mere­ly from Apostolical Practice or Institu­tion, but that it is originally founded in the Person and Office of the Messias, our blessed Lord ChristPost­script to Episcopa­cy not pre­judicial to Regal Power., who be­ing sent by his Father, afterward sent his Apostles to execute the same Apo­stolical, Episcopal, Pastoral Office, for the Ordering and Governing of his Church till his coming again: and so the same Office to continue in them and their Successors to the end of the World. But suppose all our Church­men had been silent, or that they are of no esteem with our Adversaries, yet since this Opinion of the Divine Right of Episcopacy hath been asserted by other Divines whom they respect, it ought not to have been reproached. Bucer declares in his Book of the King­dom of Christ (as I find him cited above 60 years agoRegi­ment of the Church by Mr. Tho. Bell, chap. 9. just as our Book of [Page 68] Consecration doth, that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost that one, to whom the name of Bishop was peculiarly attri­buted) should take the care of the Churches, and preside over all the Presbyters. And nearer still to the ve­ry words of our Book, in his Treatise of the power and use of the Ministry, as he is alledged by Saravia. These Or­ders of Ministers have been perpetual in the Church, and were presently in the beginning appointed by the Holy Ghost, of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. He that will see more to this purpose may read Bishop Mortons Episcopacy Asserted, Chap. 5. Sect. 4. Nay, this is the Language of Antiquity; and they may as well call St. Gregory of Nazian­zum a Hector as any of us: For he sticks not to tell his Auditors in plain words, that he held his Office by the Law of Christ. You may find the pas­sage in his seventeenth Orationpage 271. where, after he had exhorted all the People to obedience, he turns his speech more particularly to the Rulers and Magistrates, asking them if they [Page 69] will give him leave to speak freely: As truly, saith he, I think I may, since the Law of Christ hath made you sub­ject to my Power, and to my Tribu­nal.

3. This you may think is very high: but I must let you know they who seem to lay their claim lower, and speak in a more humble stile (as some love to call it) differ but in a verbal nicety: in the different manner of expressing the same thing, rather than in their different judgment upon the substance of the matter. So that excellent Bi­shop, lately mentioned (Dr. Sander­son) hath clearly resolvedEpisco­pacy not prejudicial to Regal Power, p. 12, 13.. For sometimes this term Divine Right im­ports a Divine Precept (which is the first and most proper signification) when it appeareth by some clear ex­press, and peremptory Command of God in his Word, to be the Will of God that the thing so commanded should be perpetually and universally observed. And that the Government of the Church by Bishops is of Divine Right in this stricter sense is an Opinion, saith [Page 70] he, at least of great probability, and such as may more easily and on better grounds be defended than confuted. But they that chuse to speak otherwise, understand by Divine Right, an Au­thority for a thing from the Institution, Example, or Approbation either of Christ, or of his Apostles, &c. which is a secondary meaning of the term, but not much distant from the former. For the Observation of the Lords Day depends on this Divine Right; and there is as much to shew (as he saith p. 19.) if not more, for such a Divine Right of Episcopacy, as for the Divine Right of that day. So that whosoever they be that either wave the term Di­vine Right, or else so expound it as not of necessity to import any more than an Apostolical Institution; ‘Yet the Apostles AuthorityIb. page 39, 40. in the Institution of Episcopacy, being warranted by the Example, and (as they doubt not) by the direction of their Master Jesus Christ, they wor­thily esteem to be so reverend and obligatory; as that they would not [Page 71] for a world have any hand in, or wil­lingly and deliberately contribute the least assistance towards the ex­tirpation of that Government; but rather hold themselves obliged in their Consciences, to the utmost of their power, to endeavour the pre­servation and continuance of it in these Churches, and do heartily wish the restitution and establish­ment of the same wheresoever it is not, &c,’

Now that Episcopacy is of such in­stitution, and so of Divine Right, he further addsv. Ib. p. 18., is in truth a part of the established Doctrine of the Church of England, and hath been constantly and uniformly maintain'd by our best Writers [mark these words] and by all the Sober, Orderly, and Ortho­dox Sons of the Church.

This is sufficient to shew that there ought to be no such distinction made, as we find in this man, between high and low Conformists: since all have spoken to the same effect, and yet were no Swashbucklers, but, in this great [Page 72] persons opinion, the Sober, Orderly, and Orthodox Sons of the Church.

4. But let us suppose there is some difference, yet they that have spoken the highest words of Episcopacy ne­ver thought Aerius a greater Heretick than Arius, nor had more Charity for those that deny our Saviour's Deity, than for those that scruple the strict Jus Di­vinum of Episcopacy. No, this is a sug­gestion from the Father of lyes, the Calumniator of the Brethren, and seem to me to be the words of one whose tongue is set on fire of Hell. For though our best Divines have called it the Heresie of Arius Doctor Cracken­thorp, De­fens. Eccl. Anglicanae, p. 241, 242, to affirm that there ought to be no imparity in the Church, or distinction between Bi­shops and Presbyters; and determi­ned that this imparity was instituted and approved by the Apostles; yet they have declared withal, that they who think as Aerius did, are so far from being in a worse case than Arius was, that they are not in so bad. Let but obstinacy and perverseness be want­ing, it will be no Heresie; and if it be [Page 73] Heresie (being about a point of Disci­pline) it will not be among those which St. Peter calls damnable Heresies Bishop Andrews 3. Letter, p. 56, 57.. These are the words of one who was as vehement an Assertor of the Divine Right of Episcopacy, as any hath been (and there are none among us but will subscribe to them) who is so far, you see, from making Aerius a greater He­retick than Arius, that his words plain­ly make him less.

5. But these perhaps are such He­ctorly Divines, you may think, that they mind not what they say: so be­like, if it be true which he says just be­fore, that they prefer Arminius before St. Austin. A very strange humour! that these high Episcopal men should set a Presbyterian Divine above a great Bishop. But suppose, upon other scores, they should be so phantastical, yet this part of his accusation will contradict the calumny next before it, namely, that they prefer the Romish Church before the Reformed Transmarine Churches. How can that be, when the Arminians are among those Reformed [Page 74] Churches, for whom it seems they have such a great affection; and when the Pope himself, as every one knows that understands these matters, is against the Divine Right of Bishops? nay declared, when time wasLetter to his Legate in the Council of Trent. See p. 646. Engl. Edit. 1629. that the opinion which makes them hold by that Title, is false and erroneous? But not to leave the least speck of his dirt sticking on us (which he blushes not to throw in our faces once more, p. 34.) you may know that the very same Bi­shop newly mentioned wipes it all off himself, by clearing and excusing the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas from sinning against the Divine Right, though they had no Bishops whom he thought to be of Divine Right in the strictest sense. I said no such thing (as his words are)Bishop Andrews Letter to du Moulin, Ib. but only this, that your Churches wanted something that is of Divine Right. Wanted, not by your fault, but by the iniquity of the times; for that your France had not your Kings so propitious at the Reformation of your Church, as our England had. In like manner the late Primate of Ireland, [Page 75] Bishop Bramhall excuses those in the Reformed Churches, who, as I told you, either had a desire, or but an esteem of Episcopacy, though they could not enjoy it. And as for a third sort who were so far from either of those, that they condemned it as an Antichristian Innovation, and a rag of Popery, whereby they became guilty, he thought, of most gross Schism ma­terially, he saith thus much may be alledged to mitigate their fault; That they do it ignorantly Replica­tion to the Bishop of Chalcedon, p. 71, 72., as they have been mis-taught, and mis-informed; and I hope that many of them are free from obstinacy, and hold the truth impli­citely in the preparation of their minds, because ready to receive it when God shall reveal it to them. Nay, Dr. Heylin himself (whom this man thinks so fierce) makes an Apology for their Ministers not being Ordained by Bi­shops at the first Reformation; there being he thinks a necessity for it; as you may read in his History of Episco­pacy, p. 164. And lastly, a famous per­son now alive this Apologist cites af­terward [Page 76] against his own self. Master Thorndike I mean, who he acknow­ledgespage 10., hath a charity for the Churches beyond the Seas, though wanting Bishops, whom he doubts not to be of Divine Right. But he might have had recourse to a better place of his works for this purpose, than that which he hath produced. For he handles this question at large in his Book of the Rights of the Church p. 194, 198., where he excuses their necessity, and concludes at last out of the abundance of his Charity, that some excuse is to be made for those who have crea­ted this necessity to themselves by their own false perswasion. Let this man therefore do open penance for his sin in laying such foul things to the charge of the men of the high Prelacy, as he in scorn calls them, p. 35. And let him forbear if he can to say hereafter, That there is just cause to fear that some among us have a greater Cha­rity for the Church of Rome, than the Presbyterians page 34.: And to intimate that the high Conformists are warping from [Page 77] the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land, and lean more to that of Trent: p 80, 81. For these are only old Calumnies now revived; I wish it be not to serve the Good Old Cause. We were told before the War that the Bishops were leaned toward Popery, nay, were dri­ving fast toward Popery. And no sooner was it begun, but our neigh­bours were born in hand, that we had a company of half Papish Bishops Dialogue between an Eng­lishman & a Nea­therlan­der, writ­ten in Low-Dutch, and translated into Eng­lish, 1643. p. 7.; nay that they were altogether Papists, one and the same brood with the Je­suits p. 8. 16., and intended to bring Popery into England: all which they affirmed was as clear as the bright noon-day page 10. For to this end (saith this impudent Libel) they had stript all the Assem­blies of their faithfullest Preachers, and used many other means to banish wholly all saving knowledge out of the Kingdom, that so they might the bet­ter draw the people to Popery. From which considerations, the Author de­sires the Lords and Inhabitants of the Ʋnited Netherlands In the Dedicato­ry Epistle. not to assist the King; for if he prevailed, the Govern­ment [Page 78] would be altered; Religion sup­pressed, the Bishops restored and put in force their Popish Canons. And all this I must tell you, was writ by a Presbyterian (a modest Gentleman no doubt, otherwise called a shameless lyar) as appears by this passage, p. 37. where he saith, Our whole Nation is by the coming in of the Scots (before the War) yet more confirmed that they were led by Gods Spirit.—What was the woful issue of those suggestions we all know, though there was nothing of truth in them; as appeared by the stout opposition against the common enemy which some of those very men made, who (besides their other suf­ferings) had layen as deep under the suspicion of being Popishly affected, as any other of their Brethren whoso­everSee Bi­shop San­dersons preface to 1. Volume of Serm. Sect 17.. And what they now intend that begin again to buzze the same tale in the peoples ears, we are not so dol­tish as not to understand, and, when opportunity shall serve, they will more openly declare. Then you may hear the complaints renewed (which he re­members [Page 79] out of Mr. Fuller his Church-History) of Popery, Arminianism, So­cinianism, and what not? You may hear an Accusation against a Minister (as the same Historian tells us there was on his own knowledge)Book the 11. page 224. mere­ly for using the Gloria Patri, though in all things else he conformed to the Di­rectory.

