THE design of the Test is to attack the Church of England's Loyalty, and the substance of it is, That she owns the King Supream Head in Ecclesiastical Affairs, that she began under Ed. 6. and at his Death indeavour'd to set up a Brat of her own, and exclude Queen Mary the only Legitimate, because she was a Catholick; after her Death Queen Elizabeth, a known Bastard, rais'd this Church again to support the weakness of her Title, and no sooner was this Church under her re-establish'd, than those Cannibal Laws were Enacted of Hanging the Priests of the living God, together with other penal Laws; that she Murder'd the Queen of Scots, who was the undoubted Heir to the Crown, that to Charles I. this Church was faithful, but on the other hand, to force an Universal Uniformity to her Liturgy, &c. was the occasion of that War, and she now refuses to repeal the Test, and penal Laws; that the King will no longer trust her, and that she should learn obedience from her Catholick Neighbours. Thus far the Test.

To this is reply'd, That the Church of England does own the Kings Supremacy; and therefore thinks her self more Loyal than the Romanists, who rob the King of that part of his Prerogative, that after Ed. 6. Death, the Kingdom was divided about the Title to the Crown; some for Queen Mary, some for Lady Jane, and Protestants on both sides, and while the Title was to them dubious, neither party could be charged with Disloyalty: That if Queen Eliz. was a known Bastard, the Romanists were the disloyal Party in setting her upon the Throne, and excluding the lawful Heir, which they did by a Popish Parliament, sitting at Queen Mary's Death, so that it appeared by their own Parliament, that Mary Queen of Scots was not lawful Heir, and therefore it could be no disloyal­ty in Executing her for Treason. That 'twas not the Church of Englands Ambition from whence that War in Charles I. time ensued, but from the division the Romanists had wickedly made amongst Prote­stants, by one call'd Faithful Commin, and others of the Fraternity; then the Author recriminates, shews it to be the declared opinion of the Church of Rome, that she has power to Depose Princes, and gives se­veral instances where very often they have put that opinion into practice. Thus far the Replyer.

The Replyer, though he has sufficiently answer'd the Pamphlet; yet since Loyalty is almost the onely thing, which at this time recommends us to our Princes's Favour; he might, and ought to have given a more ample account of our Fidelity to Princes: I shall now therefore take both the Test and the Reply in­to particular Examination, and shew the defects of both.

But, first, I would willingly know, what prospect the Author of the Test could have by publishing such a Pamphlet? Was it to oblige his Party by drawing [Page 3] us out to expose both their Principles and Practices in point of Civil Obedience? which may be with as great ease justly done, as we can thrô off that mali­tious and false charge of his; or was it to oblige the King by blowing up these Fears and Jealousies, which his Majesty, a gracious Father of his Country, has us'd means to allay: His Majesty tells us we are Loyal, and assures us of his Protection, the Test tells us, we are Snakes in his Bosom, and the King will not protect us: for my part, let this Fellow stare and brazen as he pleases, I shall believe the King, what­ever he would have us think of him.

When so heavy a charge was laid upon our Church, me thinks in reason the Author should have shew'd the World what Convocation, or at least what pri­vate Doctor of our Communion ever acknowledg'd it as a Principle of our Church, that disobedience to the supream Magistrate, was upon any score whatso­ever allowable, that is, that we might refuse both active and passive obedience: for else, admit he could instance, that some of our Communion have acted Disloyally, it proves no more, than that some who have in outward appearance profess'd themselves to be with us, were not really so, nor did keep up to the Principles of our Church. What's more common than to see a Romanist drunk upon a Fasting Day, but unless I hear them justifie the thing as allowable, shall I reason from their bare practice, that their Church allows Debauchery upon those dayes she has pointed out for Mortification. Wherefore the Tests absolute silence herein demonstrates, either that he is a great Dunce at Argument, or that there is no such thing to be found in our Principles, no, not from the Testimony of any single Doctor. And of this defect the Replyer takes no notice.

