Animadversions upon a late pamphlet entituled The naked truth, or, The true state of the primitive church Turner, Francis, 1638?-1700. 1676 Approx. 171 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 36 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2012-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). A63876 Wing T3275 ESTC R15960 12255870 ocm 12255870 57463

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A63876) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 57463) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 880:19) Animadversions upon a late pamphlet entituled The naked truth, or, The true state of the primitive church Turner, Francis, 1638?-1700. The second edition. [6], 66 p. Printed by T.R. : And are sold by Benj. Tooke ..., London : 1676. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Attributed to Francis Turner. cf. BM.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Croft, Herbert, 1603-1691. -- Naked truth. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2011-11 Assigned for keying and markup 2011-11 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2012-01 Sampled and proofread 2012-01 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2012-05 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

Imprimatur,

Febr. 23. 1676. H. London.

ANIMADVERSIONS Upon a Late PAMPHLET Entituled THE Naked Truth;

Or, THE TRUE STATE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.

The Second Edition.

LONDON, Printed by T. R. and are to be ſold by Benj. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard, 1676.

ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE TITLE, THE DEDICATION, AND Epiſtle to the READER.

OF all the Rarities which of late have been the diſcourſe of the Town (where men ſpend much of their time, as the men of Athens did, either in hearing or telling ſome New thing) nothing has been more talkt of, than a cerrain Pamphlet call'd The NAKED TRUTH. Now having got a ſight of it, and ſcann'd it throughout, I am abundantly ſatisfied, not only from his Style, which is ſometimes Enthuſiaſtick, but from his Matter and Principles (if he ſtick to any) that the Author is a Borderer upon Fanaticiſm and does not know it. But by Naked Truth he ſeems to mean Chriſtianity without either Welt or Guard (as they ſay) and not ſet off with Ceremony. For his Title-page ſtands thus: The Naked Truth, or the True State of the Primitive Church. This Title-page of his, he explains very ſufficiently, p. 17. In the Primitive times (ſaies he) in the greateſt Storms, when the whole World of Jews and Gentiles were Enemies to the Church, and not one of your Ceremonies in the Church to preſerve it; The ſimple Naked Truth without any Surplice to cover it, without any Eccleſiaſtical Policy to maintain it overcame all: and ſo would do now, did we truſt to that, and the Defender of it. If he means its great Defender in Heaven, we put our whole Truſt in him: or if he means his Vice-gerent upon Earth, the Defender of the Faith, we repoſe an intire Confidence (as we ought) in the gracious Declarations and Expreſſions His Majeſty is pleaſed to repeat upon all Occaſions, of his perpetual good Affection and Compaſſion for the Church of England. Or if by Truſting to the ſimple Naked Truth, this Author means, the Truth of our own Cauſe, we dare truſt to that, and to many Defenders of that too. But if truſting to the Naked Truth, be to this Pamphlet and this Project; we dare not truſt to it. Why, this is ſtripping the Church bare to the very skin, nay, Skin and all muſt go, an Article of a Creed if need be, for he ſpends his firſt long Chapter in Reforming there too, and reducing the Faith to, I know not what, Naked Truth. Methinks he ſhould have call'd his Pamphlet The TRUTH FLEY'D, for NAKED TRUTH is too ſhort, and not ſpoken through his Subject. But Skin for skin, and all that a man has will he give for his life: for This he contends on his Principle of Self-preſervation, This he concludes the only poſſible expedient to keep out Popery, This is his healing Salve, This is the product of his Faſts, the Anſwer to his Prayers, the effect of his ſeeking God (as he takes care to acquaint us) This has been the Travel of his mind, ſince he had theſe thoughts, which he has been humbly conceiving theſe two years, time enough for an Elephant to bring forth in.

This is the thing which he Dedicates to the Right Honourable, the Lords and Commons aſſembled in Parliament. Pity it was not preſented to the Lords during the laſt Seſſion, then I believe, it would have been delivered over by their Lordſhips, to be confuted by the ſame experienc'd hand, that took to task a more Primitive piece of Naked Truth, viz. the Solemn League and Covenant in the Palace-yard at Weſtminſter, where it expired into aſhes. As for thoſe Noble Patriots in the Houſe of Commons, 'tis probable they would have voted him their Thanks too after the ſame manner, for laying a Libel at their doors, making a breach upon their glorious Act of Uniformity, and violating their Act (their moſt neceſſary Act) againſt Printing without a Licenſe: though he makes a neat Excuſe whilſt he is doing it, that he does it againſt his Conſcience, for which he very poentiently begs pardon of God and Them, and ſo ſins on: for, all this while he goes on with his Printing and Publiſhing it without a Licenſe.

How he will juſtifie his claim to the Title of An Humble Moderator, I cannot imagine; unleſs Aſſuming, Impoſing, and turning all upſide down, be the ſigns of Humility; and immoderate Zeal for one Party to be the qualification of a Reconciler, or Moderator.

In his Addreſs to the Reader he gives an Account, why he is ſo ſcrupulouſly careful to conceal his Name: becauſe he cannot bear reproach. So all that is like to fall upon the poor Fatherleſs and Motherleſs Pamphlet; though he would have done a piece of Juſtice, to have named himſelf, and ſo to have cleared others, for it has been confidently laid to the charge of more than one Reverend perſon who (I have great reaſon to believe, and am ſeveral waies aſſured) had no manner of hand in it, yet he does himſelf and me a particular favour, in making it impoſſible for me to reflect upon his Perſon (which I know no more than the Man in the Moon) only as he makes himſelf the Patron of ſo vile a Cauſe. For whoſoever vents his own Amuſements, to the Churches great and real prejudice (and that's this caſe) he muſt not think to ſcape for the Godlineſs of his Style, nor for a man of good Intentions, as ſure he is, or elſe he would never give the Devil ſo much more than his due, as to make ſo ſtrange a Proteſtation as he does here, that he would never condemn any good Action though done by the Devil (as if he ſuppoſed, the Devil might do ſome ſuch for ought he knows) but Hell it ſelf, they ſay (though we never heard before of any good Actions there, yet it) is full of Such as were once full of good Intentions.

Animadverſions upon his firſt Chapter concerning Articles of Faith.

I Confeſs when firſt I ſaw this Jewel of a Pamphlet, and had run over two or three pages of this Chapter, I ſuſpected its Author for ſome Youngſter that had been dabling among the Socinian Writers, and was ambitious of ſhewing us his Half-Talent in the way. I was quickly delivered from this jealouſie by his Orthodox contradictory expreſſions in other places: But I find he is one of the Men of the Second Rate (as I take leave to ſtyle them) that hardly ever ſee to the Second Conſequence. Therefore once for all I proteſt, that I do not charge Him with many of his own moſt obvious Conſequences as his opinions: for 'tis plain he does not diſcern them. But the Church may juſtly complain of him, for thruſting out ſuch crude, indigeſted matter, without communicating theſe conceptions of his, to ſome that would have ſhew'd him the weak and blindſides of them. Now ſince the miſchief is done, to undo the Charm again it becomes a duty to Expoſe him; and moſt of all for this Chapter, where he has moſt expos'd himſelf: a Chapter of moſt pernicious conſequence, and admirably ſerving the turn of the rankeſt Sectaries. Who not being able to keep up their Congregations any longer, or to keep their Diſciples from ours by trivially declaiming againſt our Ceremonies; They ferment them now by inſtilling into them new fears and jealouſies of our Doctrines: Warning them away from our Churches, as if there was ſome ſtrange Fury working, or ſome Innovations contriving in the Church of England: and as if we were allowed to preach and maintain even in our City-Pulpits, new Articles of Faith, Socinian or Pelagian, in oppoſition to the Catholick and truly Primitive. How unſufferably J. O. for one has reflected, not only upon ſome particular Perſons, but upon the whole Church of England and its Governers upon this account, any one may read, that does but run over his Survey of a diſcourſe concerning Eccleſiaſtical Polity. No wonder then, if now they are tranſported with joy, when an Author appears as one dropt down from heaven to plead their Cauſe, vouching himſelf a Son of the Church of England, teaching as one having Authority like a Father, venturing at firſt daſh upon the tendereſt Point in the World, concerning Articles of Faith, implying and ſuppoſing all along, that ſome are extremely to blame for improving the Faith, not by confirming, but enlarging it, asking, whether the ſtate of Salvation be alter'd' and, what need any other Articles? In what Church does he ask theſe Queſtions? and how monſtrous impertinent are they here, if we do nothing like it?

Well! to begin with him, and follow him ſtep by ſtep through his many turnings and windings, and ſometimes nothing but a rope of Sand to guide me; He makes a diſcovery to us in the firſt place, that That which we commonly call the Apoſtles Creed, is the ſum of Chriſtian Faith. And again, that the Primitive Church received this as the ſum total of Faith neceſſary to ſalvation. Why not now? I anſwer, it is ſo now, and all true Sons of our Church hold it ſo now: Then why this Queſtion? Why that which follows? Is the ſtate of Salvation alter'd? No doubt the terms of Belief, on which Salvation is ordinarily attainable, are never changeable, but, like God himſelf who eſtabliſht them, fixt and immoveable. But ſtill he follows his blow, though he fights with the Air: If it be compleat (ſaies he) what need any other Articles? There may have been needful heretofore, not only other Articles, but other Creeds, for the farther explication of thoſe Articles in the Apoſtles Creed: and yet in thoſe new Creeds, not one new Article. The Apoſtles Creed is the ſum of Chriſtian Faith. True; yet I hope he will not think the Nicene, the Conſtantinopolitan, and the Athanaſian Creeds were ſuperfluous and unneceſſary: And in his Chapter about preaching he ſeems concerned for this laſt the Athanaſian; and yet his cenſure is ſo bold upon Conſtantine the Emperour, and ſome godly Biſhops (he conceives more zealous than diſcreet, and ſo do ſome godly Biſhops conceive of this Author) and his pique at the new word Homoouſios carries ſuch an ugly reflection upon that Creed, that I ſcarce dare underſtand him. But we ſhall have more of this hereafter.

He would have men improve in Faith, but rather Intenſivè, than Extenſivè, to Confirm it rather than Enlarge it. And yet 'tis certain that all formal and mortal Hereticks, that are not Atheiſts, are juſtly condemn'd for want of due extenſion in their Faith.

He prays us to remember the Treaſurer to Candace Queen of Aethiopia, whom Philip inſtructed in the Faith: His time of Catechizing was very ſhort, and ſoon proceeded to Baptiſm. This is ſoon pronounc'd (as he uſes to do) but not prov'd. It does not appear how long, or how ſhort was the time of his Catechizing: or how many Leagues they travelled together before they proceeded to Baptiſm. 'Tis true there needs no great length of time to propoſe and demonſtrate Chriſtianity (as St. Peter and the Apoſtles did it in few words, and) eſpecially out of the Propheſies of the Old Teſtament, which the Eunuch was then reading. But then a great deal muſt and may be learnt in a little time: as the prime Articles of Faith are ſo ſtrongly and rationally knit together, that 'tis indeed impoſſible to teach or learn any one of them, without teaching or learning them all. Whereas then our Author proceeds thus. But Philip firſt required a confeſſion of his Faith, and the Eunuch made it, and I beſeech you obſerve it: I believe that Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God: and ſtraightway he was baptized. How? no more than this? no more. What! nothing of the Holy Ghoſt till he heard of him in the Baptiſmal form? What does he mean then by that which immediately follows? This little grain of Faith being ſound, believed with all his heart, purchaſed the kingdom of Heaven. Had he believed the whole Goſpel with half his heart, it had been of leſs value in the ſight of God. 'Tis not the quantity, but the quality of our Faith, God requireth. I anſwer, the true and full notion of Saving Faith is embracing from the whole heart the whole Fundamental truth of the Goſpel. Why does he talk then of the whole Heart, and yet ſuppoſes but half or a part of this Fundamental truth? Does he dream that St. Philip the Evangeliſt Chriſten'd the Eunuch after Chriſt's Aſcenſion into Heaven, only as St. John the Baptiſt brought men to his Baptiſm, before Chriſt appeared in his Miniſtry upon earth? and made him ſuch a Diſciple, as thoſe whom St. Paul found in Epheſus, that had not ſo much as heard whether there were any Holy Ghoſt? to whom thereupon St. Paul proved Chriſtianity from their Maſter the Baptiſt's Teſtimony: and to make them perfect Chriſtians, which they were not before, but only a ſort of Diſciples, Baptized them in the Name of the Lord Jeſus, Acts 19.