6. In which case truly, there might have been some colour to charge the Accusers as more zealous for their Directory than for our Saviours Deity: But to impeach any of us as more con­cerned for the Divine Right of Bi­shops than for the Divine Nature of our Lord the great Bishop of our souls, is a bold-fac'd calumny, for which there is no pretence at all. And yet he thinks he hath not said enough: for he tells you further, that these High Conformists or Hectors can with more patience hear a Dispute against the very being of a Deity, than about the taking away of a Ceremony. Which is the very highest strain of railing that the wit of a modest Presbyterian can [Page 80] invent. But to what pitch the more impudent may reach, who can tell? They may say that these Conformists are perfect Atheists, since they are al­ready, it seems, such Fools as to bear more meekly with those who go about to Dethrone the object of all worship, than with those who only pluck away a Ceremony of it, Dull Asses! how should their Ceremonies stand, if the very sense of a Deity fall down? If he can find me any such Beasts as these, I shall easily believe the worst that he or his Complices can say of them. But the truth is, he is only disgorging his stomach all this while, and now, as I said, is come to the last strain, which brings up the foulest stuff of all. For the highest words that the highest Sons, or Fathers of this Church (to use his phrase) have spoken concerning Ceremonies are theseBishop Bramhall [...] his Romphaea, chap. 11. p. 234.: ‘That they are advance­ments of Order, Decency, Mode­sty, and Gravity in the Service of God; expressions of those heavenly desires and dispositions, which we [Page 81] ought to bring along with us to Gods House; adjuments of Atten­tion and Devotion: furtherances of Edification; visible Instructors; helps of Memory; exercises of Faith; the shell that preserves the kernel of Religion from contempt; the leaves that defend the blossoms and the fruit. But the very same person who wrote all this immedi­ately adds,’ that if they grow over thick and ranck, they hinder the fruit from coming to maturity, and then the Gardener plucks them off. ‘When Ce­remonies become burdensome by excessive superfluity, or unlawful Ceremonies are obtruded, or the substance of Divine Worship is pla­ced in Circumstances, or the Ser­vice of God is more respected for Humane Ornaments, than for the Divine Ordinance; it is high time to pare away excesses, and reduce things to the antient mean.’ So our Church hath done; between whom and the Roman Church there is as wide a difference in this regard, as [Page 82] between the hearty expressions of a faith­ful friend, and the mimical gestures of a fawning flatterer: or between the unaffected comeliness of a grave Ma­tron, and the fantastical paintings and patchings, and powdering of a garish Curtesan. And whereas this man would have you believe that there are those who are so enamoured of these few Ceremonies, that they even dote upon them; nay, have set their hearts upon them more than upon Almighty God himself. An­other great Prelate Bishop Sandersons Preface to the first Volume of Serm. sect. 12. An. 1657. hath declared, That he knew no true Son of the Church of England, that doteth upon any Ceremony: whatsoever opinion they have of the decency or expe­diency of some of them. Nor doth this Gentleman, I have reason to believe, know such an one at this day. ‘For they have been told a thousand times over (as that Bi­shop proceeds)Ib. sect. 13. in the Sermons and Writings of private men (as well as in the Publick Declaration of our Church) that we place no necessity [Page 83] at all in these things, but hold them to be merely indifferent. 2. That when for Decency, Order, or Uniformity sake any constituti­ons are made, there is the same necessity of obeying such constitu­tions, as of obeying other Laws made for the good of the Com­monwealth concerning any other indifferent thing. And 3. That this necessity, whether of the one or of the other, arises not properly from the Authority of the immediate Law-giver, but from the Ordinance of God who hath commanded us to obey the Ordinances of men for his sake. And, to add no more, 4. That such necessity of Obedience notwithstanding, the things remain in the same indifferency as before; every way as to their Nature, and even in respect of us, thus far, That there is a liberty left for men upon extraordinary and other just oc­casions, sometimes to do otherwise than the constitution requires, when there is no scandal nor contempt in [Page 84] the case. A liberty which we dare not either take our selves, or allow to others in things properly and abso­lutely necessary. Upon which ve­ry account (I mean the considerati­on of the indifferency of the things in themselves) and upon this alone it was that those who did most sad­ly resent the voting down of Liturgy, Festivals, and the Ceremonies of the Church, did yet so far yield to the sway of the times, as to forbear the use thereof in publick Worship.’ Which is a direct answer to that which this Apologist talks of, about our omission of things required by Law in the late times. p. 128. And he may find more full satisfaction, if he be disposed, in the same Bishops se­venth Sermon to the people First Volume of Sermons in Folio. page 390.; where he shews, that since the obligation to those doth not spring from the things themselves, nor immediately and by its proper virtue from the con­stitution of the Magistrate, but by con­sequence only, and by virtue of that Law of God which commands to [Page 85] obey them; thereby a liberty is left in cases extraordinary, and of some pres­sing necessity, not otherwise well to be avoided, to do sometimes other­wise: these two things provided. First, that a man be driven thereto by a true real, and not by a pretended necessity only: and secondly, that in the manner of doing he use such Godly discre­tion as neither to shew the least con­tempt of the Law in himself, nor to give ill example to others to despise Government, or Governours.

7. This is the sum of what our Church-men, high and low (as he is pleased to distinguish them) have de­clared about Ceremonies. O but, saith the Apologist, why then will you not consent to a change, nay, a laying aside all those Ceremonies, since you do not make them necessary in them­selves? Let them be removed whe­ther nocent or innocent, as they have been out of other Reformed Churches. page 18. This he is at again, page 131. and propounds this as a good means to keep the people from grie­ving [Page 86] and vexing the Magistrate by the breach of his Laws: Remove the Law, saith he, and where there is no Law, there is no Transgression, p. 133. very right; nor is there any obedi­ence. He hath found out a rare way for the Magistrate to ease him­self wholly of his Office, by letting the people do as they will, and go­vern him. For when they please to scruple any other Laws, he must repeal them too, according to this wise advice, unless he will be vex­ed and grieved with the clamours and disobedience of his people, who will not be contented unless, in effect, they make Laws for themselves. King James indeed in his Proclamation in the first year of his Reign, March 5. admonishes all men hereafter, not to expect, nor attempt so much as any further change in the common and pub­lick Form of Gods Service, from that which was then established. For which he there gives such substantial rea­sons, that my Lord Bacon Cahala, page 42. makes it his request to the Duke of Buck­ingham [Page 87] to read that excellent Procla­mation, as he calls it; And if at any time there should be the least motion made for innovation, to put the King in mind to read it himself; for it is most dangerous in a state to give ear to the least alteration in Govern­ment. But it is all one for that; no matter what the King said, or any one else, they have been ever since, and are not merely for alterations, but for abolishings and removals, or else there will be no peace. I am heartily sorry for it; since even those whom they call the most moderate Prelates, have declared the removal of that which is well settled to be so dangerous, as that it is not safe to remove an inconvenience, the reme­dy of which may open a gap to let in others that may prove greater and more grievous. Not only Bishop Sanderson Episco­pacy not prejudi­cial, &c. p 99. 100., but Bishop Hall like­wise is of the mind, that [...], is a sure Rule: Let the an­tient customs stand: Every novelty carries his Petition in the face of it Bishop Hall's Sermon [...] 2 Sund [...] Lent, 1641▪ p. 80.. [Page 88] ‘It was a good question of the Church in the Canticles, Why should I be as one that turns aside to the flocks of the Companions? It is the great and glorious stile of God, that in him is no shadow of changing: Sure­ly those well setled Churches and States come nearest to his perfection, that alter least. But if with Lipsius you say; what if for the better? I must answer, that in every change there is a kind of hazard: It is a wise word therefore of our Hooker, that a tolerable Sore is better than a dangerous Remedy.’ And if any one say these words are not to be exten­ded to Ceremonies, let him con­sult a Letter of his to Mr. Stru­thers One of the Mini­sters of Edinburgh., whom he desires to consi­der how far it is safe for a parti­cular Church to depart from the antient Universal. ‘Surely no King­dom can think it a slight matter, what the Church diffused through all times and places hath either done or taught. For Doctrines or Manners there is no question; and [Page 89] why should it be more safe to leave it in the Holy Institutions that con­cern the outward form of Gods Ser­vice? Novelty is a thing full of en­vy and suspicion; and why less in matters of Rite than Doctrine? True it is, every Nation hath her own Rites, Gestures, Customs, and yet there are some wherein there hath been an Universal Agree­ment. As every face hath its own favour, its own lines distinct from all others, yet is there a certain common habitude of countenance, and disposition of the forehead, eyes, cheeks, lips, common to all. So as they that under pretence of difference shall go about to raise an immunity from such Ceremo­nies, do no other than argue, that because there is a diversity of pro­portion of faces, we may well want a brow or a chin.’ He in­stances in the antient custom of So­lemn Festivities, and of kneeling at the Holy Sacrament. By all which it appears that one may be against a [Page 90] removal of the Ceremonies, and yet be no Hector, no more than He, or Bishop Sanderson, or Mr. Hooker See [...]e Preface to his fifth part of Eccles. Pol. were. And these men, I must tell you, have the least reason to complain (or give such Characters as this Apo­logist hath done) of those, whom they call rigid or stiff, Fathers or Sons of the Church of England (they are his own words, p. 34.) who were so un­yielding themselves in every thing which they had a mind to have esta­blished. Nay, some of whom here­tofore were so fierce for their own inventions, that every nicety seemed as if it were a Fundamental: and, if King James may be believedBasilicon Doron ci­ted in se­cond Fair Warning, cap. 1. p. 8. the smallest questions about their Ecclesi­astical Discipline raised as great Di­sputes, as if the Holy Trinity were called in question.

X It would be only to tire you and my self to proceed any further to anatomise the rest of this vile Cha­racter; the stench of which is al­ready so offensive; Nor is there any [Page 91] need to spend any more time about it; for the bare reciting of it, will proclaim it to be a Libel, and an infamous one too; unless you can believe, that the chiefest Sons of the Church (as they profess themselves) dissent from its Doctrine, transgress its Laws about Rites and Ceremonies, look upon the Archbishops Grindal, Whit­gift, and Abbot, as Puritans, and would unbishop some of the present Bishops for Presbyterians. Who would think that a Book fraught with such language as this, should be com­mended for a sober, modest Reply, by some of chief note among them? Such men would have made excellent Parasites, altogether as good as that Cynaethus, who, when he had spent all other waies of Flattery, praised his Master for his Tissick, and said, he cought very musically. Their Fa­vourites may say and write what they please, and still maintain the Reputation of godly men; nay, that which in us would be thought a Crime, is commended in one of [Page 92] themselves, as I have formerly shewn you. That very Person who accuses another of writing Pasquils, is not afraid to call several of the Bishops (as this man in effect doth some of our Priests) Amaziah-like Priests, Tyrants, rufling, ceremonious, and vi­olent Ring-leaders Anatome of Dr. G. 1660.. He declaims also against the Cathedral Service, reproaches the Dignified Clergy, and that after he had confessed in other parts of his Book, the Act of Indem­nity had enjoyned him silenceAntidote against Antisobri­us, Oct 30. 1660. p. 15. 22, 25.. That which is bred in the bore, as we say, will not out of the flesh. This sort of men have ever been wont to revile, and so they cannot forbear it even when they know they should not, and that it is their interest to give good words. And if you will give me leave to speak my judgment free­ly, I think there is also in this ve­ry Writer, a great deal of that Hectorly swaggering quality, which he unjustly charges others withal. Witness that notable Vapour, and High Rant, page 28. where he tells [Page 93] you, the chief Quarrel of the high Hie­rarchists against the Presbyterian Mi­nisters should in reason have been no­thing but this, that they (who would have thought it?) were the first in bringing the King back. Which he joyns with a new cluster of calumnies against many of the Bishops, and con­forming Clergy: affirming (page 29.) that their own interest, it may be su­spected, had a considerable influence in­to their Loyalty; and that they seem to express more and greater zeal against the Presbyterians than against the Regicides, &c. Who would not think, that reads this, that they were the men (who but they?) who kept life and heat in the Kings Cause, and that the Episcopal men, many of them, were cold and indif­ferent? or that they were the sin­cere, the well-affected to his Majesty, and the others led by their own inte­rest to follow the Presbyterian zeal for him? Nay, that they were the first movers towards the Kings Re­turn, even before those that were [Page 94] always in motion, and never ceased their restless indeavours for it? O most glorious Apologist! He may tell us next, as the men of Judah said, The King is near of kin to us, for that is as true, as that they were the first in bringing him back. If he will stand to this, and not have it pass for a boast, but for a serious Truth; I will produce him the words of some of the heads of his party (which I had rather spare) that make it unlawful to attempt it. Whereby it will appear that they at least were not for bringing him in again, till they were forced to it, by those who would not let them keep him out.