The Members of the Church of England, says the Test, were faithful to Charles I. but on the other hand their ambition to force Uniformity, &c. was cause of the ensuing War. He means, if to the purpose, That an ambition to force an Uniformity in Religion, is Disloyalty; which is a most admirable Discovery ! e­specially since the Church of Rome can so easily clear her self from the guilt of that Ambition. If what he alledgeth were true, his Reprehension is just like an old Drunkard in a drunken Fit railing against Drunken­ness. But the Replyer has shew'd him a more pro­bable and natural cause of that War, and has well re­ferr'd to that Book of Foxes and Fire-brands, which will give a reasonable Enquirer full satisfaction; and further, from thence well observes what excellent Sub­jects Romanists make to Protestant Kings. We are not now to be surpriz'd with their Tests, and such­like Pamphlets; we are sensible the glorious Lustre of the Church of England does so offend and dazle their weak Eyes, that it must be darken'd, though the Fog be rais'd from Hell; and therefore thus goes on the Test: After Edward the Sixth's death, Protestants endeavour'd to set up a Brat of their own to exclude Queen Mary, because she was a Catholick, at whose death Queen Elizabeth raised this Church to support the weakness of her Title; and then they Murther'd the Queen of Scots, who was the undoubted Heir to the Crown.

A Brat, to exclude Queen Mary, because a Catho­lick: Nay, we were more wicked than this: for we set this Brat up too, to exclude Queen Elizabeth, be­cause she was a Protestant: for in excluding one, we excluded both, And if we thought we had power to pull down, and put up, as the Popes assume, why did we not as well put up Elizabeth as Lady Jane? The Index Expurgatorius has not yet done the honour of [Page 5] a Visit to our Modern Histories, and therefore in them we find, that by a Cabal onely of some of King Edward' s Council, he was prevail'd upon by his last Will, and Letters-Patents, to settle the Crown up­on the Lady Jane. This by the Procurers of the Set­tlement, was declared to the People, and she was pro­claimed Queen. Queen Mary also she puts up her Title. Upon this the Kingdom was in a general di­straction; but the greatest part of Protestants were with Queen Mary, and 'twas through their means she ever reach'd the Throne. But I shall forbear men­tioning how nobly she rewarded their Services; 'tis enough to my purpose, to prove they were Prote­stants, and that they were so, is clear, because the Pro­testant Party were so considerable in the Kingdom at that time, that they might have carried whatsoever Interest they had espoused: But it appears further by the Queens promise at that time to her Army, which was, That she would never alter the Religion establish'd by Edward the Sixth; and 'twas very likely she should think to engage a Popish Army by a Promise never to alter the Protestant Religion. This then is the truth of the Case: The Lady Jane was put up by a small designing Party, who had got several ignorant people to believe that the deceased King had made her a good Title; but the body of Protestants were faithful to Queen Mary, and forc'd her way to the Crown. To whom succeeded Queen Elizabeth, whom this modest Gentleman honours with the Title of Known Bastard. If it be so, yet these things fall out a little unhappily: for the Protestants set up the Legiti­mate Queen Mary; and as the Replyer truly observes, The Members of a Popish Parliament, setting at Queen Mary' s death, were the first that mov'd in proclaiming the Known Bastard Queen Eliz. Thus 'tis taking it for [Page 6] granted what he affirms; but now for truth: By re­gular proceedings in this Kingdom, Katherine Mother of Queen Mary, and Hen. 8. were divorc'd à vinculo Matrimonii, then he takes to Wise Ann B. of whom is born Q. Eliz. This Divorce was just, or not; if just, there's no question of Q. Eliz. Legitimation; if not just, it must be either because there is no Power in this Kingdom to determine in such cases, or that in this they had not justly determin'd. If these cases are not determinable here, they must be determined by a For­reign Jurisdiction, or no-where; and to Appeal to a Forreign Jurisdiction, in any case, is a Praemunire, by a Statute made in Popish times. That they made a just Determination, they have the warrant of most of the Universities beyond Sea, for whose Opinions H. 8. sent; and the perpetual standing Law of the Na­tion, which in this case was always judg'd to be grounded upon the Law of God: for which, see Harri­son and Dr. Burnwell's use in Lord Vaughan's Reports. Now let the Reader judge: But why should we be forc'd to dispute this matter, when by Act of Parlia­ment tricess. quin. H. 8. 'tis setled that both Mary and E­lizabeth shall inherit? What more then had we to do, but to pay our Obedience to our Law-makers? which I hope will something excuse us, if 'twere true, as 'tis not, that Mary Queen of Scots, before that Act, had right to be Successour to our Queen Mary: But the Test will have the Queen of Scots Title preferable; yet has not somuch as indeavoured to give us a reason for that opinion: To this his Magisterial Affirmati­on we oppose; first, The Arguments already offered for Queen Elizabeth's Legitimation: Secondly, The Act of Parliament, just before mentioned: Thirdly, As the Replyer has urg'd, the unanimous Opinion of a Popish Parliament, sitting at Queen Mary's Death; [Page 7] and indeed he might have said, the unanimous consent of the whole Nation? For I defie this Test Writer to produce, one that publickly dissented to proclaim Queen Elizabeth: So universally then was her Title allow'd, and her Person esteemed. I have yet this fur­ther reason, That at Queen Mary's Death, the Queen of Scots did not so much as put in any Claim to the Crown; but on the contrary, in the first of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, there was a very indearing, and Sisterly Correspondence between the two Queens, every Week Letters of Kindness, and Civility passed, which was very unlike the carriage of Competitours for a Crown; of the truth of this, any one will be satisfied, that so much as looks into the Memoires of Sir James Melvill, the Queen of Scots great Minister.