Yet this Author will not let go his hold, and will needs be thus objecting againſt himſelf. But, ſure the Eunuch was more fully inſtructed. It may be you are ſure of it: but I could never yet meet with any aſſurance of it, nor any great probability of it. Yes, I am ſure of it, if he means by more fully inſtructed, taught other Fundamental Articles beſide this one, that Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God. And I will give him one demonſtration of what I ſay (which is more than a Probability) out of the ſtory it ſelf; and he might have met with this demonſtration in it himſelf, if he could have ſeen but an inch before him; for we find in the ſtory that the Eunuch himſelf made the motion to the Evangeliſt, and reminded him of baptizing him. Therefore 'tis evident they had diſcourſt before even of this particular, though we are told no more in expreſs words, but that St. Philip preacht to him Jeſus, the Faith of Jeſus. Yet he had brancht out this Faith into all its Fundamental Articles, and had declar'd to him even the neceſſity of Baptiſm; which he underſtood not at all, if he did not apprehend it aright, and as it was preſently to be celebrated; in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt. Why, this very ſhort Baptiſmal form is a perfect Creed by itſelf, if it be throughly penetrated and explained in its full latitude: for it ſeems the Name of the Son was by a divine Criticiſm choſen and interpos'd between the other two Perſons, whoſe God-head was confeſt and acknowledg'd by the Jewiſh Church, rather than that of the Word, to denote the Second of the 3 Perſons of the moſt equal and inſeparable Trinity, as God of God from the Eternal Father; and alſo to connote the Co-eternal Son, made man in the fulneſs of time, and therefore born of a Woman, the Virgin Mary. Why, here's a great part of the faith already. And then the Baptiſmal action it ſelf, the Immerſion and Emerſion out of the Water, did, in its full and plain importance (as no doubt the Eunuch was made to underſtand it, before he was brought to it) acquaint him and inſtruct him abundantly in thoſe other great points of Faith, the Dying, Burying, and Riſing again of Chriſt for our Juſtification from our ſins; as alſo with the whole Practical duty of a Chriſtian man: that being the Inward part, or Thing ſignified in the Sacrament of Baptiſm: viz. a Death unto Sin, the great comprehenſive duty of Mortification, and a New birth unto Righteouſneſs: where he muſt needs be told the myſtery of the Firſt and Second Covenant, that being by nature born in ſin, Original ſin, and a Son of wrath, he had hereby Forgiveneſs of ſins, was adopted and made a Child of Grace, and Heir and Co-heir with Chriſt in the Communion of Saints, to live with him after the Reſurrection in life everlaſting. Now this Author may ſee what uſe and need there was of the Conſtantinopolitan Creed, that put in, One baptiſm for the Remiſſion of ſins: Since the true underſtanding of that Sacrament is ſo inſtructive of all other Fundamentals. For, all this our Apoſtle St. Paul ſuppoſed, as the common Notions all Chriſtians ſhould have of their Baptiſm, Know ye not that as many of us as were baptiz'd unto Jeſus Chriſt, were baptiz'd into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by Baptiſm into death, that like as Chriſt was raiſed up from the dead by the glory of the Father: even ſo we ſhould walk in newneſs of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeneſs of his Death; we ſhall be alſo in the likeneſs of his Reſurrection, Ro. 6. 3, 4, 5, &c,

To as li tle purpoſe then is his next Application of that paſſage in St. John, Every ſpirit that confeſſes that Jeſus Chriſt is come in the fleſh, is of God. 1 Joh. 4. 2. Why, the Mahumetans confeſs, in ſome ſenſe, that Jeſus Chriſt is come in the fleſh, as a great Prophet ſent from God. Will a Mahumetan, or a Socinian confeſſion of this ſuffice? For the Socinians will admit the Apoſtles Creed as the ſum of Faith; the words I mean, but not the Catholick ſenſe of it: And they will ſay, through Jeſus Chriſt our Lord at the end of their own Prayers, in their own diſtorted ſenſe of it. But if confeſſing Jeſus Chriſt be, as St. John means it, confeſſing the God and the Man (otherwiſe it is not indeed confeſſing the ſame Jeſus Chriſt, whom Chriſtians ought to confeſs) this takes in whole Chriſtianity, that is, all its few primary Fundamentals are coucht in this: All theſe no queſtion, were virtually contain'd in St. Peter's ſhort confeſſion of faith, Thou art Chriſt the Son of the living God; for which confeſſion he was bleſt, and upon which faith Chriſt declared he would build his Church as upon a Rock. And all theſe no doubt St. Paul preach to the Corinthians, when yet he determin'd to know nothing amongſt them, but Jeſus Chriſt and him crucified. 1 Cor 2. 2.

But whereas, in the next place, he charges ſome with introducing new and many Articles of Faith; I hope he does not mean all our 39 Articles: moſt of which, as (a late Right Reverend and learned Praelate) Biſhop Lany, Lord Biſhop of Ely ſtyles them in one of his 5 Sermon p 48. are Articles of Peace, and conſent in certain Controverſies, not Articles of Faith or Communion. Not as if the Subſcribers to theſe Articles engaged themſelves to no more than not to contradict them, or never to preach againſt them; No, the Church is ſo juſt to her ſelf, as to exact for the ſecurity of her own Peace, that all whom ſhe truſts with teaching others, or whom ſhe recommends to the world with Univerſity Degrees, ſhall ſubſcribe to theſe Articles as their own Opinions, and what they believe as convinc'd in their own Judgments that they are true; Yet this I take to be one of her greateſt Eccleſiaſtical Policies, that ſhe admits the many thouſands and hundred thouſands, without any Subſcription to theſe Articles, ad Communionem Laicam, that is, not to Half-Communion (as ſome would ignorantly conſtrue it, becauſe they have Sacrilegiouſly taken away the Cup from the Laity) but to that which the Primitive Church called the Communion of Laicks: that is, ſuch a Communion as was given without ſuch Conditions as were anciently requir'd of Eccleſiaſticks. But my beſt excuſe for him is, that, though he be ſcuffling in the dark, yet he ſtrikes at the Papiſts eſpecially, and would narrow their Faith, rather than ours. 'Tis true they have introduc'd many a new Article of Faith which is bad enough; and, which is worſe, many a one that has not a ſyllable of truth in it. He puts the Papiſts, Lutherans, and Calviniſts all together. One cries, this is a Demonſtration, Another (ſaies he) cries, no ſuch matter, &c. He may make as bold with any of theſe as he pleaſes, for we are none of theſe; and I am not bound to make war in their vindication.

In the 4th. page concerning the Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt, he does implicitly condemn the Catholick Church both in the Eaſt and Weſt, for being ſo preſumptuous in her Definitions. 'Tis modeſtly done of him. But he means, we have no comprehenſive knowledg of the matter declared. His meaning is good and true; But his Inference is ſtark naught, if he means, therefore we underſtand not at all that this or that is declared. And I am ſure, I do him no wrong in fixing this meaning upon his words, for theſe are his very words, If then our Reaſon underſtands not what is declared, how can we by Reaſon make any deduction by way of Argument from that which we underſtand not? Is it even ſo? Then let us put the caſe with reverence, That Almighty God, who aſſuming, I ſuppoſe, the ſhape of an Angel treated with Abraham face to face, as a man does with his friend, ſhould for once have ſpoken in the ſame manner to Arrius or Socinus, and made this one declaration to either of them, that the Catholick Church's doctrine of the Trinity was true, and his falſe; Then I demand, would not this have been demonſtration enough of the Faith which we call Catholick, either to Socinus or Arrius? And yet all thoſe contradictory Arguments, which either of them had once fanci'd Inſoluble, ſuppoſing them not anſwered in particular, would remain againſt it, and ſtand as they did before any ſuch declaration; and yet all this without giving him any comprehenſive knowledg.

But as to the ground upon which he raiſes all this duſt, in p. 4. about the Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt, I can eaſily anſwer for the Church of England; let the Church of Rome anſwer for her ſelf, if ſhe can, for her trampling upon the poor Greek Church as ſhe lies in the duſt, and branding her with Haereſie for her doctrine of the Proceſſion, as cruelly as her Turkiſh Maſters burn their Half-moons on the bodies of thoſe whom they enſlave. But our Church is not ſo uncharitable, as to define it a Haereſie for any to maintain, that the Holy Ghoſt proceeds from the Father by the Son, though we maintain alſo with good reaſon, as a great truth, that the Holy Ghoſt proceeds from the Father and the Son. But this makes no breach of Communion between us and the Greeks, the difference ariſing only from the Inadaequation of Languages, which notwithſtanding, we agree in the main of this Article. So that I may anſwer all this needleſs diſcourſe, as Demoſthenes once anſwered the Oratour Aeſchines, who kept much ado about a word which the other had not uſed ſo properly; But the Fortunes of Greece, ſaid he, do not depend upon it.

But if in Divine matters we once give way to human deductions, a cunning Sophiſter may ſoon lead a weak diſputant into many Errors. So I doubt ſome ſuch one has miſled this Author, who, whatever he be, I dare ſay is not condemned by St. Paul for one of the diſputers of this World, but rather is one of thoſe whom the ſame Apoſtle forbids us to admit to any doubtful diſputations. But is this Author ſerious againſt human deductions from Scripture, as he calls them, eſpecially ſince he confeſſes, p. 7, that Haereſies never appear at firſt in their own natural ſhape, but diſguiſed with ſpecious pretences drawn from ſome obſcure places of Scripture, capable of various interpretations; And thus having gotten footing by degrees, they lay aſide their diſguiſes and march barefac'd? Now after this obſervation, would one think it poſſible for one that is but maſter of coherent thoughts for three minutes, within the compaſs of three pages to tell us gravely, Wherefore we have no other ſafe way to ſpeak of divine matters but in Scripture language, ipſiſſimus verbis, with the very ſame words. Admirable! What way then is there to oppoſe thoſe new ariſing Haereſies, that draw their ſpecious pretences from thoſe obſcure Scriptures, and do not in expreſs words contradict any plain Texts, if there be no ſafe way to ſpeak againſt them, or to ſpeak at all in Divine matters, but in expreſs words of Scripture? Nay our Author, as it happens, is aware of this horrid conſequence, and admits it: blaming for his imprudence that moſt prudent and moſt pious Conſtantine (as he calls him) the firſt and beſt of Chriſtian Emperours, that he did not purſue his own Intentions, to ſuppreſs all Diſputes and all new Queſtions of God the Son, both Homoouſian and and Homoiouſian, and command all to acquieſce in the very Scripture expreſſions without any addition, and then he is confident the Arrian Haereſie had ſoon expir'd. Why, this was the very deſign of thoſe Arrians themſelves, that which they drove at in the Court, that which they urg'd in all their little Councils and Cabals; that ſilence might be injoyn'd both Parties, and the Nicene profeſſion of Faith not impos'd upon them: as if it had not been ground enough for the Church ſafely to declare and define one divine Eſſence in the Trinity, when St. John had ſet it down, There be three that bear witneſs in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt, and theſe three are One, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . What ſignifies ••• but Unum, that is, Una Res, or Una Eſſentia, One Eſſence? and what is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 more than this? Only the Church had a neceſſity of uſing that word directly to meet and encounter the oppoſite 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the Hereticks took up, to ſpeak their new Faith in a new Term, and beſide and againſt the Scripture.