And now that he is in his Throne, methinks it is no great sign of the contentment they take in the change, that the Conventicles, which are so frequent and numerous on other dayes, are observed to be so few, if any, upon the day of this Kings Return, or upon the day of the former Kings Death. Look about [Page 95] you, and consider all the private Meetings you know of on the Lords Day; How many did you ever know or hear of that will vouch­safe at the appointed times to be­wail the horrid Murther of the Fa­ther, or to thank God for the hap­py Restauration of the Son? For my part, I have constantly observed, that those which come within my knowledge, do not assemble on those daies at all; and many others have made the same Observation as well as my self.

As for the other thing, the Con­formists expressing more and greater Zeal against the Presbyterians than a­gainst the Regicides, and more frequent­ly and more fiercely arraigning and condemning the Covenant, than the Ingagement; the same Answer may serve which Bishop Sanderson gave to those who complained that the Vi­sitation Sermons were more against the Puritans, than the Papists Preface to 1 Vol. of Serm. Sect. 7. 8. 1657.. First, we say it is not altogether true: the Regicides have their share [Page 96] in the Publick Sermons (of which I suppose he speaks) as well as their Fellows, as oft as the Text gives occasion, or the file of their Dis­course leads the Preachers to it. And on those Daies I mentioned, it is the General Complaint of your people that the Preachers speak too much against those King-killers and those Principles which led them to commit that Sin without Blushing. But, Secondly, admitting it to be true to a tittle, either our men are ex­cusable in what they blame them for, or they that blame them inex­cusable, who do the very same thing. ‘Do they not usually (saith he) in their Sermons fall bitterly up­on the Papists and Arminians, but seldome meddle with the So­cinians, scarce ever name the Turks? I have been told often of their Declamations against the ob­serving of Christmas, that great superstitious thing, but I remem­ber not to have heard of much spo­ken against Perjury and Sacriledge, [Page 97] and some other Sins wherewith our times abound. Nay, did not their Zeal even against Popery it self seem to abate, when they had got most of the Pulpits into their Possession; at leastwise in compa­rison of the Zeal they shewed against Episcopacy, the Liturgy, Festivals, and Ceremonies in use among us? These they cried down with all the Noise they could, and with all the Strength they had: But why I beseech you so zealous against them, which were (at the worst they could fan­sie them) but lesser Sins and Er­rors in comparison with those greater which now were little talkt of? I doubt not but they had some reasons, wherewith to satisfie themselves for their so do­ing; and be they what they will, if they will serve to excuse them, they will serve as well to justifie our men, should they do as they are charged. The best thing, I think, that can be alledged by a [Page 98] rational man for such a proceed­ing is this. That where people are more in danger to be seduced by a less Error or Sin (as it is conceived) than a greater, there more Pains and Zeal may be be­stowed to keep them from that than from the other, that is in it self more dangerous. Thus our Saviour reproved the Scribes and Pharisees more frequently and with greater sharpness than he did the Sadducees, though in themselves, and in respect of their Matter, the Errors of the Sadducees were worse than those of the other; because the Pharisees by reason of their outside Holiness were grown into better esteem with the people than the Sadducees were, and the generality of the Jews were better principled against the gross Errors of the Sadducees, than the insna­ring Doctrines of the hypocritical Pharisees.’

All this is very good, and is the very Plea, which those may justly [Page 99] put in for themselves who express more and greater zeal against the Pres­byterians than against the Regicides; and arraign the Covenant more fre­quently than the Engagement: there is more and greater need of it; the people being in more danger to be misled by the one than by the other; and having a greater abhorrence of those Crimes which are black and ugly, than of those which are gilded over with specious pretences.

XI But this is not all the Hectorism he is guilty of; he makes a large boast of their great indulgence and charity to­wards Episcopal men when they had power, page 23. and desires me to Catechise my self why I charged them with rigour and severity without re­membring their kindness to the Arch­bishop of Armagh, and many others, p. 151. I have obeyed him; and for this once shall tell him what my an­swer is (being ready if he long for it to tell him my mind in all the rest of those Questions.) If I had named [Page 100] their particular kindnesses to the Epis­copal party, I must have remembred how that great person, as Dr. Bernard tells usClavi Trabales, p. 50., was forced to fly from London to Oxford; what roughness he met withal from the Army then in field against the King, to the loss of some of his Books, and principal Ma­nuscripts never recovered; how that maintenance was taken from him which had been settled on him by the King when he had lost all Ireland; and that at length being necessitated to re­turn to London, he was Silenced a long time from Preaching, unless in a pri­vate house; and when with much ado he was permitted to Preach at Lin­colns-Inn, it was that Honourable So­ciety which gave him a competent maintenance. Well, but the English Bishops, saith the Apologist, had two hundred pound per annum allowed them by an Ordinance. Allowed? Voted he should have said, and that is true; by the same token that they could never get it. Hear Bishop Hall, who had a larger portion than that voted [Page 101] him, but, as he himself complainsSpecial­ties of his Life writ by him­self,, was never the better for it. Nay, the Committee for Sequestrations at London, saith he, sent to the Commit­tee in the Country an express inhibition to pay any such Allowance; telling them that neither they nor any other Committee had power to allow him any thing at all. Nor could he get the fifth part which they said should be allowed his Wife. And, which is worse, they were not ashamed after they had sequestred the Profits of his Bishoprick, sold all his Goods, and Personal Estate (not leaving so much as his Childrens Pictures out of their curious Inventory)As he tells us there, p. 57. ☜ to come to him for Assessments and monthly Pay­ments for that Estate which they had taken away; and took distress from him upon his most just denial. Nay, they vehemently required him to find the wonted Arms of his Predecessors, when they had left him nothing, and a little before came and disarmed him. All this was over and above the many insolent affronts put upon [Page 102] him all this while, which you may read there if you please, page 62. which made that meek man conclude in these pathetical wordsMay 29. 1647.: This hath been my measure; wherefore I know not: Lord, thou knowest, who on­ly canst remedy and end, and forgive or avenge this horrible oppression.

O but Bishop Morton, adds the Apologist, did get a thousand pound. Right; but when did he get it, and by what means? This Gentleman might seasonably ask himself a cross que­stion, Why he is pleased to remember this kindness, and not withal the ri­gour that preceded it? It would not have cost him or his Printer much pains to tell us, his barbarous usage in the Tumults at Westminster, when some cried, pull him out of his Coach; others, nay, he is a good man; others again, but for all that he is a Bishop. Which made him often say that he be­lieved he should not have escaped alive, if a leading man among the rabble had not cried out, Let him go and hang himself Doctor Barwick in his Life, p. 103.. Wonderful [Page 103] civility to such a reverend person! which was attended with ringing of Bells and making Bonfires upon their imprisonment, and with scattering abroad (as Bishop Hall tells us, p. 50.) scurrilous Pamphlets throughout the Kingdom, and in Forein parts, which blazoned their infamy, and exaggera­ted their treasonable practices. He might have remembred also that af­ter this first imprisonment (which, I gather from Bishop Hall, was from New-years-Eve till Whitsontide) Bi­shop Morton was committed Prison­er again for six months more to their Serjeant. And what do you think it was for? Only for Baptizing the Child of a Noble Person, according to the order of the Book of Common-Prayer Ib. page 107.. From whence this Gentleman may learn that which it seems he never knew before (as you find page 24.) one that suffered for the use of the Li­turgy. By these and such like means the good Bishop was reduced to great straights, and thereupon sued for some maintenance, and by the impor­tunity [Page 104] of his Friends (which, I must tell you, and nothing else, brought the Primate into Lincolns-Inn) got the thousand pound this Apologist speaks of: not out of the Revenues of his Bishoprick, but out of the Trea­sury of Goldsmiths-Hall, after all his Lands and Revenues were sold. Before this he had no allowance, and could not live upon a Vote for an annual maintenance, which making no men­tion by whom nor whence it should be paidIb. page 124., was as good as no Vote at all. All which considered and ma­ny other things of like nature, Dr. Sanderson did not stick to write (and I hope he was no Slanderer) that in those days, They exercised an arbitrary Sovereignty without either Justice or Mercy Episco­pacy not prejudici­al, &c. p. 51..