But if after all this, you will have it that this Queen did pretend to the Crown; then you have given a ve­ry good reason for her Execution; if she did not, then certainly 'twas possible for her to be guilty of Crimes deserving Death: Wherefore, if we are chargable for that Action, 'tis our Justice, not our Loyalty, must re­ceive the blemish: But to excuse our selves herein, let it be considered. That when the Queen of Scots was forc'd by her own Subjects, to fly to England for Pro­tection, she was received by Queen Elizabeth, and her Council, with intention to restore her to her Crown, and Country, as is evident by two Papers; one is the Advice Sir Henry Mildmay gave about it; the other, a Letter of the Earl of Leicester's to the Earl of Sussex; both which may be seen copy'd immediately from the Originals in Dr. Burnet's Hist. Reformation. And it can't be suppos'd, that 'twas for nothing that our Queen's intentions received this turn: The Queen of Scots of­ficious Friends had a great mind to see an end of Eli­zabeth's Reign, nor did they leave any thing unat­tempted [Page 8] to effect it, either by secret Attempts, or publick Rebellions; the Queen suspected from whence all this came, and at last was satisfied, when she sound the Queen of Scots own hand to a Letter wrote to Babington and Ballard about their Plot; and then our Queen thought 'twas high time, both for the safety of her self, & the Kingdom, to bring the Queen of Scots to her Tryal, upon which she was found guilty of Treason.

I shall now sum up this matter. Under Edward you say we first began, during whose Reign you have nothing to say, as to the point of Loyalty, against us: and I have fully prov'd we brought Queen Mary his Successor to the Throne. To her Successour Queen Eliz. you your self own we were a Prop, and we did indeed help to defeat the disloyal attempts of Romanists against her. I have proved that Mary Queen of Scots was not deprived of any present Right, and of a future Right she might be deprived, without any Act of Disloyalty. Under King James, Eliza­beth's Successour, the Test does not so much as affirm we were disloyal: To King Charles the First, King James's Successour, our Author acknowledges we were faithful in all his Troubles: Nor does he in the least blame us in Charles the Second's time. Thus, with­out the least appearance of Disloyalty, have we brought our selves to this present King, who has seen our forwardness to be as Loyal to him as to his Prede­cessours: 'Tis well known what sort of a Lower House that was which brought in the Bill of Exclusion; but when it came to the Lords House, (from whence the Popish Lords were excluded) they shew'd their Fidelity by throwing it out. How readily, at Mon­mouth's appearance did the Parliament protest to stand by the King, and how freely did divers Protestant Gentlemen venture themselves in the Kings Cause, and [Page 9] this they must always upon occasion do, if they mea­sure their actions either by the Principles, or Practi­ces of our Church.