But this Principle will miſlead him farther yet: for upon his meaſures and rules of Faith, what will become of our Prime and moſt neceſſary Principles of Faith (as he very truly calls them p. 4.) the Trinity three Perſons and one God? Why do we find this Author p. 29. ſolemnly affirming this in the preſence of God, that he has known ſome paſs for very good Preachers that could not give a good account of the Athanaſian Creed. I ſuppoſe this Author paſſes for a very good Preacher himſelf, and firmly believes this Creed, and profeſſes his Faith by it openly in the Church: yet what good account can he give of this Creed, if we have no other ſafe way to ſpeak of divine matters, but in Scripture language, and may not ſafely uſe deductions or inferences from Scripture? How many Terms are there in the Athanaſian, which to ſeek for in the Apoſtles Creed or in the whole Bible, were to as much purpoſe, as it was for the old affected Ciceronian in Eraſmus, to labor and toil his brains to turn that Creed into Ciceronian Latin? Yet theſe are the Terms in which the Catholick Church has thought ſhe ſpoke ſafely in theſe Divine matters; But it ſeems ſhe has ſpoken al this while at the peril of her underſtanding. In the mean while the old dormant Hereſies may ſafely revive again, as the Monothelites that affirmed that there was but one Will in Chriſt, and the Neſtorians that aſſerted there were two Perſons in Chriſt, &c. Now, their Ghoſts may riſe and walk and invade the Church again, under this Authors ſhadow: for though by immediate conſequences they deſtroy the Faith, and rob us of our Saviour; yet theſe conſequences are only Rational Deductions, an human (or Heathen) way of Argumenting, as he words it. But there's no ſafe way to ſpeak of theſe Divine matters but in Scripture language, Ipſiſſimis verbis; with the very ſame words: Then theſe and twenty other ſorts of Heretiks are ſafe enough, unleſs they lay aſide their Diſguiſes and turn ſuch errant Mooncalves, as to ſtate their Heretical concluſions point blank contradictory to ſome expres propoſitions in the Bible. But any thing to avoid the plague of School Divinity (as he very feelingly calls it) though I dare ſay, he was never infected with it: But alas! poor St. Auguſtine had a touch of it, and ſo had Athanaſius before him. And, if we believe this Author, Many of the primitive Doctors and Fathers being converted from heatheniſm, and having by long and great induſtry acquir'd much knowledg in natural Philoſophy, Antiquity, Hiſtory, and ſubtle Logick or Sophiſtry, were very unwilling to abandon quite theſe their long ſtudied and dearly beloved Sciences (falſly ſo called) and therefore tranſlated them into Chriſtianity, applying their Schoolterms, Diſtinctions, Syllogiſms, &c. to Divine matters, intending perchance through indiſcreet Zeal to illuſtrate and imbelliſh Chriſtian knowledg with ſuch Artificial forms and figures, but rather defaced and ſpoiled it. Kindly and learnedly ſpoken of Learning in general, and Reverently ſpoken of the Primitive Doctors and Fathers! Why, he could hardly have declared himſelf with greater animoſity and ſeverity againſt Greg. de Valentia, or Suarez, or ſome other of the late Popiſh Schoolmen. As for the Fathers, that they were no defacers or ſpoilers of Chriſtianity, 'tis defence enough for them, if I alledge in their behalf the Teſtimony of One that was none of their greateſt Champions, even Mr. Dal himſelf: who in that very book, which he was ſo many years collecting and writing on purpoſe to expoſe them for all their little failings: yet he confeſſes and contends, that they were guilty of no Errors amounting to Haereſies in their Controverſies of Faith. And by this Author's good leave, the Fathers were not the men that corrupted our Chriſtianity through Philoſophy; but if any have done ſo, it is rather that ſort of men (the Popiſh Schoolmen,) who (pardon the expreſſion) Ariſtoteliz'd the Fathers. As for the elder Schoolmen their deſign was noble, to draw the whole Scheme of Divinity into ſuch order and method, that a Divine might ſit and ſee, as it were, his whole world of Matter before him; and to arm him at all points where he might poſſibly be attaqu'd, they ſet themſelves to go into the bowels of all Controverſies, herein they have often exceeded in beating matters too thin; and I ſay not, all their Armour was of Proof, but that which is firm and good, as a great deal of it is, ought not to be thrown away becauſe it is too heavy for ſome mens ſhoulders. That unlucky Pantaenus ſett up Diſputing (if you'l take our Author's word for it) in a School of Alexandria, though others verily believe that one St. Paul before him, diſputed daily for the ſpace of two years in the School of one Tyrannus. And ſome differ from this Author's Opinion, that the damnable Haereſie of the Arrians ſprang from the School of Pantaenus, they rather think, and our Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorians ſay, that Arrius's ſpleen had never wrought ſo furiouſly againſt the Church, but only for a diſappointment he received in his aſpiring expectations of ſome great Biſhoprick.

But we muſt needs look back to the ſecond and third pages, to ſee how he juſtifies all this, by alledging & proving, with a great deal ado, from Reaſon and Scripture, that No man ſhould be forc't to Believe, for No man can be forc'd to Believe. As for example (ſays he) If you hold a clear printed book, with a clear candle, to a man of clear eyes, and able to read; he will certainly read: But if the print be not clear, or the candle, or his ſight not clear, or he not learned to read; Can your force make him read? and juſt ſo it is with our Underſtanding, which is the eye of our Soul, and a Demonſtration being as a Candle to give light; If then your Demonſtration or Deduction, or his Underſtanding be not clear, or he not Learned; You may with a Club daſh out his brains, but never clear them. It were eaſie to confound his Similitude, by ſhewing the diſproportion between the parts of it. For he brings the ſenſe of Seeing, which is linkt and ty'd to the dull dimenſions of a Body, and the ſtudied acquir'd faculty of Reading, which is the other term on the one ſide; I ſay he brings theſe into compariſon with our Underſtanding, which be calls the Eye of our Soul; and a Demonſtration, which he makes the candle to give it light: But if it be, as he ſuppoſes here, a demonſtration indeed about things abſolutely neceſſary for us to know, it muſt of neceſſity ſo irreſiſtibly dart its beams into the mind of any, that is not born without any brains to let them in, as there ſhall need no force to clear them. But 'tis more to my purpoſe to retort his Similitude thus: Suppoſe you held a clear printed book, with a clear candle, to a man of clear eyes; and ſuppoſe the man ſhuts his eyes, and ſuppoſe all men that look upon him attentively, ſee that he ſhuts his eyes (as that's a thing may be ſeen) [or, which is all one, that he ſtops his ears (as ſome that will not ſo much as enter our Church-doors) refuſing to hear the voice of the Charmer, charm he never ſo wiſely] and ſuppoſe this book thus held to him be the Word of God it ſelf: Then, ſince the ſame Word tells us, that ſome may be damn'd for ſhutting their eyes upon it; Certainly the Magiſtrate may, and ought to force him not to wink ſo hard, but to open his eyes: (and ſure all this may be done without daſhing out his brains with a Club) and then indeed it will follow that he will certainly read, but not otherwiſe. The Jews in Rome are conſtrain'd once a week to hear a Chriſtian Sermon: The Pope indeed cannot make the Jews Believe, but he can make them hear, unleſs they cloſe up their Ears with wool, or purpoſely ſend their Wits a wool-gathering (as the Country phraſe is) which would be a fault in their Wills, to be puniſh't if it could be prov'd: Whereas this Author would aſcribe all to mens want of common Underſtanding, or want of Diſcerning ability in the matters now in queſtion, which are the great matters of Faith. But God is wanting to no man in Neceſſaries: and the Reaſon which helps every man to ſee theſe Truths, at leaſt when they are ſhew'd and pointed out to him, is a vulgar, a popular thing. But ſure this Author imagines there are a world of Idiots, that he may not be forc'd to admit any mans hypocriſie & wilfulneſs to be groſs & palpable. Thus he concludes, Our force may make him blinder, but never ſee clearer, may make him an hypocrite, no true Convert. No! by this Author's favour, he that ſhuts his eyes, yet pretends to ſee clearly, is an hypocrite already: and we that would oblige him to open his eyes, whether he will or no, do not go the way to make him an Hypocrite, but a true Convert from his ſinful Hypocriſie.

But he ſtill eagerly purſues his ill-choſen Principle in miſtaken charity: If a man do not ſee a thing clearly contain'd there (i. e. in Scripture) you cannot force either his Sight or his Faith. p. 4. He had ſaid before, p. 3; He then that believes the Scripture, cannot but believe what you clearly demonſtrate from Scripture, if he hath clear brains: if he have not, your force may puzzle and puddle his brains more, by the paſſion of Anger and Hatred, &c. And again in the ſame page, Can you drive Faith, like a Nail into his head or heart with a hammer? Nay, 'tis not in a mans own power to make himſelf Believe any thing farther than his Reaſon ſhews him; much leſs Divine things. Put this together (and there's a great deal more of it) and ſee whether it does not lead us into the very dregs of Mr. Hobbs's Divinity; i. e. Fatality. For if it be not in any man's power to diſcern Fundamental truths (of which we are treating in this Chapter) when they are laid before his eyes; Then I am ſure it is none of his fault: of which the reſult is this, that whereas our Saviour has pronounc'd, that He that believes ſhall be ſaved, and he that believes not (that is, he that disbelieves after a ſufficient propoſal) ſhall be damned; This Author will have it, that He who does not believe, even after ſuch Evidence, cannot believe, and therefore cannot be ſaved, and ſo cannot avoid being damned. Only, this Author is better natur'd indeed than Mr. Hobbs, who allows the Civil Magiſtrate to correct, and even to cut off thoſe that are thus neceſſitated to do evil (as men kill Vermin or noxious Creatures:) Whereas this Author (as much in the other extreme) dares go no farther than that a Chriſtian Magiſtrate ſhould puniſh or baniſh thoſe that trouble the Church of Chriſt with Doctrines apparently contrary to the clear Text, and ſuch as are deſtructive to Chriſtianity. But who will judge what is clear? or what is thus deſtructive? the Party accuſed, or the Civil Magiſtrate? For, as for the Eccleſiaſtick, he makes the Church all along in this diſcourſe a party: and we ſhall ſee anon that he will not allow her, even in a General Council, for a competent Judg, to be rely'd upon by both Parties, no not in points of Faith. But if he dares go no farther than this, I dare not go ſo far: I am very far from thinking, as he does, that it was any part of S. Pauls meaning in this place, I wiſh they were even cut off that trouble you to wiſh there were a fitting Power, that is a Chriſtian Magiſtrate to puniſh or baniſh them: and his Reaſon is nothing, why St. Paul ſhould not mean here, a cutting off from the Church by way of Excommunication: for that (ſaies he) was in his power to do. Why then ſhould he wiſh it? It might be in his Power, i. e. he wanted not authority, but yet he might juſtly apprehend it a perillous thing, formally to cut off and excommunicate ſo numerous and powerful a Faction, for fear of ſome great apoſtaſie from Chriſtianity; from which theſe men, by his favour, had not cut off themſelves though they ran into Schiſms or Haereſies. Therefore he might well conſider it as a thing rather to be wiſht than executed: and if this were no wiſh of St. Paul's making, that the Troublers of the Church might be puniſht or baniſht, then I cannot find in my heart to go along with this Author in making it my wiſh, that they ſhould either be baniſht or more ſeverely puniſht for the preſent, than by forcing them into our Churches (whence they have indeed baniſht themſelves) that they may hear our defences of an honeſt Cauſe. And if it wring their Conſciences to come thither to Prayers, I cannot chuſe but make another wiſh, that they might firſt be ſatisfied either in our publick or private Conferences with their Leaders. The notable effect of ſuch Conferences, he that does not believe let him but read what my Lord Biſhop of Wincheſter, (then of Worceſter,) printed, of what paſs't, in that ſhort one, at Worceſter-houſe, or the Savoy, where as ſoon as ever it came to writing in Syllogiſm, which this Author ſo deſpiſes here and every where, the adverſe Party was driven immediately to that wild Aſſertion, that whatſoever may be the occaſion of ſin to any, muſt be taken away. But this Author, without making any ſuch proviſion for their Souls, as has any thing in it of conſtraint is for leaving them to their fate. As for thoſe (ſaies he) who keep their erroneous opinions to themſelves, who neither publiſh nor practice any thing to the diſturbance of the Church or State (as if to ſet up Altar againſt Altar, were no diſturbance) but only refuſe to conform to the Churches eſtabliſht Doctrine or Diſcipline (pardon me if I ſay) I cannot find any warrant, or ſo much as hint from the Goſpel to excuſe any force to compel them. No! let all ſuch live like Pagans, and go to no Churches at all, if they have a mind to it.