But was there not a fifth part, as the Apologist goes on, allowed for the maintenance of the Wife and Chil­dren of those Ministers that were eje­cted? No truly; it was only Voted, but seldom allowed. Bishop Hall's Wife, as you heard, could not obtain [Page 105] it; and others also not only went with­out that allowance, but had better been without the Vote too; which cost them dear, and proved the greatest cruelty. For they spent what they had left for a feeble support, in suing for that which they could never get; and sometimes that which was lent by their Friends was thrown away, by this means, after that which was taken from them. Hear the History of the English and Scotch Presbytery, chap. 25Written in French by a Di­vine of the Reformed Church, translated 1659.. ‘There is indeed, saith he, an Ordi­nance of Parliament, that the Wives and Children of ejected Ministers should have the fifth part of the Re­venues of their Benefices, but it is very ill observed, for the new incum­bents refuse to obey the Ordinance, constraining them to plead before Judges, their Adversaries; who in­stead of speedy relieving. them, de­lay them with length of time, and make them consume in Suits that which they borrowed to plead their cause. By this expence and delays these poor desolate persons are con­strained [Page 106] to desist their prosecution; and many being ejected out of small Benefices, dare not present their Pe­titions for the fifths, because the ex­pences will amount higher than the Principal.’ You may read the rest there if you please, or if you suspect this Author of partiality, you may look into that Historian which this Apologist sometimes cites, Mr. Fuller I mean, who was none of the rigid Sons of the Church, I dare say, in his opi­nion: And he will inform you more distinctlyBook 11. p. 228, &c., that though the Parlia­ment ordered in the year 1644. that their Commissioners in the Country should appoint means (not exceeding a fifth part) to the Wives and Chil­dren of Sequestred persons, yet Clergy­men not being expressed by name, they that enjoyed the Sequestrations refused to contribute to them. The complaints of this begat a new Order of the House of Commons, Die Jovis 11. Novemb. 1647. that the Wives and Children of Clergy-men should be comprehended within the Ordinance that allowed the [Page 107] fifth part for Wives and Children, &c. But Covetousness, as he observes, found many little holes to wriggle out at. For if a Minister had a Wife without Children, or Children without a Wife, or but one Child, they denied them payment. Six other evasions besides these be there relates, to which I refer the Reader, by which the intention of the Parliament was deluded, and most of the poor souls who were in want received no benefit of that Ordinance: But rather, as I said, a great deal of mischief; while they were shuffled off with litigious and crafty tricks, and op­pressed with charges, when they came to demand that small Alms which was granted them out of their Husbands Estates. What shall I say more? Mr. Bridges himself confesses their rigour to the poor Episcopal Clergy; for when the Converted Gentleman com­plains that many Learned, Religious, and Orthodox Divines were plunder­ed, &c. While their Wives and Children begging their Bread are left to the mercy of those merciless times; He denies [Page 108] not a word of it, but answers roundly thus, There shall be Judgment merciless to him that shews no mercy. 2 Jam. 1.3. and a little after he repeats it again. believe it, Sir, you have been bloudily merciless, and the just God is now ma­king Inquisition Annota­tions on Loyal Convert. published by Autori­ty. 1644. p. 17.. Nay, it was not the kindness of the Presbyterian Mi­nisters that the Independent Brethren were suffered; but they sadly complain of it: as you may read in the Petition of the London Ministers to the House of Commons Septemb. 18, 1644., grounded upon the first Remonstrance of the Houses, [wherein they declared it was far from their purpose or desire to let loose the golden Reins of Discipline and Go­vernment in the Church, to leave private persons or particular Congre­gations to take up what Form of Ser­vice they please] and upon the Cove­nant, wherein they ingaged themselves to be not only for a full Reformati­on, but an Ʋniformity in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Go­vernment. This was received with great Acceptation, and the next [Page 109] yearDecemb. 18, 1645 the same Ministers agreed upon a Letter to the Assembly a­gainst Toleration, in the body of which they expresly call them, Rea­sons against the Toleration of Inde­pendency in this Church. The Com­mon Prayer then you may be sure could not be tolerated by their good will, whatever this man sayes; nor were Dr. Gunning and the rest suffered at London and Oxford, till their Power was out of Doors. Whilst the Covenant was in Cre­dit, it was severely forbid, and the King himself, had it been in their power, should not have had the pri­viledge to use it. This Covenant also, though he would have us be­lieve the contrary, was prest with great Rigour. Look into our Church, saith Bishop Bramhall, Replica­tion to Bishop of Chalcedon. p. 40. and see how many of our principal Divines have lost their Dignities and Bene­fices, only because they would not take a Schismatical Covenant, without any other relation to the Wars. I have read of a thousand imprisoned and [Page 110] sequestred upon this score, and near an hundred Fellows of Colledges in one Week banished Cambridge for refusing it. Nay, the Houses were so impartial (they are the express words of Mr. Pryn)Fresh Discovery, &c. 1646. Sect. 3. in the pre­scription of it, that such Members of the Lords or Commons that did but scruple the taking of it, were suspen­ded the Houses till they did conform. Upon which ground he shews how unequal it was that any man should be priviledg'd and exempted from it. And therefore I do not believe, that many of the Episcopal Perswasion were suffered to enjoy places in the Churches, Col­ledges, and Schools without ever taking the Covenant (as this Apologist affirms, p. 23.) unless he means, after it was laid aside, and the Sectaries (as they then spoke) not only obstinately refu­sed it, but openly oppugned and de­rided it, nay, framed an Anticovenant against it in their private Congregati­ons Mr. Pryn. ib.. But it is no wonder he should write thus confidently, when Mr. R. Baily had the face to write, [Page 111] notwithstanding all this, that the Co­venant was so far from being urged by fear of unjust suffering, that to this day it could never be obtain'd from the Parliament of England to enjoyn that Covenant upon any by the penalty of a two-pence Review of the Fair Warning. p. 80.. No indeed, what need that? when the terms were, take it, or lose your Benefice. Just such ano­ther vapour he made (for these men are much given to it) in another place, affirming in a Sermon at the Hague, that not any thing had hitherto been ob­jected against the Covenant. What could be more impudently spoken, when the Reasons of the University of Oxford had been published against it several years before; and testified the bold falshood of what he saith also in his Epistle before the Review (where he would qualifie the business a little) that to this day no man has shewed any error in the matter of that Covenant? And indeed shew what we will, it is all one, they will not regard it. They still retain, I see by this man, a won­derful affection for the Covenant, and [Page 112] cannot endure it should bear any blame. It was not, saith he, the Cause of the War. Why so? the Battel at Edgehil being fought before the Co­venant came into England, p. 22. what of all that? The Covenant might notwithstanding be a great cause of the War, and I will prove it had a great hand in it. All the stirs in Scotland were by the means of it; they entring into it without the Kings consent; obtrudingLarge Declarati­on, p. 75, 199. it with threatning, beating, tearing of Cloaths; turning men out of their Livings, Excommuni­cating, Processing those that would not subscribe it; and binding themselves to a mutual assistance against all per­sons whatsoever. Upon which the Kings Commissioner desired that they would add [Except the King and his Successors] but they refused it, and in their explication of the Covenant, which came out afterward, would add no such thing, but only that they would defend his Person and Autho­rity in the Preservation and Defence of true Religion Ib. p. 108, 109.. In that form it [Page 113] marched into England What use the Ar [...]y made of the clause, the Re­monstrance about the Titary at the Isle of Wight will tell you., whither the Spirit of it was come before, and had raised those Arms which might have been soon laid aside again, had it not been for the Covenant. For without the assistance of the Scots, the Parliament of England knew not how to carry on the War, and without the Covenant came along with them, or march'd before them, they would not jog, or stir a foot: As appears by this Relation, which I find in the Second Fair Warning By Rich. Watson, 1651. p. 178, 179., sent from one well acquainted with the Affairs of his own Country. When the Commissioners, saith he, came down into Scotland from the Parliament of England, and a Letter they brought was read in the Assembly there, they received no other Answer but this: Gentlemen, we are sorry for your case; but whereas your Letter saith you fight for Defence of the Reformed Religion, you must not think us blind, that we see not your fighting to be for civil disputes of the Law, which we are not acquainted withal. Go home, and [Page 114] reconcile with the King: He is a gra­cious Prince, and will receive you to his Favour. ☞ You cannot say it is for the Reformed Religion, since you have not begun to reform your Church. You had thriven better if you had done as we did, begun at the Church. ‘A few days after this, new Addres­ses being made, their Friends in the Assembly made this propositi­on, Will you joyn in Covenant with us to reform Doctrine and Discipline conform to this of Scotland? and ye shall have a better answer. The Re­ply was, thanks, and that they would represent their desires to the Parliament from whom they had no instructions for such an agreement. Nay, said the Assembly again, this will be loss of time, and the danger is great, the Parliament nor being able with all their forces to stand two months before the King; we will rather therefore draw up the Solemn League and Covenant here, and send up with you some Noble­men, Gentlemen, and Ministers that [Page 115] shall see it subscribed: which was accordingly done.’ The Covenant was cried up, the Scots came into England, and what did they come for? It was, saith the Preface to Mr. Knox his History to fight the Battels of the Lord, i. e. to pull down Episcopacy and to set up Presbytery in its room, according to the Covenant: which League and Covenant, saith Mr. Ru­therford, was the first foundation of the ruine of the Malignant party in Eng­landSee To­leration Discuss'd, p. 117., but not of Episcopacy, this Gentleman would have you believe; for it was declared in the Assembly that the Covenant did not bind against a Pri­mitive Episcopacy, page 31. What they mean by a Primitive Episcopacy I will not stand to enquire; but this is well known, that the Three Ministers in their first answer to the Divines of Aberdeen, positively affirmed, That Episcopacy was not abjured by their Con­fession nor their Covenant See Large Declara i­on, p. 117.; which was averred by many other Covenant­ers to those who otherways scrupled to enter into their Covenant. And I [Page 116] know that some declared the same in England; and yet notwithstanding no­thing would satisfie but the extirpati­on of Episcopal power, and they la­boured tooth and nail to settle the Go­vernment by Presbyters alone. This the people thought was the great end of the Covenant, and there is no doubt but the scope of the first contrivers of it was to destroy Episcopacy root and branch. This was their first work after the War was begun, to send a Com­missioner to the English Parliament, 1642. to move them to cast out Bishops, [not a word of limiting them] and others to the King at Oxford to sign all propositions; which because he would not do, they resolve to assist their Bre­thren against him, under the name of the Common Enemy Second Fair Wa n­ing, p. 185.. But before they came, they told the Commissioners of Parliament, as I shew'd you, they must covenant to reform Doctrine and Disci­pline conform to Scotland. And accord­ingly, the same Author informs me that, their Covenant came into Eng­land with such a clause as this, We shall [Page 117] reform our Church in Doctrine and Dis­cipline conform to the Church of Scot­landIb. p 383▪ of which the Independent Brethren cheated them, making that be razed out, and those words inserted which we now read in it. However the abolition of the Office of Bishops was their great demand of the King, as Mr. R. Baily expresly affirms: adding that the unhappy Prelates had found it to be their great demand from the beginning of our troubles unto this day Review of fair Warning, 1649 chap. 12. p. 76. And he plainly affirms that to deny them this satisfaction, was to conclude that the King himself and all his Family, and three Kingdoms should perish. Why so I be­seech you? It could not be otherwise, notwithstanding all their fine words in the beginning, for they had sworn to root them out; and could not break their Covenant to save three King­doms. And therefore at last Mr. Baily perswades himself, the King did con­sent to abolish Name and Thing not only for three years but for ever. Strange! when his Majesty had so often clearly protested that he could not with a good [Page 118] Conscience consent to it. Did they force him at last to do it against his Consci­ence, or did they give him such satisfa­ction that he saw at last he might safely do it? Alas! we dull souls do not un­derstand the mysteries which they can find in words. His Majesty consented to lay aside Bishops for three years, till he and his Parliament should agree upon some settled Order for the Church. Now this, saith he, was tantamount to for ever: it being supposed (mark the jugling) that they can never agree to admit Epi­scopacy again. Why so? For all and every one (saith he)Ib. chap. last, p. 8 [...]. in both Houses having abjured Episcopacy by solemn Oath and Covenant (observe that) the Parliament could not agree with the King to erect the faln Chairs of the Bi­shops; so there remained no other, but that either his Majesty should come over to their Judgment, or by his not agree­ing with them, yet really to agree in the perpetual abolition of Episcopacy, since he had granted to lay aside Bishops till he and his Houses had agreed upon a settled Order in the Church. This was an ad­mirable [Page 119] contrivance, especially if you call to mind, as the Answer tells him, how there was something else agreed, viz. that twenty Divines of his Maje­sties nomination being added to the Assembly should have a free consulta­tion and debate about the settlement of Church-Government after those three years or sooner, if differences could be composed. A very free De­bate this was like to be, in which all Reasons that could be given for Epis­copacy were shut out of doors, and concluded by an Oath to be put to si­lence. But why should I trouble my self any farther? The wider indeed the hole grows in the mil-stone, the clear­er a man may see through it; but this mans Sophistry is visible enough alrea­dy: nor needs there more words to shew that this modest Braggadocio vaunts himself ridiculously in the me­rits of his party; and that Mr. Vicars and such like were not the only men that reviled and calumniated. They that pretend to humility, modesty, and seriousness cannot forbear it.