Our Author therefore is a great Friend to the King, in calling us to learn of our Catholick Neighbours, which is to debauch this good Principle; and I shall ex­pose to the World some of the Lessons they would teach us: at our entrance we must learn that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (which is a glorious part of the Kings Pre­rogative) belongs to the Pope; so strongly does the Test fancy, that their Church of right assumes this Power; that he ridicules the contrary Opinion, as a particular Revelation to the Church of England. In answer to this, the Replyer has well referr'd to Dr. Barrow, and Lord Cook, but because some may not have these Books, I shall give one or two plain instances: Greg. 1. 15. Ep. 11. 56. doth alledge divers Laws of di­vers Emperours, concerning Ecclesiastical affairs, as obligatory Rules of practice; and divers Laws con­cerning things Ecclesiastical, made by the Emperour, are extant in the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian. The Christian Emperours took upon them to depose Bishops and Popes, (thô since the Popes are even with them) Constantius banish'd Pope Liberius, and put another in his room: Otho put out John the Twelfth, Justinian deposed Pope Silverius, and banish'd Pope Vi­gilius; and the same Emperour prescrib'd Conditions and Qualifications concerning the Ordination of Bi­shops; and subjoyns, Si quis autem citra memora tam observationem Episcopus ordinetur, jubemus hunc omnibus modis Episcopatu depelli. Justin. Novel. 123. Ca. 1. But if any Bishop be Ordain'd without using our foremention'd constitution, we Command, that by all means he be remov'd from his Bishoprick. Omnes, sayes Leo 1. to Theodocius the Emperour. [Page 10] Partiam Ecclesiae nostrarum, omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus & Lacrymis supplicant Sacerdotes, ut ge­neralem Synodum jubeatis intra Italiam celebrari: Leo 1. Ep. 42. nor was this power usurp'd by the Emperours, as sometimes loyal Catholicks pretend. No, quite contrary, Semper fuit Orthodoxis, & piis Imperatori­bus, &c. This is what the Pious and Orthodox Empe­rours did. Justin in Syn. 5. Collat. 1. p. 209. but what's yet higher, Haec (says the Councel of Arles) Domino Imperatori praesentanda decrevimus, poscentes ejus Cle­mentiam ut si quid hîc minus est, ejus prudentiâ Supplea­tur, si quid secus quàm se ratio habet, ejus judicio emende­tur; si quid rationabiliter taxatum est, ejus adjutario divinâ opitulante Clementiâ perficiatur. Councel. Arel. 4. ca. 26. Ann. 813. Sub Carolo M. These things we have Decreed to be presented to our Lord the Empe­rour, desiring his Clemency, that if any thing be de­fective, it may be supplied by his Prudence; if any thing be unreasonable, it may be corrected by his Judge­ment; if any thing be reasonably ordered, it may, by his help, the Divine Grace assisting, be Perfected. So that it seems notwithstanding the blustering the Popes make now, it was a revelation to all the Churches of the World in the first Ages, that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdi­ction was in the Temporal Magistrate. This also have Papist Kings and their Lay-Subjects justified in England. Xenulphus by his Letters Pattents, did grant to Abbot Ruchin, Quod praedictus Ruchinus, &c. That the said Ruchin should for ever be free from all Episcopal Jurisdi­ction whatsoever. This was pretty well for a Tempo­ral Prince without Ecclesiastical Power; and to demon­strate that he was not singular in assuming this Power, this Charter was confirmed by King Edwin, and pleaded the 1 H. 7. and allowed and continued till the dissolution of that Abby in H. 8. When H. 1. found­ed [Page 11] the Abby of Reading, the Charter run thus: Hen­ricus Dei, &c. Statuimus tam Ecclesiasticae quam Regiae prospectu potestatis, ut, &c. We appoint as well by our Ecclesiastical as Temporal Power, &c. In the 25 Ed. 1. by a Parliament held at Carlisle, it is declared, That the Holy Church of England was founded in the State of Prelacy by the King, and his Progenitors, the Popes Usurpations complained on; and enacted they should not be suffered. By a Statute made 16 R. 2. ca. 5. It is declared, That the Crown of England is Subject to none but God. Of this opinion was Bracton, who wrote in H. 3d's time, Omnis, says he, quidem sub Rege & ipse sub nullo, sed tantum sab Deo. Lib. 1. ca 8. nu. 5. Every one owes Obedience to the King, but he to none but GOD. I must give one instance more, if it be only to shew the nature of a Begotted Papist. Ed. 3. much concern'd, that his Subjects would deprive him of his right by Appeals to Rome, by a Statute it was made a Praemunire, the hearty Begots did so rail and curse at the Executors of that Law, that the Kingdom was obliged to make a Statute on purpose to prevent such defamations. But when after many struglings the Popes did begin to finger this Jurisdiction, as if poyson'd with their touch, it immediately swells to such a prodigious magnitude, as quite to over shadow, and crush all o­ther Powers; now 'tis Hunc unum, &c. Pope Pius the Fifth, in his Bull that Excommunicates Queen Eliza­beth, Him alone (says he, meaning himself) he made Prince over all People, and all Kingdoms, to pluck up, de­stroy, scatter, consume, plant and build, &c. So that Temporal Princes are but as so many Pagents to be set up, and pull'd down as the Infallible Head shall see cause; and an Emperour is no more to a Pope now, than a Pope was to an Emperour heretofore: To prove this, the Replyer has given several very true ex­amples, [Page 12] to which I shall add, That in King John's time, the Loyal Popish Barons were in open Rebellion; The Pope instead of using his pretended Authority to reduce them to their Allegiance, he takes advantage of the King's necessities, and will by no means permit him to nomi­nate a Successour to the deceased Archbishop of Can­terbury; but for so doing the King was Excommuni­cated; this, with the King of France his appearing in the Pope's defence, incourag'd the Barons to continue in their Rebellion, and to calumniate their King with the most approbrious language, as Infidel, &c. that no King ever indured the like; finding himself on all hands thus oppress'd, his submission to the Pope was abso­lutely necessary, and therefore now tenders him his Crown, which the Pope by his Legate received; upon this (and all but reason) the King is Absolved, but still the hardy Barons refuse their duty, till the King had ratified their Priviledges, &c. which he was forc'd up­on his Oath to agree to. But the King being now a good Child of the Church, is discharged by the Pope from these condescentions to the Barons, the whole compact is declared Null, the King's Oath Dispenc'd with, and the Barons Excommunicated till they sub­mitted to the Sentence. This is something like, to whip and stroke them by turns! Thus the Heaven Door is open'd and shut in a breath, that no man alive can be sure whether he shall go in or out.