But he knows full well there is a common Objection about the Magiſtrates uſing any compulſion, taken from S. Auguſtine. Some Hereticks Donatiſts came to him in his later daies, and gave thanks that the Civil Power was made uſe of, to reſtrain them: Confeſſing, that was the means which brought them to conſider more calmly their own former extravagant Opinions, and ſo brought them home to the true Church. To this he anſwers, Firſt, the Donatiſts are well known to have been a Sect, not only erroneous in judgment but very turbulent in behaviour, always in ſeditious practices. & in that caſe (he tells us) he ſhew'd before how the Civil Magiſtrate may proceed to Puniſhment. But, he ſays, our caſe is not in repreſſing ſeditious practices, but enforcing a confeſſion of Faith, quite of another nature. Though I could eaſily and juſtly retort him a ſharper anſwer, I ſay only this; the very Act againſt them calls them Seditious Conventicles: and openly to break ſo many known Laws of the land, after ſo many reinforcements, is not this to be turbulent? And was it not ever underſtood ſo in all Religions? even in heathen Rome? The moſt learned P. Aerodius tells us, when a ſort of Innovators kept their Conventicles in oppoſition to the way receiv'd among them of worſhipping their Gods, the Senate made an Act there ſhould be no ſuch Meetings, as tending to the diſturbance of the State, and the publique Peace. Et ſi quis tale Sacrum ſolemne & neceſſarium duceret, and if any one judged ſuch a Sacrifice to be neceſſary, and a Solemnity not to be omitted without a Crime, he was to repair to the Praetor, and the Praetor was to conſult the Senate, when there were at leaſt a hundred Senators preſent (ſo that the Rump of Parliament would not do neither); And if the Senate gave him leave, it muſt be with this condition, That when he performed his offices of Religion his own way, ita id ſacrum faceret, dum ne plures quam quinque ſacrificio intereſſent, there ſhould not be above five perſons allow'd to be preſent at the Meeting. The ſelf ſame number, beſides the Diſſenter's own Family, is ſo far forth endur'd by an Act of this preſent Parliament, that there muſt be more then five to make it a Conventicle: But what are 5 to 500? as commonly they meet: And are not ſuch Meetings formidable? and whatever is formidable to the Church and the State, is not that alſo Turbulent? And if they were thus ſolicitous to preſerve and eſtabliſh, as a ſacred inviolable thing the Idolatrous worſhip of their falſe Gods, what care of ours can be great enough to ſecure the Godly worſhip of the only True God, when it is ſhaken by ſuch Diviſions? But to return to St. Auſtin; how did the Civil Magiſtrate proceed to puniſh the Donatiſts for their ſedition? even by laying his Commands upon them, at that good Father's Requeſt, That they ſhould come to Church. A ſevere puniſhment and very likely indeed to be inflicted upon them, as Traytors to the Imperial Crown! But ſecondly, ſays he, to anſwer more particularly this ſtory, I ſuppoſe, ſays he, there is no man ſuch a ſtranger to the world, as to be ignorant that there are Hypocrites in it; and ſuch for ought we know) theſe ſeeming converted Donatiſts might be, who for love of this World more than for love of the Truth, forſo k their heretical Profeſſion, though not their Opinion, &c. Incomparable! for ought he knows, they were Hypocrites! So for ought we know, This Author is all this while a Jeſuite, and writes this Pamphlet only to embroyl us Proteſtants. But he goes on; unleſs it can be evidenc't, that theſe Donatiſts hearts were changed, as well as their Profeſſion (a thing impoſſible to prove) all this proves nothing. Very good! So unleſs it can be evidenc't that he writes all this Pamphlet from his Heart (which is impoſſible to be prov'd) it all ſignifies juſt nothing. But thirdly, ſays he, put the caſe their hearts were really chang'd as to matter of belief, 'tis evident their hearts were very worldly ſtill, groveling on the earth, not one ſtep nearer Heaven. A horrible charitable ſaying! we may forgive him any thing after this: as his ſuppoſing, in this next ſentence, that the pruning of the Tree by the Magiſtrate's Sword is doing evil. As for his putting the Caſe, Malchus had been converted by St. Peter's cutting off his ear, and ſaying, this would not have excus'd St. Peter's act, which our Saviour ſo ſharply reprov'd, and threatned by periſhing with the ſword: In the firſt place (I humbly conceive) St. Peter was no Civil Magiſtrate: unleſs he that will not allow him to draw o e Sword here as a private Perſon, will admit the fine Monkiſh conceit of Ecce duo Gladii! behold here are two Swords, the Spiritual and the Temporal for St. Peter and his Succeſſors. And ſecondly, for his cutting of Malchus's ear, I ſuppoſe there is ſome difference, between the Magiſtrat's giving one an ear to hear with, or compelling one to hearken and liſten to reaſon; and cutting off ones ear, or ſetting one in the Pillory.

But all this, he ſays, in reference to compelling men to believe or conform, ſtill reſerving to the Magiſtrate power according to Scripture to puniſh evil doers, not evil believers, not who think, but do publiſh or do practiſe ſomething to ſubvert the Fundamentals of Religion, or diſturb the Peace of the State, or injure their Neighbour. God, the only ſearcher of hearts, reſerves to himſelf the puniſhment of evil thoughts, of evil belief, which man can never have a right cognizance of. And does he take all this pains only to put a fallacy upon us? and only to prove the truth of an old Adage, that Thought is free? And that no body can be puniſht in this world for his Thoughts only? or that it is all one for a thing not to be, and not to appear to be? But for all this, evil believers, if they profeſs their evil belief, plainly appear evil doers, and are to be treated accordingly: Though I ſpeak nothing more againſt them or their greateſt Speakers, than that they may be brought to our Churches, and give us a fair hearing.

Animadverſions upon his Appendix to the former Subject.

HIS Appendix to the former Subject begins with cenſuring the modeſty of our firſt Reformers, for their deference to the Ancient Fathers and Councils. We thank him for this reproach. Hereby (ſays he) they were reduc't to great ſtraits in their Diſputations. He ſhall find himſelf reduc't into much greater before we have done with him, for thus aſperſing and deſerting, both the Ancients, and the Modern Fathers (as I may ſtyle them) of this Church, and the Reformation. His reaſon for thus rejecting Antiquity is, becauſe ſome Popiſh Errors were crept very early into the Church. The Superſtition of the Croſs and Chriſm were in uſe in the ſecond Century. They were in uſe: but none were then allowed in any ſuperſtitious abuſe of them. As for the Millenary Error, and the Neceſſity of Infants receiving the Bleſſed Sacrament, (Errors indeed, but no Hereſies, and common Errors, but by no means to be charged on the Church Univerſal of thoſe Ages, which is but a Vulgar Error,) ſince the Papiſts, he confeſſes, reject them both, I hope theſe do not prove the Fathers Papiſts, nor yet Heretiques, that the Reformers ſhould balk them on theſe Surmiſes.

However this Reformer urges them where he thinks they ſerve his turn. St. Cyprian tells us, that every Praepoſitus, which we call Biſhop, is to be guided by his own Reaſon and Conſcience; and is reſponſible to God only for his Doctrine. St. Cyprian only ſays in the place which he means (though he is not pleas'd to quote it) that a Biſhop was Praepoſitus, and reſponſible to no other: that is, to no other Biſhop, and particularly not reſponſible to the Biſhop of Rome. But St. Cyprian never ſays that a Biſhop is not reſponſible to the Church, or a Council of Biſhops, which without any uſurpation have always taken to themſelves the authority of calling even Patriarchs to an account for their Doctrine: as that General Council held at Conſtantinople by the Emperour Conſtantinus Pogonatus, judg'd, and condemn'd five Patriarchs at once, and Honorius the Pope of Rome for one of them.

But St. Auguſtine believed it a direct Hereſie to hold there were any Antipodes. 'Tis true, he held there were none, and rally'd thoſe that held there was any ſuch thing: This was for want of underſtanding the Syſtem of the World, which in thoſe Ages few underſtood before the late Diſcoveries. But St. Auguſtine is ſo little guilty of believing it either a Direct or an Indirect Hereſie, that he ſcarce makes Religion at all concern'd in it. And if he touch it only as a point of Philoſophy, then his Reputation of Wit is as ſafe as that of Herodotus and Lucretius, and many of the greateſt Wits, that made as fine Burleſques as he, upon this opinion of Antipodes. But if ſo great a Divine as St. Auguſtine, and ſo great a Scholar as Lactantius were liable, to ſuch miſtakes for want of skill in the Mathematiques; Then why does this Author inveigh againſt that part of Learning for a Divine, in his preaching Chapter, p. 27. & 28?

He can't but wonder that men of any brains or modeſty ſhould ſo groſly abuſe this ſaying of our Saviour, He that will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican, ſpoken of private differences between man and man, to be referr'd to the Determination of the Church, that is the Congregation of the Faithful which they uſually and by order ſhould aſſemble in; and refer this to the Church in General, in matters of Faith, not in the leaſt pointed at there. He will have much ado to make us believe that a man is not bound to tell his Brother of Hereſie, a matter of ſo great Conſequence, and to tell it to the Church, if his Brother will not hear him; and yet prove that he is bound to do this, in matter of private difference, or petty quarrel between them. Wherefore (to borrow his own Concluſion of this matter) I paſs this over as very Impertinent.

And ſo is that which follows, I do not believe, nor am I bound by Scripture to believe ſuch Expoſitions as the Popiſh Church makes of this place, That the Gates of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt the Church. Who bids him believe the Popiſh Expoſitions? But if that place be not ſpoken of the Roman Church, therefore does it ſignifie nothing to prove the Viſibility or Indefectibility of the Catholique Church? But 'tis plain he advances the notion of a Church Inviſible, a Church that ſhall be driven into the Wilderneſs (where her Ninety nine Ceremonies are to be left to attend her) ſcarce viſible in the World: whereas the Learned underſtand that place of the Churche's Perſecutions the firſt three hundred years, which made it the more illuſtriouſly viſible: and our nineteenth Article calls it the viſible Church of Chriſt.

Now he proceeds to the buſineſs of General Councils, whether they may Err in ſome points of Faith? The Church of England acknowledges they may Err, and have Err'd in things pertaining to God. No doubt of it. But this Author immediately flies higher, with a why not in ſome points of Faith. All the Evangelical Doctors grant (ſays he) that the later General Councils have Err'd: if ſo, why not the former? what promiſe had the former from Chriſt more than the later? True, there is no more promiſe to a Council of the fourth Age, or to that of Nice, than to one that ſhould be held in the ſeventeenth, if it were as General and as free. He asks concerning this promiſe, The Gates of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt the Church, what's this to a general Council (which is) not the thouſandth part of the Clergy, nor the thouſand thouſandth part of the Church? We ſhall find him miſtaken in this Account at long running. Laſtly, he ſhews his charitable Divination, in foretelling how much more miſchief General Councils would have done, if more of them had been conven'd. But ſay you (ſays he) No General Council determin'd thoſe errors? Why? becauſe none was call'd about them: had any been call'd, who can doubt but they would have avow'd that in the Council, which they all taught in their Churches? This he ſays: but his Yea's and Nay's are no Oracles with us: For why ſhould they be, when a General Council is not ſo with him? Then preſently he humbly craves pardon for his bold preſumption: viz. of theſe hard ſayings againſt General Councils. And I as humbly beg leave to ſpeak for them in behalf of the Church of England, and the Law of the Land: both which I'me ſure I have on my ſide, and both give much deference to General Councils. The twentieth Article of our Church has theſe words, The Church has Authority in matters of Faith; And the Statute of the Land runs thus, (Eliz. 1. c. 1.) That none, however commiſſioned, ſhall in any wiſe have authority or power to order or determine, or adjudge any Matter or Cauſe to be Hereſie, but only ſuch as heretofore have been determined, ordered or adjudged to be Hereſie, by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the firſt four General Councils, or any of them, or by any other General Council, wherein the ſame was declared Hereſie, by the expreſs and plain words of the ſaid Canonical Scriptures, or ſuch as hereafter ſhall be ordered, judged, or determined to be Hereſie by the Court of Parliament of this Realm with the Clergy in their Convocation. But for all this we do not confeſs or acknowledge all or many of thoſe for General Councils, which they at Trent, or which Bellarmine is pleas'd to account for ſuch, a parcel of eighteen of them; But thoſe very few we count for General, which the Church Univerſal, before the unhappy breach between Eaſt and Weſt, receiv'd for General.