[Page 120] XII But if you desire a farther tast of his Spirit, I pray have so much patience as to hear how he uses me. In the Pre­face he accuses me of railing, and in his Book (p. 2.) of reviling; without taking notice of one word that I have said in answer to these calumnies. They are re­solved I see to be confident, and to have their saying, do, or say we what we can. For he tells you also of my jeering, scof­fing, false accusation, and mocking; light­ness and drollery; p 90. 92, 137. but not a syllable to make good the charge. No, that was a hard thing, but very easie to say that I write sometime, what might better be­come some Ecclesiastical Hudibras, or a Doctor of the Stage, than p. 35. &c. Just thus Mr. R. Baily was pleased to answer that excellent Bishop, which this man commends, Dr. Bramhall. Concerning the 8th. Chapter of whose Fair Warn­ing, he saith, it much better beseemed a Mercurius Aulicus than either a War­ner or a Prelate Review, p. 48.. He charges him also with gathering together an heap of Calumnies, &c. though, as the Reply [Page 121] tells him, that heap was nothing else but a faithful Collection of Historical Narrations, which require not the cre­dulity of the simple, but the search of diligent people, if they distrust them. The same I say for my self; they must be beholden to a new light, which no body can see but themselves, to make Historical truth to be a slander. They are fain to call it so, because they can­not tell how to answer it otherways, and they will not lay their hands on their mouths. If better were within, better would come out: they are fain to throw out such words, because they want a substantial Apology. The same Mr. Baily, I remember charges, the strength of one of the Bishops Rea­sons to be black Atheism and much worse than Pagan Scepticism Ib. 89.. By which you may see it is their manner to censure boldly, and tumble out frightful words, without regard to Truth. For if you would know what Doctrine it is, which he calls by the name of Brutish and Atheistical Maxims (that's another of his civil [Page 122] words, p. 90) it is this. That it is not lawful for Subjects to plant that which they apprehend to be true Re­ligion by force of Arms: nor to take up Arms against their Prince merely for Religion. This was all the Bi­shop had said, and not without great reason. But they are Brutes or Atheists, divested of all Reason or Religion, who prefer not their En­thusiastical Heats before the most sober and wise Resolutions. They, as the Bishop speaks in the end of that Treatise, are more ridiculously partial than the men of China; for they talk as if they only had two eyes and all the rest of the world were stark blind.

XIII So one would think this Apolo­gist supposed, when he thought to put us off with such a wretched Reply to what was objected from the Practices of the Old Nonconfor­mists: who being silenced forbore to preach, and justified their silence a­gainst the Brownists, who accused [Page 123] them for their submission to the Eccle­siastical Censures. His Answer is, That the Number of the ejected Ministers then, was not comparable to what it is now. p. 6. Which is just like the Exposition, which they sometime gave of that Scripture. Rom. 13.1. I con­ceive, saith one,Natures Dowry. 1652. p. 31. that those Chri­stians who lived under the Heathenish Emperours, but wanted strength to de­fend themselves, were by that precept, [let every soul be subject to the high­er powers] obliged to sit still, and to endeavour nothing against those that had the sword in their hands. For it would have discovered them to be of unruly Spirits, in that they proceeded wholly according to passion, and not according to sober judgment. So that there was nothing of Christian Virtue in their subjection, but only of humane Pru­dence; and no great store of that was necessary, for they had been arrand fools if they had made a stir when they knew they could do nothing. It is not want of will, it seems, but want of strength that keeps these men from [Page 124] breaking those Laws that restrain them. The old Nonconformists, he would have you think, would have done as they do now, had they been as nume­rous: Then they would have entred into strong Combinations, and slight­ed that Authority to which they sub­mitted. But weigh their Reasons, which I alledgedIn the Continuati­on. Edit. 1. 345. and shall not now repeat, and you will see he casts a blot on them as well as us; for they are such as will shut up the mouths of a great many as well as a few. But how few were they in those daies, do you think, that were ejected? He tells you usually not one to one hundred, to what it is in our daies. Ib. It is no­tably guessed by instinct, for, I dare say, he hath no Author to warrant his As­sertion; and for once (as the fore­named Bishop speaks in another case) his instinct hath deceived him. Accor­ding to the computation of Philaga­thus, there should not at this rate be five and twenty in all the Kingdome; whereas the Humble Supplication in King James his timeAn. 1609. p. 26. 31. talks of ‘sharp­ness [Page 125]and rigour for the silencing and removing of no mean number of the worthiest Pastors in the Land: in­somuch that the ordinary means of Conversion from blindness and infi­delity was interrupted and crossed, in that so many worthy Lights had been by the Prelates removed from shining in the Church.’ Nay, one would think by their words, that all who were good for any thing were si­lenced, for they say, p. 25. in an in­definite manner, ‘The faithful Mini­sters of the Gospel are in all disgra­cive and unworthy sort discarded, and removed from being any longer the Lords Sentinels and Watchmen.’ Which they repeat again, p. 28. And the Defence of the Ministers Reasons for refusal of SubscriptionPreface, 1607. tells you of so many turned out from that high and heavenly calling, that for any means of maintenance left to many of them, they may seek their bread. Here is such a many, that being divided into two parts, rich and poor, one of them makes a many; and therefore the whole [Page 126] was a great many, not a few, as this man affirms. Nay, by that time the War was begun, there was none of the best sort of Ministers left, if we will believe the Dialogue I mention­ed;Between a Nether­lander and English­man. which saith, the Bishops had stript all the Assemblies of their faith­fullest Preachers. In this stile they were wont to speak then, as they do now; though I have reason to think that some of these faithfullest Preachers and Watchmen stood more upon their Credit, than any thing else when they refused Subscription. For I find it re­corded above 60 years ago by Mr. Tho. Bell Regi­ment of the church. Chap. 5., that he discoursing with a Preacher about the Canons just then made, 1604. (against which he could alledg nothing of moment) was told by him that he would neither lose his li­ving, nor yet conform to those Orders. And when he demanded how that could be, was answered, that he would have one to do it, but not do it himself. And again, being told he might as lawfully do it himself, as procure ano­ther to do it, uttered these words, How [Page 127] can I do that against which I have so often preached? which, saith Mr. Bell, I told him savoured of the Spirit of the proud Pharisee, not of the humble Publi­can. I thought indeed before that all their Proceedings had been out of mere Consci­ence, which now I perceive to be of Pride in a great many of them: through which manner of dealing the simpler sort become disobedient, and are deeply drowned in Error; and our Church pitifully tur­moiled with Schisms and dissention. Ho­nest Bernard Gilpin See his Life. p. 132. 133. was of another mind; who being called to subscription in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, though dissatisfied in two points of the Articles of smaller consequence, yet, subscribed to them, least, thought he with himself, if I shall refuse, I shall be a means to make many others to refuse, and so consequently hinder the course of the word of God.

But perhaps you desire to know the precise Number which were then ejected; and if you give Credit to one of your own Authors, this man is much out of the way, for the Altar [Page 128] of Damascus affirms, that there were either silenced or deprived upon the account of not conforming three hun­dred preaching Ministers. Dr. Hey­lyn indeed informs me that it doth not appear upon the Rolls that the [...]e were above nine and forty deprived upon all occasions, till the death of Archbishop Bancroft, and so the whole Number of the silenced and deprived might not be so great as they pretended. You must con­clude one of these two things; ei­ther that they loved then when occasion served to make a Moun­tain of a Mole-hill; or now they are desirous to do the just con­trary, and depress their Number to little or nothing. And in like manner now he tells us the people dissatisfied with the Liturgy or Ce­remonies are ten if not an hundred to one to what they were formerly; and yet then they talkt of many thousands Humble Supplica­tion. p. 36. of the most loyal and best affected Subjects that joyned with them in their Affection to the desired Reformation. [Page 125] That is, they talk boldly and at random out of their own imagina­tions, as if they wrote to simple Ide­ots that believe every word with­out chewing. Otherwise this Apo­logist would not have told us that Mr. Hildersham was silenced but in some Dioceses, &c. p. 7. whereas Mr. Clark tells us expresly that he was not onely silenced, but depri­ved for refusing of Subscription, 1605. and was not allowed to preach till 1608. and within less then a year silenced again, and continued so a long time. Nay, was judicially admonished in the High Commission, (22 April 1613) and enjoyned that ‘saving the Catechising of his own family, he should not at any time here­after preach, catechise, or use any part of the Office or Fun­ction of a Minister either pri­vately or publikely until he was restored, &c.’ And that it was not till 1625 that he was licensed to preach in some Dioceses. How [Page 126] it was with others, I have not had occasion to observe, and now have not leisure to examine; but have cause from this to suspect that he doth not report these matters clearly and with sincerity.

XIV And indeed, overweening of mens selves is apt to blinde them, and make them imagine any thing will pass for truth and for sound reason which comes out of their mouthes. One would wonder what he thinks our brains are made of, who puts us off with such slender stuff as this, for an excuse of their holding Meetings separate from us. It is no schism, nor a breach of the unity of the Church, because they take occasion to meet for a time onely; till a door be opened for them in the Church, by the removal of some sup­posed or real corruption in the pub­like Worship. As if there were no breach in a garment when it is rent, because it may be sowed to­gether [Page 127] again. But yet this the Apologist thinks, makes the Sepa­ration of the Non conformists from the Church of England, not total and perpetual, p. 11. which he re­peats again, p. 128. and calls it a temporary and partial withdraw­ing. A very sorry employment this is, for a Divine (as I take him to be) to spend his time in sowing a few fig-leaves together to cover the shame of a sinful disobedience to their Governours, and the great breach they have made in the uni­ty of the Church. For it may be demonstrated from his own words that this is a meer shift and frivo­lous excuse. He confesses a Se­paration; onely he addes that it is but temporary. The cause of this temporary Separation is a sup­posed or real corruption in the publike Worship. I ask now, Is this corruption such (whether re­al or supposed) that it is a just cause for a Separation? If it be not, they ought not to withdraw [Page 128] themselves for a time. If it be, they may withdraw themselves from us alway. And so they will according to these Principles: for if this corruption be not removed, they must alway continue separa­ted, or else it is no sufficient rea­son for separating now. Do what they can, they are not like the old Nonconformists; for they did not withdraw themselves into sepa­rate bodies, no not for a time. If they had upon his Principles, they must have died Separatists (there being no removal of what they wished taken out of the way) as these men are like to do, unless they repent and alter their practi­ces, in stead of desiring an alte­ration in the Publick Worship. Be­sides, he is very ignorant of the state of our affairs, who doth not know it hath been the manner of this Sect to proceed from evil to worse since the very beginning of it: which makes me think it past doubt that they will settle in a [Page 129] down-right Separation. At the first they onely disliked some Ce­remonies,See the Visitati­on speech at Lisne­garvy, p. 5. and could pretty well digest conformity in the rest. In a little time they manifested a dis­like of Episcopal Government, being better affected to the de­vice of Mr. Calvin: and together with that, they distasted also our Common prayer. From a dislike Some proceeded to think them unlawful, and then fell into a contempt of Bishops and the Pray­ers, bitterly rayling against them. From hence they advanced to o­pen disobedience to all the Or­ders of the Church, and at last renounced it, and rent themselves from it, esteeming themselves the onely Brethren and Congregation of the Faithful. Some there were indeed that did not go thus far; and being silenced or deprived for not conforming to the Ceremo­nies, would not separate from the Church, nor refused to joyn with our Assemblies. This Apologist [Page 130] would have us think that he and his Brethren are the followers of those: and yet confesses they are gone a large step beyond them, having separated for a time. And the same reason which hath carri­ed them thus far, will advance them further, and make that time so long, that it will prove alway. They will teach next, that Gods people must be Separatists Prote­station protested, 1641.. In order to which we must be, that part of the kingdom which is the world, and not the Church of Christ Groans for Liber­ty, 1646. And still they will have a further journey to go, and never rest till they be uppermost, and have set Jesus Christ, that is them­selves, upon his throne. What ground any man can have to hope any better, I cannot imagine: they being so bent to defend their pre­sent unwarrantable practices, that they will flie to any refuge, though never so dangerous; nay, take sanctuary in shadows, and think they are safe, rather then yield [Page 131] the cause. An instance of which you have in this Writer, who im­mediately after that which was now noted, alledges the words of a Romish Doctor mentioned by Bi­shop Bramhal, to excuse them from Schism, p. 12. But let any man consult the place, and he will finde presently they are nothing to the business. For the Bishop is there speakingVindic. of the Church of Engl. p. 7. onely concer­ning clashings between Bishops and Churches, long and resolutely maintained, which he shows may be so managed as not to be Schism. But he expresly determines a lit­tle after, p. 23. that it is schism to separate from other Christians with­out sufficient ground in the parti­cipation of the same Sacraments, or in the use of the same Divine Offi­ces and Liturgies of the Church, and publike Worship and Service of Almighty God, or of the same com­mon Rites & Ceremonies, &c. The very same he declares elsewhere, that they who break the unity of [Page 132] the Church for difference in in dif­ferent rites, are guilty of Schism Replic. to Bishop of Chal­cedon, p. 79, 80. and that most of the Schisms in the Church of Christ have been about the Canons of the Church, and not the substantials of Religion. Among other instances, he menti­ons the Schisms raised in our Church about a Surpless, signe of the Cross, &c. If therefore this Apologist would have done like a man, he should have shewn that we obtrude sinful Rites as a condi­tion of Communion with us, and so by this Bishops confession are guilty of making the Schism our selves. And he should, in order to this, have clearly answered all that hath been said in defence of our Church; and especially the Arguments of their Fore-fathers the old Nonconformists, who pro­ved against the Brownists that there was no such corruption in our Church, as was a sufficient ground of separation from it. Here was the very point, if he [Page 133] durst have toucht it, or come near it. Which since he hath not done, but spent his time in impertinent things, I must leave him to the fa­vourable censure of S. Austin, mentioned somewhere by the same Bishop in another case; They cannot do better in a bad cause; but who constrained them to have a bad cause?