When Queen Elizabeth came to this Crown, Sir Edward Karn was by her direction to inform the Pope thereof, who made this humble and obliging return, That England was held in fee of the Apostolick See, that she could not succeed, being illegitimate; nor could be contradict the Declarations made in that matter by his Predecessors, Clement the Seventh and Paul the Third: He said it was great boldness in her to assume to the Crown without his consent [Page 13] or which in Reason she deserv'd no favour at his hands; yet if she would renounce her Pretensions, and refer her self wholly to him, he would shew a fatherly affection to her, and do every thing for her that could consist with the Dignity of Apostolick See; so far the Servus Servorum. In this haughty speech 'tis not so much the Queens illegitimation is complain'd on, as her great boldness to assume the Crown without consent of his Holiness: for if she will at last sub­mit, here's great hopes for her, notwithstanding her Ille­gitimation. But his Successor Pius IV. leaves her in no man­ner of doubt. He sent one Parpalia to her to promise, that if she would join her self to the See of Rome, he would dis­annul the Sentence against her Mother's Marriage, &c. Hence I observe, that the Popes what e're they said, did not be­lieve Q. Eliz. Illegitimate, or else what's worse, they declare that for their Temporal Interest they would make that lawful which the Law of God had made unlawful for if Q. Eliz. was a Bastard, she was so, because Hen. the 8's. Marriage with his first Wife was lawful, who was living when Eliz. was born of another woman; if so, nothing is plainer than that this second Marriage was against the Law of God. But 'tis all nothing, there had been no harm done, no rightful heir disseiz'd, no title of a Bastard set up, had Eliz. made her acknowledgments that England was held in fee of the Apostolick See. So speaks the Shepherd, and the sheep know his voice.

In fine, the King deposing Doctrine is not only practised by one or two wicked Infallible Heads; but 'tis the setled Doctrine of their Church; 'tis that their Lateran Council, and a long Succession of Popes have declared, and that which their best men have imploy'd their Pens to maintain; for which see the Bishop of Lincoln's Brutum Fulmen.

Whether the Test or Penal Laws ought to be abolished is a subject more proper for the King and Parliament than [Page 14] us: But when you call us Cannibals for making them, you speak like a man of sense, and ought to be considered, tho the Replier has taken but little notice of it: their words are these ‘And they (meaning the Church of England) no sooner found themselves re-establisht, then they Enacted those bloody Cannibal Laws to hang, draw and quarter the Priests of the living God: Imprisonment, Banishments, and Con­fiscation of Goods were the moderate Church of England's Laws, &c. No sooner, he says, were they reestablisht, &c.’ Now one would think by this representation, that this Law he so abhors, was made the next hour after the Queen was proclaim'd, and yet in truth, 'twas the 27 year of the Queens Reign before this Law had birth. Well, but if Cannibals they must be, who Enact Sanguinary Laws a­gainst those that purely dissent in matters of Religion, I know no Church deserves the honour of that title but yours: your lenity towards Hereticks (and all are Hereticks with you, that are not of your faith) is so universally known, that 'tis in vain to trouble the world with particular instan­ces: however if you please, you may look in Qu. Mary's days, look into the Bishop of Lincoln's Book, and when you are looking, look into France: But why do I cry look here, or look there, when 'tis impossible to look amiss? However, since to recriminate is no justification, and since we hear that you pride your selves to talk of our Penal Laws, endeavouring to render us extreamly cruel, I should apply my self particularly to shew the reasons and steps of those Laws, did I not find it incomparably well done to my hands by a Letter, which 'tis great pity the whole Kingdom has not read; and tho it be long, yet there being not a sentence in it not full of weight, I will for the publick good transcribe the whole, which fully vin­dicates us in this point.