But now to unravel the skein which is much entangled and ruffled in his confuſed way, the diminutions he puts upon general Councils may be reduc'd to theſe three Heads.

1. That General Councils may err in points of Faith, becauſe they have no promiſe to the contrary. 2. Becauſe they want Numbers, even of the Clergy, being not the thouſandth part of them: and therefore (to put this Argument as far as ever it will go) are not truly General. 3. Becauſe of the prejudices they that ſhould ſit in Council would bring along with them; & then who can doubt but they would avow that in the Council, which they all taught in their Churches?

1. In anſwer to his firſt Exception, I premiſe theſe limitations. If by erring in ſome points of Faith, he means ſome points belonging to the Piety of Faith (as Divines uſe to ſpeak;) or to the Perfection of Faith, or remotely belonging even to the eſſence or neceſſity of Faith, and wounding it by far-fetcht Conſequences; I will not deny but even great Councils may poſſibly be circumvented for a time: yet I may ſafely venture (with our Learned & Pious Dr. Hammond in his Paraeneſis) to reckon it among the pio credibilia, or a thing piouſly credible (as we ſay) that God will not permit a Council truly General and Free to err in Fundamentals; which thus far only I preſume to explain, that God will never permit them to deny and declare againſt any Fundamental Truth, and much leſs to affirm and declare any Fundamental Errour to be a Truth, and leaſt of all to declare it a Fundamental Truth. And if this Author asks which of God's Promiſes give us encouragement to hope and believe this, I refer him to the Prophet Iſaiah, ch. 30. v. 20. And though the Lord give you the bread of Adverſity, and the water of Affliction; yet ſhall not thy Teachers be removed into a Corner any more; but thine eye ſhall ſee thy Teachers. That this Chap. is Evangelical will not, I ſuppoſe, be denied; and ſo is that Iſai. 54. 17. and every tongue that ſhall riſe againſt thee in judgment ſhalt thou condemn. If this be denied to be ſpoken of the Chriſtian Church, I prove it undeniably from our Saviour's application of the Context. And all thy Children ſhall be taught of God. It was then a Prerogative of the Chriſtian Church that her Teachers ſhould be driven into a corner no more; that is, be always Viſible, even when the Lord gave them the bread of affliction, that is, even in times of Perſecution, as the lawful Catholick Biſhops were never more Viſible than when the intruding Arrians, that were far enough from being Lawful Biſhops, perſecuted them away from their Biſhopricks, and drove their Perſons indeed into Corners; yet they held intelligence, and kept exact correſpondence with one another ſtill, and with all their Flock's that perſever'd in the Faith, and diſowned the uncanonical Arrian Biſhops. This they did by their Literae Formatae; by this method the Church preſerv'd in her Communion her own Members amidſt their Diſperſions, and before any General Councils, except at Jeruſalem held by the Apoſtles themſelves, though the greateſt Hereſies aroſe early; by this means they proclaim'd their Faith loudeſt of all, then when they were ſilenc'd and excluded by the Arrians from their own Pulpits; as the Sufferings which happen'd to St. Paul fell out rather to the furtherance of the Goſpel. So that his bonds in Chriſt were manifeſt in all the palace, and in all other places, and many of the Brethren in the Lord waxing confident by his bonds, were much more bold to ſpeak the word without fear; Phil. 1. 12, 13, 14. And if the Church has a power of Condemning in judgment every tongue that riſes up againſt her; I think this amounts to a promiſe, a glorious promiſe (and there are many ſuch) that all or near all the Biſhops in the Chriſtian world, ſhall never apparently fall from an Outward Profeſſion at leaſt of the Catholick Faith in Fundamentals, and profeſs the quite contrary Hereſies inſtead of them. And he that will not allow thus much at leaſt to the Church, muſt run into wild aery ſuppoſitions of ſheep without any ſhepherds, People without any Prieſts, a Church without any Orders, and as inviſible as the Leviathan makes it in his parallel between the Church of Rome and the Kingdom of Fayries. Thus ſar methinks this Author ſhould go along with me, for all his asking What's this to a General Council? for the promiſe was made to the whole Body of the Church; ſince even he acknowledges that the Gates of Hell would prevail againſt Her, if the Devil could ſo wound the whole Body of the Church as to deſtroy the Vitals, the Fundamentals. And if this be not a mortal wound to the Body, to loſe all its Paſtors and Teachers by their falling into formal and mortal Hereſie; then nothing at all can wound it deadly, but a total Diſſolution of all and every one of its members: and at this rate, this Author may fancy, as a certain great Enthuſiaſt did before him, that Himſelf alone might be the Catholick Church, and that it might wholly ſubſiſt in his Single Perſon. But he would fain avoid this inconvenience, though a General Council ſhould fall into ſuch Fundamental Errour, and perſiſt in it, becauſe Secondly (ſays he) 'Tis not the thouſandth part of the Clergy, nor the thouſand thouſandth part of the Church, which in the Scripture is always put for the whole Body of the Faithful, though of late it be tranſlated into quite another notion, and taken for the Clergy only. I anſwer, if the Church be always put for the whole Body, yet the Clergy ſure are the voice or the mouth of that Body, and God has promiſed Iſa. 59, 20. And the Redeemer ſhall come to Zion (to put it out of doubt that all this Chapter is Goſpel;) and unto them that turn from tranſgreſſion in Jacob, ſaith the Lord: As for me this is my Covenant with them, ſaith the Lord, my Spirit which is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, ſhall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy ſeed, nor out of the mouth of thy ſeeds ſeed, ſaith the Lord from henceforth and for ever; Farther I add out of the Author's own confeſſion, in his Chap. concerning Biſhops and Prieſts, The Church was always governed by Biſhops, that is by one, whatſoever you pleaſe to call him, ſet over the reſt of the Clergy, with Authority to ordain to exhort, to rebuke, to judge and cenſure as he found cauſe: no other form of Government is mentioned by any Author for fifteen hundred years, from the Apoſtles downwards. I make account then, that a General Council of Biſhops is, as Tertullian ſtyles it, Repreſentatio totius nominis Chriſtiani, a Repreſentative of all that are called Chriſtians, Inferiour Clergy as well as Laity; And what then if they are not the thouſandth part of the Clergy, nor the thouſand thouſandth part of the Laity? nay, to ſtrengthen his Argument, what if there is not actually met in Council the twentieth part of the Biſhops that are in the Chriſtian World? Suppoſe that all are invited with aſſurance of ſafe conduct to a place of ſecurity, and time enough allow'd for their convening, all which can never be effected without the conſent of Kings and Princes, and without that it never muſt be attempted: nevertheleſs, becauſe very many cannot poſſibly take ſuch a voyage, and muſt needs be abſent, it was never pretended to have the force of a General Council, till it was manifeſtly accepted by thoſe abſent Biſhops of the Church Univerſal whereſoever diſperſed, or at leaſt by the viſibly Major part of them, ſo that it might appear to any one at firſt glympſe (as they ſay) and without any ſcrupulous enquiry, which way their much greater number had declared themſelves. If there be ſtill a few Diſſenters 'tis inconſiderable, as what were ſeventeen Arrian Biſhops (for there were no more Arrians that were lawful Biſhops) in the Council of Nice, where there were three hundred and eighteen Catholique Paſtors, equal almoſt to the number of Servants bred up in the Houſe of Abraham?

I know not then what they mean that would evacuate and annihilate almoſt the whole authority of general Councils, by ſending us to Ortelius's Mapps or Geographical Tables, bidding us take a ſurvey of all the great Cathedrals or Metropolitical Churches, and then demand of us whether there were ever any Councils ſo Oecumenical from which above half the Biſhops of theſe Sees were not abſent? True; but if they were preſent upon their own Charges, and did but what would be certainly required and exacted of them there, or wherever they were; they muſt needs accept, ſubſcribe, recite, publiſh, and preach, and cauſe to be preacht over all their Dioceſes, the Decrees concerning the Faith, ſuch as the Nicene Creed or the Conſtantinopolitan: Nay, the Biſhops did many times ſummon Provincial and National Councils to ſit a little before and at the ſame time with the General, on purpoſe to ratifie and ſpread their Decrees. And if any Council was pretended to be General and Free when it was not ſo, as was the ſecond of Nice, which being overaw'd by an Imperious woman Irene, decreed Image-worſhip, Immediately two or three other great Weſtern Councils, as that of Francfort in Germany, and that at Paris, and the Britiſh Biſhops, declar'd themſelves openly againſt it. And Charles the Great himſelf wrote againſt it. Whilſt this exact Correſpondence was among all the Biſhops of the Catholique Church, and in every Dioceſe between the Biſhop and his Clergy, and all his Flock, then as one of the Fathers glories, If any man askt the way to the Catholique Church no Heretique had the face to ſhew him the way to his particular Church, as if that were the Cotholique. And thus although the Body of the Clergy be a thouſand times greater (as this Author obſerves) then any Council, and for this very reaſon for their unmanageable numbers, cannot be convened in one place, nor their Suffrages gathered, yet 'tis obſervable that the Univerſality or whole Fraternity of Chriſtians that were in the Apoſtles Fellowſhip or Communion, had honourable mention made of them and of their concurrence in the Letter of Deciſion from that firſt Apoſtolical Council in the Acts of the Apoſtles. And ſo the Legates of Princes and ſeveral Learned Prieſts and Deacons have been Aſſeſſors to General Councils, but no Voters there (for that were endleſs) & conſentiendo ſubſcripſere (that is) ſubſcribed their aſſent and conſent; therefore our Author is not to think it a Monopoly of ours, though the word Church be ſometimes uſed and taken for the Clergy only: for as I ſhew'd before, there can be no ſheep without Shepherds, ſo 'tis an equal abſurdity to imagine, that the Shepherds ſhould be preſerved without their ſheep.

But if he will grant any thing at all by way of deference to the Churche's Judgment, he muſt not talk to us of the whole Body, nor of his thouſands and thouſand thouſands, for fear of falling into the new oral-Tradition way, that rare invention of learning what is the Faith, by ſifting and finding out (if we can) what was held at all times, and in all places, by all the Midwives, and the Dry-Nurſes, and the Common People.

I come now to his laſt pretence againſt the Churche's Authority in General Councils, The Prejudices they that ſhould ſit in Council would bring along with them: and then who can doubt but they would avow that in the Council, which they all taught in their Churches?