XV This was it which made him turn his back so often upon the Question; and to make a Book which one cannot resemble more fitly then to a Winter-torrent, which abounds with water when there is no need of it; but in Sum­mer, when it should be useful, it is dryed up. (They are the words of the fore-mentioned Bishop, which I thought good to use, since he doth so, even when he doth not name him.) Such is this Apolo­gie, full of proofs where there is no controversie between us; and where the water sticks indeed, he [Page 134] is as mute as a fish. There is no question, for instance, but we may use the words of Scripture by way of accommodation: no body de­nies it; and that which he cites to this purpose out of one of our Bishops, I observed long before he told me of it, (p. 54, 87.) But then we ought to say that we use them so; and not talk as if that were the genuine sense of the Divine Writ, never acquainting the peo­ple with any other. And you ought not to pretend to more then other men, who can do this as well as your selves; unless you had the very same spirit and power which the Apostles had. Nor is it the Question whether mens affe­ctions are raised with Novelty and Variety (p. 59.) but whether those be the best affections which are raised by that means, or those which are raised by serious consi­deration and laying to heart of the same things in the same words. All that he alledges out of Mr. [Page 135] Hollingworth, p. 56. is to no pur­pose; for I have proved that the Non conformists pretend to more; even the very same that Mr. Baily did in his AnswerReview chap. 12. p. 75. to Bishop Bramhal's Fair warning, who would have the people endeavour to attain a readiness to pray in their family out of their own heart, [...]in the words which Gods Spirit dytes to them. But as that Bishop said elsewhere, this man doth not seek the Question in earnest, but as he who sought for the Hare under the Leads, because he must seek her as well where she was not, as where she was. Else he would not have askt the Question, Whether Non conformist Ministers seek af­ter Visions and Revelations, p. 68. That is not the point: but whe­ther Mr. W. B. have not taught the people to do so. He might have added, if he had pleased, Whe­ther they have not pretended to them. And an History in one of our Chronicles would have taught [Page 136] him to answer affirmatively. For there was a Physician in Oxford, one Rich: Haidock of New-Colledg, who pretended to preach in his sleep, in such sort, that though he was call'd upon a loud, or stirr'd, or pull'd by hands or feet, he would make no shew of hearing or feeling. His fame was spread abroad by the name of the sleeping Preacher; so that he was brought to Court, and one night his Ma­jestieSee Sir Ri: Baker in the 3d year of K. James being present to attend the event, the Gentleman began to pray, and then took a Text, made his Division, applyed it to his purpose, which was to inveigh against the Pope, the Cross in Ba­ptism, and the Canons then newly made. And yet all this was a meer cheat, as he confessed afterward to the King; who pardoned him on condition that he should open­ly in all places acknowledge his offence, because many, saith the Historian, were brought to believe that his nightly preaching was either [Page 137] by inspiration or by vision. This may serve to requite his imperti­nent tale, for which there was no occasion, about a Ministers pray­ing that they might have godly dreams.

Again; they are not accused for being time-servers now, (as he supposes, p. 89.) but heretofore. And in this, that excellent person Bishop Sanderson (with whom he may engage, if he please, now he is dead) will bear me out, that it is no false accusation. I will re­cite his words, and briefly prove the truth of them where it is need­ful. Before the beginning of the Long Parliament, and the unhappy divisions which followed thereupon, there were few (saith he) either of the Ministers that scrupled to use the Cross, or of the people that took offence at it Preface to Clavi Trabales Aug. 10. 1661.. Which words as to the Ministers, on whom the people depended, may be justified from the Registers of Subscripti­on, in which we finde the most e­minent [Page 138] men of your way subscri­bed libenter & ex animo, freely & heartily, to the three Articles men­tioned in the 36 Canon. Among the rest, Mr. Calamy (whom our Apologist mentions with the titles of Discreet, honest, pious Mr. Ca­lamy, p. 92.) Nov. 9. 1637. and Mr. Jenkyn, Jan. 2. 1640. And if you look as far back as 1627, you will finde Mr. Hugh Peters himself sub­scribing to the very height. As for the Archbishops & Bishops, he saith, I acknowledg their Offices and Ju­risdictions, and cannot see but there would a fearful Ataxy fol­low without the present Govern­ment, whereof I so approve, that I have and willingly do submit to it and them, and have and will press the same upon others Subscri­ption be­fore the Bishop of London, Aug. 17. the origi­nal wher­of found under his hand in the Arch-Bishops Study by Mr Pryn, and pub­lished in his Fresh discove­ry, 1646. Sect. 8.. As for the Ceremonies, he saith, I shall diligently and daily practise them, neither have I ever been accused of neglect therein where I have formerly exercised my Ministery, but do give to them my full ap­probation [Page 139] and allowance. Lastly, for the Book of Common-prayer, the Liturgie of the Church, and what is in them contained, (find­ing them agreeable unto the Word of God) I have used as other Mi­nisters have done, and am resolved so to do, &c. And to these, I sub­scribe with my heart and hand. What it was that altered his mind or his practice afterward, I have nothing to do with: but so it was, (as the Bishop proceeds) that when after the beginning of the Parlia­ment all things were let loose in the Church, the greatest part of the Clergie (to their shame be it spoken) many for fear of loosing their Livings, more in hope to get other mens Livings, and some pos­sibly out of their simplicity be­guiled with the specious name of Reformation, in a short space be­came either such perfect time-ser­vers as to cry down, or such tame complyers with the stronger side, as to lay down, ere they needed, [Page 140] the use of the whole Liturgie, and of all the Rites and Ceremonies therein prescribed. But the Cross above all was anathematiz'd and bitterly inveighed against, as it is even at this day by the Managers of the Presbyterian interest, &c. who having engaged to plead in the behalf of other mens tender Consciences, do wisely consider withal, ‘that it will not be so much for their own credit now to become time-servers with the Laws, [...] as it was some years past for their profit, to become time-servers against the Laws.’

If he desire any more on this subject, let him call for it, and I shall not be sparing of my pains to serve him. But let him be sure, if he make a new Catechism, to put his Questions better. For in this he eats up the true Question (as was said long ago) in stead of answering the Quaere; as the Cuc­koe is said to suck up the Spar­rows egge, and lay another of [Page 141] her own in the room. I did not charge them with holding it un­lawful to keep Festival days, (as he states it, p. 43, 44.) but with not keeping ours, since they can­not deny it to be lawful, and keep others of their own. Nor found fault with the saying Well through mercy (p. 103.) but their using new distinguishing forms of speech. Nor, with their not con­demning Sacriledge as a sin, but their not speaking and writing a­gainst it when there was such oc­casion for it. This I have told him already in the Third Part of the Debate, if he would have vouch­safed to peruse it, before he said any thing of it: and I shall now tell him once more, that they were wittily compared by a great per­sonBishop Bramhal Schism guarded, p. 112. whom he commends, to the two Sicilian Gluttons, who blew their noses in the dishes, that they might devour the meat alone: that is, they cryed down the Bishops revenues as dangerous, and nouri­shers [Page 142] of pride and laziness, because they gaped after them themselves. No body questions this, but they would have had them applyed to their maintenance. That which they are charged withal is, that after all that gaping, they shut their mouthes, and would not o­pen them to declare against the alienation of the Church-lands, which was then in hand. Yes, (saith this Writer, p. 15.) the As­sembly did dare to condemn Sacri­ledge as a sin against the second Commandment in their larger Ca­techism, for which they cite two Scriptures. I told you as much; but this is not the business: nay, more then this, I have shew'd you they believed not onely Sacriledg to be a sin; but the alienation of our Church-lands, as things then stood, to be Sacriledg Third part of Debate, p. 207.. And yet they did not plainly declare against that fact; much less made such declarations as they did a­gainst other sins in the Pulpit, and [Page 143] is they require us to make in the like case, or else think us negligent. None of them did like Mr. Ʋdal whom I mentioned, or like Mr. Bernard Gilpin in the last year of King Edward Sermon at Court 1552, first Sun­day after Epipha­ny. or like Archbi­shop Whitgift, whose affectionate Speech on this subject to Queen Elizabeth, mixed with great hu­mility and reverence, is recorded by a worthy Gentleman, Mr. Isaac Walton, in the Life of our incom­parable Hooker Pag. 70, 71, 72, &c.. The truth is, men of the greatest temper, wisdom and piety have noted this inequality of zeal in this party a­bout such like matters as this, long before I was born: and therefore it ought not to be censured as such a piece of uncharitableness in me to mention it. Dr. Jackson, for instance, in his Treatise of Justi­fying faith Chap. 15. pa­ragr. 9., tells us, that the first ground of his dislike unto the chief sollicitors of Reformation in our Church, (though he always reverenced their excellent Parts [Page 144] and good Labours) was the diffor­mity of their Zeal. For had it been uniform, saith he, no question but it would have moved them to lay down their lives for the redressing KNOWN ENORMITIES is the Common wealth; as much more material, and more nearly concern­ing the advancement of the Gospel, then those doubtful Controversies of Formalities, about which they strove, as death it self is more ter­rible then deprivation. The prin­cipal Authors and Abettors of which Enormities, notwithstanding were emboldned by these Encomi­asts, [...] in whose language every Cor­mo [...]ant that would countenance their Cause, was a sanctified per­son, and a son of God. He may call this railing perhaps the next time he writes; if not, he must excuse me from it, who have writ nothing severer then this.