This again is a piece of my Author's unthought of Popery, for the Papiſts are not able to endure Councils free and truly General, which never fail'd to ſwinge their Popes and their Popery too; that is, the Quinteſcence of it the Popes Supremacy: as no doubt they would condemn many other of their Doctrines and Practices, but that as there have been no ſuch Councils of later Ages, ſo indeed there was no ſuch Church of Rome in former Ages when there were ſuch Councils: and the Council of Trent has made their Church ſo quite another thing, that we may well retort them their own Queſtion, Where was your Church before Luther? Now ask them for any Decree of a General Council for praying to Saints, or worſhipping Images, or the like, if we reject the Council of Trent (as we would do the Aſſembly of Divines at Weſtminſter) they reply, the viſibly major part of the Church, both Eaſt and Weſt, have introduced it: and (as our Author expreſſes himſelf in another Inſtance) They all have taught it in their Churches, therefore if they met in Council, who can doubt but they would avow it? I deſire to remind theſe over-haſty Opiniators of that well known and remarkable ſtory concerning Paphnutius, at the Sacred Oecumenical Council of Nice: when the Queſtion was debated earneſtly there, Whether married Prieſts ſhould be ſeparated from their wives? or no? and when the Major part of Biſhops inclin'd to the wrong ſide, even to forbid them cohabiting any longer, the great Paphnutius ſtood up and ſet them right; proving the ancient Tradition or Cuſtom of the Church to the contrary: And with one Speech he turn'd the whole Council: for it is one thing to ſtrike at random, as commonly Polemical Authors do, or to oppoſe thoſe paſſages in their Adverſaries books, which are ready to fall of themſelves, and to paſs by thoſe which urge and preſs them harder; and quite another thing to keep one another to a point, till it comes to an iſſue upon the whole affair: But this can hardly be when two Controvertiſts are as far diſtant from each other in place, as they are in opinion. But if ſober, good and learned men were conven'd and met, prepared with ſtudy, not for a vain wrangle or victory, but for a mature deliberation to give ſuch an account of their Belief, that all might end in ſome fixt determination, after full conviction; If Praeſidents and Moderators were deſign'd, with one to do the office of a Prolocutor or Speaker, to ſee that all might be done orderly, and proceed in ſtrict and punctual form of Argument (a Method which this Author ſo often declares againſt, that he will not be this Prolocutor.) If the Ratiocinators on both ſides might have daies given them, to recal any thing that ſlipt inconſiderately from them, that there might be no lying at the catch (as they ſay;) If ſuch a Conference as this were protracted from time to time, till all were ripen'd for an iſſue; If there were ready at hand all books that would be of uſe, Fathers eſpecially, and Former Councils, and above all the Holy Bible placed upon its Throne (as it was the cuſtom to place it in Ancient Councils;) If I durſt hope to ſee but ſuch Council as this, then I would hope to ſee the Church reſtor'd to all her Ancient ſplendor and Serene glory. For I will but appeal to this Author (if we may compare thoſe great things with our leſſer affairs) if he has ever done any exerciſe at Divinity-Diſputations in an Univerſity, what a vaſt difference there is between ſitting in ones ſtudy and writing ſuch Pamphlets, as his and mine; and defending in the School a material Queſtion in Theology, where one ſtands a Reſpondent encloſed within the compaſs of his Pew; as Popilius the Roman Embaſſador to King Antiochus, made a circle with his wand about that Prince, and bid him give him a determinate anſwer before he went out of it. Which puts me in mind of a certain Pope's reply (and it was a very ſhrewd one) when he was importun'd to call the Council of Trent, he put them off a great while with this Anſwer, that he would not fight with a Cat in a Cupbord; meaning, he was loth to contend with all the Praelacy ſhut up together, for then he knew they would flie in his face; and ſo they did in the faces of his Succeſſors, notwithſtanding all their Artifices: whereas he could deal well enough with them ſeverally and at a diſtance; And it is no wonder at all, if the Biſhops of the Duffuſive Church are fain to ſuffer and groan under many of the Papal Abuſes, which they might eaſily remedy and reform, if they were protected (as they ought to be) by all Chriſtian Kings and Princes, in meeting and acting freely. But incomparably beyond any ſhort and curſory Debates (ſuch as our Diſputations in Univerſities muſt needs be) are the advantages of a free General Council (but Trent was neither Free nor General) to bring things in debate to a concluſion. I ſpeak now only of thoſe advantages that are in the nature of the thing it ſelf: what ſhall I ſay then of the Supernatural Aſſiſtances, from the Bleſſing of Heaven upon ſuch a Meeting? For though it be promiſed, Whereſoever two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midſt of them, yet ſure St. Paul ſtrengthens the Argument, 2 Cor. 4. 15. that the abundant Grace might through the thankſgiving of many, redound to the glory of God. For by parity of Reaſon, if the Thankſgivings, then the Judgments, and the Cenſures, and the Decrees of many, if not all the Governers of the Church, either met in one place, or afterwards conſenting to the ſame thing, muſt alſo redound to the glory of God. Whom therefore he diſhonours by Prophecying thus aforehand, that if any General Councils had been called, they would have miſcarried. And ſo I have done with his two firſt Chapters concerning Articles of Faith; upon which I have been the longer out of a juſt Indignation, to ſee a man in his Enthuſiaſtick fit threſhing of Fathers, and Councils, and Faith, and all into ſplinters. For what is behind, though he will ever and anon enforce me to make a ſevere reflection, yet it will hardly be capable all along of a ſerious refutation.

Animadverſions on his Chapter concerning Ceremonies.

I Have ſeen the Picture of an old Lawyer with this inſcription upon it, that for a time he was the only Serjeant at Law in England; and then he appeared at the Common Pleas for Plaintiff and for Defendant, and ſaid what he could ſay on either ſide with great indifference to both. So one would think this officious Advocate thought himſelf the only Divine in England, and that in this caſe of Ceremonies he had a priviledg of ſpeaking pro and con. But he quickly ſhews himſelf ſo earneſt a Pleader for one party (for ſo he magnifies himſelf to the Non-conformiſts in his Charitable Admonition, p. 64.) that he makes himſelf a party againſt the other. He begins this Chapter with condemning the Non-conformiſts for breaking an evident Commandment without as clear evidence from Scripture, (which he expreſsly affirms they have none, either againſt Church-Service, p. 22. or againſt the Ceremonies, p. 64.) to ſatisfie themſelves in a doubtful matter, which (ſaies he) without doubt is damnable. But he ends this Chapter with a long Speech he puts in our Saviour's mouth, pronouncing, as at the day of Judgment, the very Sentence of Damnation againſt the Governers of the Church, and Exacters of Obedience to its Laws: Had I mercy on you, and ſhould not you have had mercy on your fellow-Servants? with the ſame meaſure you meted, it ſhall be meaſured to you again. I tremble to go father. So do I tremble at this bold Harangue. But where are his Reaſons? Why, if Rational and Pathetical be all one, we ſhall have demonſtrations enough. But touch any of his flowers of Rhetorick, and 'tis hardly worth the while to ſtand ſtill, and ſee them fall in pieces of themſelves. Reduce his Declamation into form of Argumentation, and then he wi l make another Declaration (as we ſhall find one anon in his Chapter about Preaching) againſt Syllogiſms and Enthymems, and that Logick which diſcovers fallacies in Ratiocination, as clearly as Arithmetick does cheats in our other accounts.

Firſt then he flouriſhes in the Air againſt the Surplice. What wiſe and loving Father would put a Winding ſheet on his head to fright his weak and ſimple Child? A Similitude is not bound to run upon four legs (as they ſay) but this of the Windingſheet is ſo lame it has ne're a good one; for do we wear our Surplices (as the Turks do their Turbant) on our heads? I have heard indeed of one that wore his Surplice upon his heel: He was a kind of Halfquarter-conformiſt, and when he came into the Reading-pew where he muſt put on his whites, he uſed to hold up one of his legs behind him (like a Gooſe) and reſting it upon his Matt, he would hang the Surplice upon his foot, that he might be able to ſwear, he both wore the Surplice, and bow'd the knee at the Name of Jeſus. This man indeed did not take a courſe to fright the People with the Surplice. But now to ſpeak really (as this Author uſes to ſpeak) is a Miniſter in a Surplice a ſight ſo terrible, that any one ſhould be really troubled in mind at it? we read indeed in the laſt of St. Mark, that when the holy Women entring into the Sepulchre, ſaw a young man clothed in a long white garment, they were affrighted. But St. Matthew informs us, that his countenance was like lightning. No wonder then if they were afraid. 'Twas the habit wherein Angels by the will of God almoſt conſtantly appeared: The colour which our Bleſſed Saviour choſe when he entertain'd his particular Favourites with ſome gracious manifeſtations of his Majeſtatick preſence, and was transfigured before them: His rayment was white as Snow, beyond what any Fuller on earth can white it. Such Veſts the glorious Saints are deſcrib'd, to our underſtanding, to put on in heaven, as clothed there in pure white linnen. But after all that has been ſpoken and written heretofore in defence of the Surplice, if any ſtill are troubled in Conſcience at it (for that he means by frighting the weak and ſimple Children) we muſt tell them, They are afraid where no fear is: and the Pſalmiſt makes that no very good Character; And we muſt adviſe them out of the Apoſtle; Brethren, be not Children in Underſtanding, but in Malice be ye Children, but in Underſtanding be men.

But now he offers at a Reaſon for laying aſide the Ceremonies upon the ſame prudential conſideration that prevail'd with the Reformers from Popery to retain ſome of them: becauſe then the People were for them, but now they are paſſionate againſt them.

To this he firſt anſwers for us, and perhaps with more reaſon than he is aware, that many of our Flook are as zealous for theſe things, as others againſt them. It may be ſo, and I hope they are as zealous as they ought to be, for it is good to be zealouſly affected alwaies in a good thing, Gal. 4. 18. And we (ſaies he) had rather gratifie the obedient Conformers, than the Diſobedient Gainſayers.

And that the rather becauſe it cannot be gain-ſaid, but the obedient Conformers are very conſiderable too for their very Numbers, as well as for their exemplary Piety to God and their eminent Loyalty to the King. A certain importunate Mediatour (ſuch an one as our Author makes himſelf) for the Diſſenting Brethren, argued thus with a Reverend great Prelate. My Lord (ſaid he) Why will you give offence to ſo many of us by impoſing ſeveral things which your ſelves confeſs not neceſſary? Why (ſaid the Biſhop) and your ſelves confeſs thoſe things are not unlawful; O but (replied the Advocate) ſome of our Party think thoſe things unlawful, and ſome of ours (anſwered the Biſhop) think them Neceſſary (and for order and decency ſome Ceremonies ſure are Neceſſary.) Well, but cannot you perſwade your men (ſaid the Other)? and cannot you (ſaid the Biſhop) prevail with yours? So the Diſpute ended, nor was it indeed poſſible for any Solid man (granting that we do not clog our Communion with any thing unlawful) to ſay more for them, without ſpeaking againſt them, and confeſſing their weakneſs, or their wilfulneſs, that they could not, or would not be perſwaded. And if this be reaſon enough why they muſt be gratified and humoured in every thing, then it follows that only Knaves and Fools muſt govern the world.

Secondly I anſwer, if the Surplice with other things were (as he confeſſes) wiſely and piouſly retain'd by the Reformers from Popery, when probably many long nouriſh'd up in thoſe Ceremonies, would not have come into the Church, had all thoſe been caſt out; Then it would be imprudently (not to ſay impiouſly) done of us (who ought in purſuance of that moſt bleſſed work, the Reformation, to make it ſtill our aim and deſign to bring the Papiſts at home and abroad into the Communion of our Church) if we ſhould ſet them further off by turning out all our Ceremonies; ſeveral of which ('tis true) are theirs alſo; but many Ages before they were either theirs or ours, they were the Primitive Church's: and therefore to think them Popiſh for being alſo theirs, is as ſenſeleſs as to think there was Popery before Noah's Flood. And if the Church of England, which is now the terrour of Rome, and the glory of all Proteſtant Churches, be thus conſidered as a part (undoubtedly the beſt and happieſt part) of the Catholick Church, whoſe members are innumerable, nd all of them, both in the Greek and Latin Churches, nay in ſeveral of the Proteſtant Churches, eſpecially the Lutheran, are far more addicted to Ceremonies than we in the Church of England, and uſe almoſt all the ſame Ceremonies, and others like them; then certainly we ſhould give offence to almoſt the whole Chriſtian world (whereas we ought to give them none, though they were Jews or Gentiles) if we ſhould aboliſh all our Ceremonies. Then how ill does this Author argue in crying, the People, the People are paſſionately againſt the Ceremonies, and putting the buſineſs on this iſſue of counting Noſes?

But thirdly I anſwer, this is Trying the Church of England, as they did its Sacred Deſender in the name of the Commons of England, when they had not one in ten of their Party. Nay perhaps Diſſenters properly ſo call'd, are not in ſome Dioeceſes above one in twenty. Many abſent themſelves from our Churches out of pure Indevotion and Lazineſs. Many frequent the Meeting-houſes out of Curioſity, and many for want of room in their Churches and Tabernacles at London, or becauſe of their diſtance from their own Pariſh Churches in the Country. The ſtiff and irreconcilable Diſſenters appear to be a handful of men in compariſon.

And this I hope is enough to anſwer this old bug-bear-Argument ſtarted by thoſe that found out the trick of gathering hands, and muſtering up the Broom-men and the Chimney-ſweepers to cry no Biſhops.

Then he raiſes an Objection for us, and anſwers it after a faſhion. But you have no hopes of gaining him: you believe 'tis not Conſcience but Faction and wilful perverſneſs keeps him off. Oh! do not deſpair, believe better of him, &c. We are very far from Deſpairing, if good means be uſed, and the right courſe be taken. And we can hardly believe worſe of the Diſſenters, than this Author would make us believe of them; for p 24. this Author ſtyles them blind and wilful Separatiſts. And is it not apparently wilfulneſs and faction? I beſeech you, my Brethren, take heed of thus diſſembling with God and the World, or take heed of giving your ſelves up to the Deluſions of a miſtaken Spirit. And p. 65. 'tis moſt evident their Spirit ſavours ſomething of the Phariſee, the proud Phariſee. But whereas he is pleas'd to reinforce theſe Objections againſt the Diſſenter in our behalf, But you know it is ſo with him; (viz. that we have no hopes of gaining him, &c.) Indeed we know no ſuch thing; but the quite contrary, we know very many that have been as highly prejudic'd in their Education, and yet have ſubmitted afterward to clear Conviction, and are now very uſeful men in the Church of England.

But I take no pleaſure in giving this Author the mortification of anſwering himſelf by his own contradictory Propoſitions. That here which bears any colour of Reaſon, is only this, that we ſhould yield the more to ſave his ſoul: and we ſhould cover a multitude of our own ſins. I anſwer if that be true which he ſaies, and which I fear, that they do thus diſſemble with God, then to frame a new Law to ſerve their turn, is to countenance, and as it were eſtabliſh Hypocriſie by a Law. If they have cover'd their ſin, like Adam, and hide their iniquity in their boſome, this would but make them add ſin to ſin: and ſo inſtead of covering a multitude of our own ſins, we ſhall only follow a Multitude to do evil.

His next addreſs is to the Biſhops, with, Oh! my Fathers, my Fathers. But (oh! the pity of it that twenty ſuch Oh's will not amount to one Reaſon;) his humble requeſt to them is, that they would vouchſafe to read the fourteenth Chapter to the Romans. Since he is not pleas'd to draw any Argument thence into any form (and becauſe I ſhall meet him again pelting of this Text anon) my humble Anſwer ſhall be likewiſe by way of requeſt to him, that he would vouchſafe to read Biſhop Sanderſon's Excellent Sermon upon the third verſe of that Chapter, Let not him that eateth not, deſpiſe him that eateth, &c. That Biſhop I hope was no Perſecutor, and yet he plainly ſhews, that reſtraining ſome mens Extravagancies by good Orders, and requiring Obedience to thoſe orders, is not that which this Authour is pleas'd to call Reſtraining the Liberty of the Goſpel to the rigidity of their Diſcipline.

Then he bids us gravely to build our Church on a Rock, and not on the Sand of Ceremonies. And again, this is a very ſandy and dirty foundation. Our Church (God be thank't) is not now to be built, but upheld againſt ſuch as himſelf, who, like Her in the Proverbs, plucketh it down with his own hands. Who ever before wandred into ſuch an Extravagant Suppoſition, as if we made our Ceremonies our Foundation? yet, by his favour, as contemptible as theſe Materials are of Sand and Dirt, if every one may be allowed to pick out all the Morter that is made up of them, the Houſe muſt fall. But is not the Body more than Rayment? Subſtance more than Ceremonie? Little did our Saviour intend that ſaying againſt the Surplice. But (to follow this Author in his aiery race) what if the Body (that is the Subſtance) be more than Rayment, (that is than the Ceremony)? yet the Ceremony is not nothing. And if he takes away all the Rayment with his Naked Truth, he will leave it ſuch a Naked Church, without either Ornament, or Covering, that it ſhall never be able to hold out againſt the ſtorms with which he thunders and threatens us.

To his next fine mock at our Ceremonies, as if they were Novelties, and ſaying, that in thoſe great Storms, when the whole World of Jews and Gentiles were Enemies to the Church, there was not one of our Ceremonies to preſerve it. Firſt, I demand, Is it Reaſon the Church ſhould be as Unceremonious now in the times of her Settlement, as then in the days of her Perſecution? Now that there is a Church at the end of almoſt every mile, as then when there was hardly one in twenty miles? Now when the Soveraign Powers of the World ſpread their wings to cover and protect her, as then when they ſtretcht out their Arms to vex her? Now when Kings and Queens, her Nurſing-fathers, and Nurſing-mothers, bid her quit her Cave and ſhew her beauteous face in ſtately Cathedrals, as then when ſhe was fain to hide her ſelf in the Wilderneſs, and her Members were forc'd to wander about in Sheep skins?

But then again he contradicts himſelf to ſay there was not one of our Ceremonies in thoſe Primitive Times, for p. 10. he contends the Superſtition of the Croſs (as he very mannerly terms it) was in uſe in the ſecond Century. That the Croſs was uſed in Baptiſm very betimes (which is the only ſuperſtitious uſe we make of it) there are Teſtimonies enow. St. Cyprian's known words (de lapſ. in principio) are theſe, Frons cum ſigno Dei Pura, Coronam Diaboli ferre non potuit, Coronae ſe Domini reſervavit. Thoſe Foreheads which the Sign of God had purified (viz. in the Baptiſmal Ablution and Confirmation) abhorr'd the Garlands of Satan, and reſerv'd themſelves to be crowned by God: And the ſame Father again (Tom. 1. lib. 4. ep. 6. Pamelii) Muniatur Frons, ut Signum Dei incolume ſervetur. Arm your Foreheads unto all Boldneſs, that the Sign of God may be kept ſafe. A parallel place. to which is that of St. Auſtin (Tom 8. p. 262. E.) upon Pſal. 68. Frontoſus eſto: Quid times fronti tuae, quam Signo Crucis armaſti? (i. e.) Be not weak foreheaded (viz. in the Cauſe of God) why art thou afraid for thy forehead, which thou haſt arm'd with the Sign of the Croſs? For the Surplice, the Teſtimonies of St. Chryſoſtome and St. Hierome, that the Prieſts in the ancient Church officiated in white Veſtments, are well enough known. For kneeling at the Euchariſt, and bowing at the Altar, I give an account of their Antiquity, when he leads me to ſay more of them. If he wonders why I bring but three or four Teſtimonies for our 99 Ceremonies (as he calls them afterward.) I anſwer, there are but three or four Ceremonies that I know of; But for a need there are 99 Teſtimonies for them.

By this time he has ſpoken ſo much againſt the Surplice, that now he thinks it his part to ſay ſomething for it: and at the ſame time to tell us why he appears ſo great an Enemy to it; (for he confeſſes he is ſo) becauſe ſuch dirty naſty Surplices, as moſt of them wear, and eſpecially the Singers in Cathedrals, where they ſhould be moſt decent, is rather an intimation of their Dirty lives: and has given his ſtomach ſuch a ſurfeit of them, as he has almoſt an averſeneſs to all. This is a ſtrong Line and a weak Argument: Such another weighty exception to the Surplice, as was made by the merry Country Parſon, who call'd it a Rag of Popery: and when he was cited for it into the Spiritual Court, he made it appear by the Pariſh-book of Accounts, that their Surplice was bought in Queen Mary's days, and therefore it was truly a Rag of Popery, being worn all to pieces: But if the Pariſh would provide him a new one, he was ready to put it on the next Sunday. The honeſt man was diſmiſt with his Jeſt: But alas! our Author is in earneſt. Though a Laundreſs may anſwer this, as eaſily as a Semſtreſs might anſwer the other Argument. Mean time we can only be ſorry that he is ſo ſqueamiſh, and that his ſick fancy ſhould be ſo much too hard for his Judgment; for in the foregoing Sentence, he, in his own Judgment much approves a pure white Robe on the Miniſter's ſhoulders, to put him in mind what Purity becomes a Miniſter of the Goſpel. He much approves it, yet within the compaſs of ſix lines, he has almoſt an averſeneſs to all of it. But we muſt not change whatſoever is Ancient and Decent in our Church, as often as any one (whoever he be) pleaſes to change his note, and to acquaint us in the ſame breath with his admirable Sympathies and Antipathies to the ſame thing. His laying this ugly charge to moſt of us, that we wear ſuch dirty naſty Surplices, is to fling dirt enough that ſome might ſtick. As for the Singing-men in Cathedrals, if they are ſo much to blame, as he ſuppoſes they are, either for their dirty Surplices, or, as he intimates, for their dirty Lives, yet order may be eaſily taken, that neither of theſe (to follow his noble Metaphor) ſhall ſcape a ſcowring, without taking quite away either the Surplices or the Singing-men out of our Cathedrals. But if he follow the grain of this old thred-bare Fallacy, from the abuſes againſt the uſe of any thing, whither will it carry him? The Surplices in Cathedrals are commonly foul, therefore let them be taken away for ever: ſo the Cathedrals themſelves ſometimes are none of the cleaneſt, therefore (inſtead of ſweeping them) let them be pull'd down and taken away too.

His next Effort is againſt bowing towards the Altar; which in his own Judgment he allows and practiſes in ſome meaſure. Then, I hope, the thing it ſelf is not unlawful. No; but truly many of our Church men give great ſuſpicion to the People, that they alſo believe (as the Papiſts) Chriſt corporally preſent there. If we give this great Suſpicion, we give great Scandal, which is a great Crime in us, if it be true. But it is a great Scandal to ſay this of us, if it be not true. But how do we give this great Suſpicion? becauſe (ſays he) the Miniſter or the Reader does not only how once at his entring into the Church, but bows again as he has occaſion to paſs and repaſs by the Altar; Surely (ſays he, ſpeaking the Apprehenſion of the Vulgar) in reverence to the King of Kings he ſuppoſes there ſitting. What! even at thoſe times when there is no Communion? and yet at thoſe times there's the ſame bowing. This is demonſtration enough againſt ſuch an odious Suppoſition of our believing Chriſt corporally preſent there. We do not then give them this great Suſpicion: 'tis not a Scandal given, but cauſeleſsly taken. So, for any thing he has done upon this point, I may conclude it as he does, 'tis done with little or no Reaſon, and with a great deal of Superſtition.

He proceeds to that grand debated Ceremony (as he calls it, and therefore we muſt dwell the longer upon it) of kneeling at the Lord's Supper. And firſt, he honeſtly grants that we are to perform this act of Devotion with all poſſible Reverence. I ask no more. But he quickly nulls his grant: Is this (ſays he) to be expreſt altogether in the outward poſture of the Body? No certainly: nor altogether in the inward poſture and frame of the Soul: but in Soul and Body both together: or elſe, I trow, there is not all poſſible Reverence. Well, If outward Humility be the thing we contend for, we ought to ſhew it to our God in the humbleſt way, and that is by proſtrating rather than kneeling. Pray let them voucſafe to kneel with us before they talk of falling lower. Kneeling is a poſture of greateſt Reverence in theſe Weſtern parts of the World, where Proſtrating is not much in uſe: and 'tis a Geſture moſt convenient for the Devout Receiver, who as he kneels may abaſe himſelf to the Duſt, and again (with the Royal Votary) may lift up his hands to God, and may look up.