But it may be further added, that the Catechism he mentions, did not come forth till the busi­ness [Page 145] was too far gone; and what­soever had been said then, would but have been to shut the Stable-door, when the Steed was stoln. For the Ordinance for abolishing Archbishops and Bishops, and set­ling their Lands and Possessions upon Trustees for the use of the Common-wealth, was made Octob. 9. 1646. And that for setling their Lands, November 16 follow­ing: whereas the larger Catechism was not printed till October 22. 1647, and then no more then six hundred Copies onely for the use of the Houses and the Assembly, to the end they might advise thereupon. More then this, the Scriptures were added after­ward, and came not forth with the first Edition: and lastly, they make mention also there of Perjury; and yet there was no Preaching against it, till the Co­venant came to be broken, though it was a sin before that time wherewith the Land abounded. [Page 146] As for the Authors of the Annota­tions, I know them not; and what he alledges concerning the addi­tions to them 1651, it is nothing to the point. It was then too late, and the case was altered. The rest of the maintenance of the Clergy was in danger, the very Tythes being envied to them; which made it high time to say something to keep themselves from being undone, after they had ruined the Bishops.

XVI But it would be endless to fol­low this man in his vagare's, and an imployment more tedious and irksome, then Phocion's in chipping Demosthenes, to pare off all in his Book that is not to the purpose. Should I undertake it, his Apo­logy would remain a very slender tool, not worth a straw.

For setting aside his calumnies; his unjust complaints of railing, jeering, and what not? his falsi­ties boldly asserted, his mistakes [Page 147] of the Question; his impertinent allegation of Authorities; his idle stories, frivolous observations, uncharitable surmises, and odious insinuations; his mis-representing of my words, his cropping or in­larging them; his false glosses and commentaries, and such like things; I can finde very little that looks like so much as an endea­vour of a direct Answer. If you be not weary, I pray observe a few things on some of those Heads. What a frivolous observation is that out of the Rhemish Testament, about the retaining of old words; which you may read in him, if you will, (p. 42.) for I shall not stand to recite it? There being nothing plainer, then that neither they nor we refuse to use the words Amen, Fasting, Charity, the blessed Sacrament, Alleluja, and others there mentioned, and yet are in no danger to believe as the Church of Rome doth; nor should we, though we should use the [Page 148] words Altar, Oblation and Sacri­fice, as well as Lent, Palm sunday and Christmas. And what do you think of the tale of the Citizen or Countryman (he knows not which) who being askt his opinion of a Sermon, said it ran or sounded thus, as if he had said, A pudding, a pye, a pudding-pye; a pudding for me, a pye for thee, a pudding-pye for me and thee? p. 65. This is the man that makes serious re­flections upon the Debate; just like the serious prayer of one of their present Preachers, who in the presence of a numerous Audi­tory, used these words to God; which sound more like that Ryme then any Sermon that ever I heard. Thou art the hope of our help, and the help of our hope; thou art our hope when we have no help, and thou art our help when we have no hope; yea, thou art our hope and our help, when we have neither hope nor help, but are helpless and hopeless. I should not have men­tion'd [Page 149] this, but that there are so many witnesses of it; and to show you what may be done, if they will have us proceed in this way of writing.

No, by no means, I know you will say, let us have no more of this stuff. I am very well pleased with the motion: and wish like­wise they would not ground their replies upon hear says, when they may believe their eyes. Let him not give any credit to him, who­soever he be, that saith,See pag. 101. of his Book. I dealt disingenuously with Mr. Bridg in my quotations of him, but look into his Book, and make it appa­rent to me that I have wrested his words, and I will confess it, and make him the best amends I am able. It is as easie, I should think, for a Scholar to sit in his Study and read Books, as to gad up and down to hear and tell idle stories. But let not the Books he reads be cited impertinently, as the very Articles of the Church of [Page 150] England are by him. An instance you have (and it is the first that comes to hand, but the rest are like it) p. 87. For I never thought that the Fathers looked for no more then transitory promises: But that it was not by vertue of the Covenant made with Moses, that they looked for more, I did and do affirm. A great many of the Worthies mentioned, Heb. 11. lived before the Law was given, and the rest that followed them built their expectation on the same ground which they did. But we may well pass by such vain alle­gations out of the Articles, since the very Scriptures which he cites confute all that he saith. If com­ing to Christ, for instance, and believing in him be all one, which is apparent indeed from John 7.37, 38. (cited by him, p. 79.) then believing in Christ is more then relying on him for pardon of sins; for to come to Christ, is to become one of his Disciples, and to under­take [Page 151] to be of his Religion. This is have cleared sufficiently in the last Debate; and shown withal, that obedience to the Law of God is a condition of our Justification. No, saith this Gentleman, out of I know not what Author, p. 78. It is not the condition of the Co­venant so properly as of those persons that enter into Cove­nant. Which is a monstrous ab­surd. Answer to this Question: no better then to affirm and deny the same thing in the same breath. For if it be the same condition and qualification of those persons that enter into the Covenant, then it is the condition of their Justification, which they obtain by entring into Covenant with God so qualified. As for the words themselves, without relation to the Question, they are right enough, if they be un­derstood not to deny our obedi­ence to be a condition required in or by the Covenant, though it [Page 152] be not so proper to say a Conditi­on of the Covenant. For how comes our obedience to be a ne­cessary condition or qualification of the persons entring into Cove­nant, but by the Covenant? That requires it, and doth not promise Justification without it; and therefore is a Condition in the Covenant of Grace.

But I have neither list nor lei­sure to trace his steps in these things; which I would wish him not to meddle withal, till he know where the very pinch of the Con­troversie lyes, & then we may end it one way or other in a few words.

Let him forbear also his odious insinuations, as that I think the Papists good subjects, p. 67, suggest the N. C. lay'd aside the Lords Prayer, because of that Petition, Forgive us our trespasses, &c. p. 39. and that they dislike the Common-prayer onely, or chiefly because taken out of the Mass-book. There are no such things [Page 153] said or intimated in my Book. And yet he himself dare not say that he knows no N.C. that refuse to joyn in it solely or chiefly on that account, but that he knows scarce one intelligent N. C. Very likely. He may know, notwith­standing, multitudes of silly ones; and here and there one whom he takes to be intelligent. But this is nothing to what this intelligent Non-conformist suggests con­cerning the Meetings of Dr. Gun­ning, and others in the late times, for Common-prayer; as if they were as much Conventicles as any now, p. 68. Whereas they were ac­cording to the Common-Law, and not against it: unless he will main­tain that Ordinances were Law, as much as Acts of Parliament. If that still lye at the bottom of their hearts, let them speak out. But who can believe that the High Confor­mists have not all, and alway been so constant and firm to the Govern­ment of King and Parliament, as [Page 154] they ought? Or is it likely that that Dr. Heylin was ill affected to Kingly Authority, or disrespect­ful to Superiours? So he would have you think, because of one passage in a Book of that Doctors (as you may see, p. 81, 82.) from whom he takes a measure of the rest. If he had known more, he would, I doubt not, have been so kind as to bestow it upon us: but this single speech was all he had in his Budget. If you pease therefore, I will furnish him with some other as bold speeches (let him make what he can of them) concerning the actions of those times, as any in Dr. Heylin. Who should have expressed his minde in less offensive terms; having no meaning, I verily believe, to charge the King, who was then very young, with any guilt, but onely those greedy persons, who had possessed him with no better Principles. This is certain, that the best Preachers in those days, [Page 155] who spoke most against Non-residence, took the boldness also to tell the King openly in their Sermons at Court, that un­less he provided some remedy, Cormorants would devour wholly the livings appointed for the Mi­nistry Mr. Gil­pins Ser­mon, 1552. p. 267, 268 &c. the most part of which were either robbed of the best part, or else clean taken away; by means of which, none had any heart to put their Children to School, any further then to learn to write, to make them Apprentices, or Law­yers; the two wells of Learning, Oxford and Cambridge were dry­ed up, students decayed, of which scarce an hundred left of a thou­sand; and if in seven years more they should decay so fast, would be almost none at all, but the De­vil might make a triumph, whilst there were none Learned to whom to commit the Flock, In short, his Majesty was told, that if his Grace (as they spoke in those days) did not speedily resist those ravening [Page 156] Wolves, there was entring into England more blind ignorance, Superstition and Infidelity, then ever was under the Romish Bishop, and his Realm would become more barbarous then Scythia. Which lest God Almighty, said the Preacher, lay to your Graces charge, for suffering the Sword given you to rust in the sheath, bestir your self now in your Hea­venly Fathers business. There was as plain Language used in Queen Elizabeth's days, in the Book called the Ladened Ass, said to be delivered to her at Green­wich July 27. 1581., where Mr. Gilpins Ser­mon was preached. It makes express mention of that which Dr. Heylin touches upon, how the mighty Hunters had caught one of the most ancient and stateliest Bi­shopricks in the Land; Durham, I mean, which they had quite stran­gled, saith the BookSee p. 54., dismem­bred and dissolved. In later times Dr. Sanderson hath spoken the [Page 157] same sence, who was a man un­exceptionable, both for loyalty & regard to his Superiours. He not onely acknowledges, that the bu­siness of the Reformation under King Edward the sixth was carri­ed on with a mixture of private ends, and other such humane frailties and affections as are in­cident usually unto the inter­prising of great affairs; but com­plains of such Sacriledges then acted, and that under the name of Reformation (though he hopes without his knowledge, at most through the malitious suggesti­ons and cunning insinuations of some about him) as have cast very soul blemishes upon our ve­ry Religion, especially in the eyes of our Adversaries, who are apt to impute the faults of the per­sons to their Profession. All which notwithstanding, and a great deal more which he thereEpisco­pacy not prejudici­al to R [...] ­gal power p. 81, 85, 92, 93. makes bold to say, was not a casting dirt upon the Reforma­tion, [Page 158] or upon the King, or upon any persons in Authority; but an ho­nest confession, that they who had the managery of affairs in their re­spective times, were made of the same clay with other men, subject to infirmities and passions, and to be by assed with partial affections, &c. so that we have far greates cause to bless God, that in their then Reformation, in very many things, they did not a great deal worse, then to blame them that is some few things they did not a lit­tle better then they have done. If the offend the Apologist, he may read the same complaints in Mr. Calvin, and in other of the Reformers, which I shall direct him unto, if he be not acquainted with them al­ready, and do desire it. At present I shall trouble my self no further about it: this being sufficient to show the wickedness of that suspi­tion which he saith some may from hence entertain concerning these Conformists; that if the King and [Page 159] Parliament should put forth their hand now and touch all they have, they would (unless fear restrain'd them) curse them to their faces, p. 82. This was one of the charitable thoughts of Philagathus also: whom this man imitates in other surmises, as if he was led by the same evil spirit, which suggested such groundless imaginations to him. He will not say, I am an Human; but it may be suspected, he tells you, that there is some­thing of the Amalakites ambition [...]me; and that I am moved to write, because there is some Mor­decai in the gate or the Parish that will not bow to me, p. 92. They will you see be the Mordecai's, the select people of God, and we must be, at least indued with the qua­lities of the people devoted to destruction. And I remember indeed, in the late times, that they compared the Episcopal Clergy to Haman and his Sons, and told us in these words,Beast wounded p. 4. We will keep a [Page 160] day of thanksgiving, in remem­brance of deliverance from the Bi­shops, as the Jews did after Haman and his Sons were hanged: which will be a greater blessing then the deliverance from the Gun-powder Treason. But if I, from my part, was now upon the Ladder ready to be turned off, and was to make a plain and full confession of my faults, as I hoped for Mercy; I could not charge my self with the least private grudge to any man whatsoever: and should protest that I never had any desire that any man, either in the Parish where I live, or out of it, should stoop or bow to me; no, nor give me more respect then it pleased himself to afford me. This childish ambition (which he suspects) is the furthest from my heart of all other things. I understand it not; nor had it the least finger in my Book, which was writ only out of a desire of Unity, Peace, good Order, and increase of true Piety. I have read in a Sermon [Page 161] of a great Divine of our own, preached fifty years agoDr. San­derson's first Ser­mon ad Clerum, p. 24. in fol., that it is to be considered whether it be enough for one of that profes­sion, which he supposes me to be, not to meddle with these things; and whether he be not bound in Conscience, especially in case he live among a people distracted in opinion, to declare himself ex­presly, either for them or against them, &c. Others may resolve in this case as they see cause: I have satisfied my self that I have done as became an honest man. But I did not think to have said so much about this matter, nor is it to any great purpose I see to labour to clear our selves of their vile suspitions; say what we will, many of them stop their ears, or drown our words with their loud cryes against us. We must have naughty intentions, and they must be the very best of men: the most loyally affected to his Sacred Ma­jesty (who would have thought [Page 162] it?) more then the very Bishops themselves, as this Author would insinuate. For they would not be of­fended (as the Bishops you may think would) if the Statute of King Edward the Sixth was re­vived, whereby all Citations in the Courts Spiritual should issue out in the Kings Name, and with his Seal. And it would not dis­please them to have a Vicar-Gene­ral in SPIRITƲ ALIBƲS, as he assures you, p. 33. But he must give us leave to think (as that Bi­shop now named speaks, who hath demonstrated that Processes in the Bishops name, no way in­trench upon the Kings Authori­tyA Ca­lumny long ago cast upon the Bi­shops, in the hum­ble Sup­plication for Tole­ration, 1609. p. 10, 17. Revived in the late times, confuted by Bi­shop San­derson., that their meaning herein is ‘rather to do the Bishops hurt then the King service; and that their affections (so far as by what is visible we are able to judge thereof) are much what alike the same towards both.’ This you may read in his Book concerning Episcopacy not being prejudicial [Page 163] to Regal power, p. 3, 4. And what he saith of the one, I may say of the other motion, which is of the same strain; and then made to Queen Elizabeth, when Martin Mar-prelates Book came out; not to greaten her power, but to depress the Bishops. So the Book called the Ladened Ass tells us, that there were Suitors then to her, for a greater Authority (if they could have got it) then Cromwels General Vicarship over the Bishops and Clergy Pag. 12, 45.: and that the very same men, who c [...]ntrived this, were the favourers of the Admoni­tion, the frame of Discipline, the Mar-all-Libels, and other new Monsters which then were yearly bred and brought forth. And truely, there is some reason to think that such men as this would be no more displeased with a new Martin Mar-prelate, then with a new Vicar-General. For he is not ashamed to approve of such vile Books as Ladensium Autocata­crisis, [Page 164] to which he sends us for information concerning the great­est Enemies of our Church and Religion, those who bring in new and strange Doctrines, i. e. plain Popery, p. 80. A Book writ by that haughty and violent spirit, which so often calls the excellent BishopBishop Bramhal, mentioned by this Apologist in the entrance of his Work, by the scornful name of Dr. Bramble Re­view of fair warning, in the ve­ry Fron­tispiece of the Book.: and which puts Bishop Andrews and Bishop Hall among that Faction (as he speaks) whose avowed Popery was manifest from their Books. And there­fore the Author of it justly de­fended that Censure which was given of him and his Book long ago, by a Reverend person now alive, who saith, the man had seen some Visions in Trophenius's Den, Raptures, and Embryo's of his own adled brain; and out he came to vent them, like Esops Ass, j [...]tting in Purple. He was high set in pur­suit of fame; and scorning to [Page 165] cope with a PIGMEE, he challenges no less men then my Lords Grace of Canterbury, and all the Learn­ed Divines of England; and much grieved he was, that my Lord him­self would not vouchsafe him the honour to confute him: as if a Sky-towring-Eagle, or Gyre Falcon, should have stoopt to a Kite or Car­rion Dr. Creigh­ton's Let­ter to Mr. R. Wat­son. 1650.

XVII But perhaps the Apologist ne­ver seriously considered that Book; as I am sure he hath not duly noted & weighed mine: For if he had, he would have repeated my words more sincerely, and not mis-represented them so often as he hath done; at least, not have put me in the number of those that are Enemies of our Church, dissent from its Articles, and bring in new and strange Doctrines. So he would have it thought; else why doth he oppose my words and the eleventh Article of our Religion the one against the o­ther? [Page 166] p. 85. The comfort of it is, there is no clashing at all between them, but onely in his own brains; which understand not, it seems, that good Works may be necessa­ry to our justification, and yet no cause of it. But thus he deals with me in other things: what I said of Lawn-sleeves, and the Black Cap and White (first part, p. 81) he translates to Surplesses, and makes an idle discourse about them, p. 47. He makes you be­lieve I said that afternoon-Ser­mons were wholly superfluous, p. 61. when I onely told you that they might be used or not, as they should be found to be to Edification. The same perverse representation he makes of what I said about ex­periences, p. 70. Preaching of O­bedience, p. 77. Doing good out of fear of threatnings, p. 84. Pious discourses also, p. 96. which were not by me disgraced, but their rash censures condemned. If I did not begin to be tyred with [Page 167] following him in his rambles, I could present you with a great many more Monsters of his own making; just like that which a Cheat promised to show his cre­dulous spectators (they are the words of one whom he and I have often mentioned) an Horse whose Head stood in the place of his Tail; and when all came to all, he himself had tyed the Horse to the Manger the wrong way. Be­sides, barely to show these mis­representations, would be a very dull business, and indanger the tiring you quite; and to make them appear ridiculous, would much offend his seriousness. For which reason, I shall let these (and a great many other things in his Book) alone, till he give me a further occasion.

But I intreat him, as he loves himself, to hold his hand till he hath learnt a little more Logick, and knows better how to draw consequences. At least, let him [Page 168] forbear to draw any out of my Books, till he hath diligently weighed every word, and the oc­casion of it. For his manner is to make very silly ones, and then confute them, as you may read in his Preface, and p. 107, 108. Mr. Hughes, Mr. Vicars did thus and thus heretofore, therefore the N.C. are all thus and thus now. It this, saith he, good Logick, and solid reasoning? I say no; it is childish and ridiculous: but it is his own, not mine; who produced such mens sayings to other pur­poses. And I perceive it is his manner to draw Universals from Particulars. For presently after, asking Whether the N. C. shortly look to shut Heaven, and turn the waters into blood? He tells you Mr. Parker of N. England (whose words I cited) saith no: and so all the N. C. must be concluded to be of his minde. In like man­ner the Church of Scotland, he tells you, had as few Heresies, as [Page 169] any other, p. 139. Therefore; What? Then the N. C. were not the cause of the strange and new Doctrines,, Opinions, Pha­natical words and Phrases in Preaching and Writing. For this is part of his Answer to the Question, Whether they be so or no. In time they may improve this way of arguing very much, as some did in the late times, when they told usRe­formed Presby­tery, 1645. p. 19.; the Ro­mans and Athenians, whilst they were Free-states, bred ten to one more vertuous and illustrious men, then other Governments, or even they themselves at other times. You know the Conse­quence. And you may know also what horrid Doctrines were broached in Scotland, more then any where else, destructive to all Government: and that all the Sectaries in England were the Spawn of those who stood dis­affected to our Church; nay, that Hacket himself and his mad [Page 170] Companions (though disclaimed by them when they saw their end) sprung out of their society; frequented their Sermons, and were their Associates, before they entred into those Frantick courses, as I can prove from good Authority. As also, that they are justly compared to the Pha­risees, though that Sect were great sticklers for Ceremonies, and their Traditions: as they for their own Inventions. But for the present, let him read Dr. Sander­sons Sermon lately printed. And not trouble us with his Argu­ments for less Uniformity then there is among us, upon this ground, that we have not a pre­sent Uniformity in all things: which is a thing that is not to be here expected. Yet this piti­ful reasoning he repeats again and again: like to that of Dr. Busby's reading Logick sometimes to his Scholars, to prepare them for the University: therefore, [Page 171] the N. C. may read a whole Circle of Philosophy, to keep Youths from going to the Uni­versity, and to make the Edu­cation there unnecessary, p. 123. For there lyes the point: and he needed not have referred us to what some able men told him about the Oath, and the words of it at Oxford. For it is in print among the Univer­sity-StatutesStatuta selecta Anno 1661. Tit. 9. Sect. 6.: at the end of which Book there is an ex­plication of the Oath which is taken to observe the Statutes. And this in the first place it admonishes us of, That the genuine sense of the words of the Statute, are to be taken from the minde and intention, not of him that swears, but of him that gives the Oath Ib. p. 163.. Now it will be found, I take it, that they who give that Oath, intend not to prohibit the setting up of another University, where­in to take Degrees (which is not in the power of him that swears) [Page 172] but the keeping Schools for Uni­versity-Learning, with intention to perfect Scholars there, and on purpose to keep them from the Universities.

XVIII But I forget my self, and in­stead of writing a large Letter, shall make a great Book, if I proceed any further to detect all his weak Reasonings and slight Answers. Nor is it to much pur­pose; for I doubt they will not be the better by it. I have been often rounded in the ears with the words of Artenorius to the Author of Argenis Parce labori: non igno­rant se errare, &c. cited by Dr. Creigh­ton in his Le [...]er before mention­ed. (applyed by a Reverend person to the like case) Spare your pains, good Sir, they know they are wrong as well as you can tell them: but all the earth shall not make them confess an error, or amend it. But sup­pose it be otherwise, as I hope it is with some, and heartily wish it may be with all; yet my labor may be spared, if all that pretend [Page 173] to be wise and honest, would but be humble (and truly he that is not so, is neither of those) and make that their business which certainly is their duty. They are the words of Bishop Sanderson Preface to Clavi Trabales 1661. p. antepea., who thus proceeds: ‘That is to say, if they would study quietness more and Parties less; bear a just reverence to Antiquity, and to their betters; allow as favourable a construction to things established, as they are capable of; suspect their own judgement wherein it differeth from the publick; submit to reason, and yeild when they are convinced; obey cheerfully where they may, and where they dare not, suffer without noise, a little saying and writing would serve the turn. But when men are once grown to this, to make it their glory to head or hold up a Party; to study ways how to evade, when they are called to obey; to resolve to [Page 174] erre, because they have erred; and to hold their conclusions [...] despite of all Premises; to pre­fer their private opinions be­fore wiser mens judgements, and their reputation with the Vulgar before obedience to Su­periours: In a word, to suffer themselves to be swayed with Passions, [...] Parties, or Interests; all the writing and saying in the World, as to such men (until it shall please God to put their hearts into another Frame) is to no more purpose, then if a man should go about to fill a Sieve with water, or to wash a Black­amore white. And so fare you well.’

Jan. 13. 1669.