But he runs away with it for certain, that our Lord Chriſt adminiſtred the Sacrament, and that the Diſciples receiv'd it ſitting. And ſure he remembers our Saviour beſt, who doth every thing as he did, both in Subſtance and Ceremony; and ſo we find the Primitive Chriſtians did, &c. In anſwer to this I demand how does it appear that the Apoſtles receiv'd it ſitting? becauſe they ſate down to ſupper? But it appears from the Text, the poſture they us'd at Supper was alter'd before they communicated. St. John's words are expreſs, that Supper was ended, and that Jeſus roſe from Supper, and then waſht the Diſciples feet. Now the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alone without 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , where does it ever ſignifie the Lord's Supper? it ſeems that followed after it. So this Author can never bring the leaſt good proof from Scripture that they ſate at the firſt Euchariſt. Now for any one to faſten that upon Divine Revelation, which he has no ground to infer either from the written Rule or the Church's Teſtimony, what is it but adding to the Word of God? And then let me ask him his own Queſtion, p. 3. How they will avoid that curſe in the laſt of the Revelations, if they add to the words there written?

Sure I am that in whatever Poſture the Apoſtles were firſt admitted, which is uncertain, yet it was ſuch as wiſe and ſober men, and the cuſtom of the Country allow'd, as a Poſture expreſſing Reverence, becauſe (as this Author himſelf has ſet it down) Sure Chriſt would not have allow'd any unfitting poſture. In the mean time the Diſſenter cannot deny but that the words of Adminiſtration, The Body of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt which was given for thee, preſerve thy Body and Soul to everlaſting Life, are an excellent good Prayer. Now if they will not give us a reaſon why it is unlawful to kneel, I will give them a reaſon why it is ſimply unlawful (except in caſe of neceſſity, as for thoſe that lye on their Sick-beds, or the like, &c.) to ſit and pray ſolemnly, (for I ſpeak not of ſudden, ſhort, ejaculatory Prayers, but) I ſay, 'tis ſimply unlawful to pray thus ſolemnly to the moſt high God in a ſitting poſture; becauſe it is ſimply unlawful to pray moſt ſolemnly in an unpraying poſture, (if I may uſe ſuch a word). Therefore this Author is too liberal of that which is none of his own, in allowing, that a man may receive ſitting without any Irreverence.

But he tells us ſo we find the Primitive Chriſtians did. What does he mean? (for here he is ſomewhat obſcure) that the primitive Chriſtians receiv'd it ſitting? or that they did not alwaies receive it kneeling? 'Tis true, the Ancient Church many times receive it ſtanding, as all the fifty daies between Eaſter and Whitſontide, and on ſome other Feſtivals. There's a fair difference ſure between ſitting and ſtanding. Standing we find is a Poſture for Solemn Prayer in the Scripture: ſo is not ſitting. But let him ſhew, if he can, that the primitive Saints, on other daies, working or faſting daies, (for St. Auguſtin and St. Baſil both agree in witneſſing that ſometimes there were Communions on Wedneſdaies and Fridaies) let them prove, I ſay (or elſe they prove little to the purpoſe) that on thoſe daies, when they kneeled at the other Prayers, they ever roſe to receive the Communion ſtanding. For the Fathers tell us plainly, they forbore kneeling then merely out of an Exceſs of Joy. Moſt plainly Tertullian renders a general account why they intermitted all their ſtrictneſs, that is, all that might infeeble the Knees, or weary the Fleſh at this ſeaſon, Quid impedit, niſi neceſſitas gaudii? What hinders (ſaies he) but the neceſſity of Joy or Exultation? But 'tis certain the primitive Chriſtians were very far from ſitting at the Holy Euchariſt, which this Author raſhly concludes they did; for they did not at any of their Prayers or Religious Offices: much leſs at this the moſt ſolemn of all their Services. For Tertullian upon that Suppoſition which was generally receiv'd, that the Holy Angels were inviſibly preſent at the devout Prayers of the Church, or of good Chriſtians in private, to offer them up to God (not that he ſuppoſes thoſe Angels had any Prayers offered to themſelves, for all they were ſuppos'd to be ſo nigh at hand; as the Prophet Elijah, when he knew God's Army of Angels actually incompaſs't him round, yet praies to God, and not to the Angels, or any of the Captains of that heavenly Hoſt, that his affrighted Servant might have the Grace to ſee them, Lord open his eyes; And Abraham's Steward the good Eliazar, though the Prophet his Maſter had told him that God's Angel ſhould go along with him in his way, yet all the way he praies to none but to the Lord God of his Maſter Abraham; yet upon this ſuppoſition, that an Angel alwaies ſtood by whilſt men were devoutly praying, Tertullian) in his Book de Oratione cap. 12. is highly diſpleaſed with thoſe that offer to ſit down immediately after their Prayers are done: and how much leſs is that than to ſit at their very Sacramental Prayers? But I do not alledge Tertullian for this or that zealous Opinion of his, but as a Reporter of the Church's practice, and there where he is plain and full (as he is here) he may be allowed for a Demonſtrator in matter of Fact. And thus he declares himſelf in this place, which is not ſo commonly noted, againſt thoſe that did but ſit down at their eaſe juſt after their Prayers. Eo apponitur & irreverentiae crimen, &c. To this (ſaies he) may be added, that it is ſuch a criminal irreverence, as may eaſily be underſtood even by the Heathens themſelves, if they have any ſenſe about them; for ſure 'tis irreverend to ſit down under the view, and plac'd as it were over-right the view of that Perſon for whom you have the higheſt Reverence and Veneration, how much more is it not moſt irreligious to do ſo in view of the Living God, while the Angel that attended at the Prayers is yet ſtanding by; unleſs we have a mind to upbraid God that our prayers have tired us? But if we pray with Modeſty and Humility, we ſhall ſo much the more commend our Prayers to God. Now let Heaven and Earth judg, whether the primitive Chriſtians ſate at receiving the Sacrament or no? I ſhall make one Obſervation more upon this whole matter, that although comprehenſion be the only thing he pretends, yet there muſt needs be Toleration at the bottom of it. 'Tis true indeed that p. 23. though he deſires ſuch a form of Service, ſuch Ceremonies alſo to be eſtabliſht, as may give moſt general ſatisfaction, yet he deſires what is eſtabliſht may be generally obſerv'd, and not a liberty left (as ſome do propoſe) to add or detract Ceremonies or Prayers according to the various Opinions and Humours of Men: for certainly this would cauſe great Faction and Diviſion, &c. I ſuppoſe he means well here, but quite contrary to his own Principle, p. 19. where he treats about kneeling or ſitting at the Euchariſt, and concludes that in theſe things no man ought to obey till we can rectifie his judgment. Now ſuppoſe the Injunctions for kneeling were taken away, are we ſure that all they and we ſhould have ſuch rectified judgments on the ſudden, as to agree together about Receiving, either ſitting or ſtanding, or all in any one poſture? Nay, are we not morally certain of the contrary, that there could be no ſuch agreement? therefore he does well in adjuring us to admit them in any poſture, which is Toleration. Now conſider, pray, in this one point, what a Confuſion would enſue when in the ſame aſſembly, One might Receive the Communion decently kneeling: A ſecond (believing that to be Superſtition) demands it ſitting: A third (becauſe 'tis reported the Pope himſelf ſometimes receives it ſitting) judges that (as much better he may) to be Popery, therefore he will have it leaning or lying along, as he thinks the Apoſtles had it. A fourth would be better pleas'd with a running Banquet, becauſe the Jews eat the Paſsover in haſte; and becauſe they have it ſo in ſome places beyond Sea, every one en Paſſant. Would not (as St. Paul concludes in another caſe) any that ſhould come into ſuch a Congregation, think they were all mad? Oh! but if they come in ſincerity of heart, &c. He may well make an If of it. But if they are never ſo ſincere, yet alas! what's their, or our heart in compariſon of Chriſt's heart? and yet he kneel'd in ſeveral places, we read, and lifted up his Eyes, and lifted up his hands towards Heaven. And yet 'tis Superſtition in us to kneel at receiving the Body and Blood of Chriſt. But let us be tender and compaſſionate to our weak Brethren. If any tender Conſciences, that is (as he explains the word) weak Judgments (and I am not ſo uncharitable as to doubt but there are many ſuch) be ſeriouſly troubled at kneeling, we are heartily troubled too at their Diſcontents. We kneel to God, and pray for their Converſion and Satisfaction. We could even kneel to them that trouble them with vain Scruples, and pray them (with St. Paul) to ſtudy to be quiet. We readily offer our ſelves either to anſwer their Reaſon (would they bring thoſe could ſpeak it, or rather, write it in ſtrict form of Argument: which yet they would never do, but only make theſe Orations) or elſe if we could not anſwer it, then we would quit our Opinion, and embrace their's. But if they have nothing to oppoſe to us but only this, and if this ſuffices that they are offended at it; at this rate there can be no ſettlement in the World, either of Church or State. For they may deliver themſelves from all its Injunctions, if they pleaſe but to take a Caprice againſt them. This is aſſuming to themſelves a perfect Negative Vote againſt any Law, without giving any reaſon againſt it. If ſuch a Spirit as this be not deſtructive of Chriſtianity, nay, of all Civil Society, and the ready way to ſet the Heels above the Head; we underſtand not any thing.

He huddles up the reſt concerning other Ceremonies, Croſs in Baptiſm, Ring in Marriage, &c. ſlighting them all, and giving them up, without the leaſt ſhadow of an Argument: Except this be one, Wherefore I conclude (ſays he) this point of Ceremonies, with St. Paul, He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it, &c. So he that kneeleth, kneeleth unto the Lord, and he that kneeleth not, to the Lord he kneeleth not. Now do but examine this Concluſion, and whence he draws it. Conſider (pray) that regarding or not regarding theſe days, that is the old Jew ſh Holy-days (as preſently I ſhall make it appear) was neither commanded, nor forbidden by the Chriſtian Church, but left indifferent: Is kneeling at the Bleſſed Sacrament left as indifferent? is it not commanded by the Church? do not they that refuſe to kneel diſobey the Church? So then his Argument in the Parallel runs thus, He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it, &c. So he that kneeleth, kneeleth to the Lord, and he that kneeleth not, to the Lord he kneeleth not; that is, to the Lord he diſobeys the Church, and refuſes to kneel.

But I muſt needs take notice of his next paſſage, becauſe 'tis a pleaſant one, and becauſe he deſires us to obſerve it, how St. Paul in this place, Rom. 14. calls the zealous Obſerver of Ceremonial matters, the weak Brother, and commands the ſtrong not to deſpiſe him. So that now the Tables are turn'd, and we of the Church of England (our poor weak Mother, as this Author would make her) are the weak Brethren. But what (I pray) were thoſe Ceremonies which the Apoſtle thought it a weakneſs in ſome to Opiniator? Is it not evident they were the Jewiſh, out-dated Ceremonies? which the Apoſtle allowed them to Bury honourably, and therefore was con ented they ſhould fall gently, and ſink by degrees. Yet he was diſcontented at their untimely Zeal, that urg'd them ſtill as neceſſary, and obligatory upon the Chriſtians. He permitted them to have ſome regard to a day (viz. an old Jewiſh Holiday) and if they were over-fond of it, he charged thoſe that better underſtood their Chriſtianity, to bear with their weakneſs. But if they obſtinately perſiſted to Judaize, as if they were ſtill oblig'd to it, then he tells them, Galat. 4. 10. (a place undoubtedly parallel to that urg'd here, Rom. 14.) Ye obſerve Days, and Months, and Times, and Years, I am afraid of you. And to aſſure us he ſtrikes at thoſe who maintain'd the old Moſaick Rites, contrary to the new Chriſtian Ordinances, he, following the ſame thred of Diſcourſe, enters his Proteſtation, Chap. 5. v. 2. Behold, I Paul ſay unto you, that if you be circumciſed, Chriſt ſhall profit you nothing. Tertullian, one of the moſt Learned Fathers, (whoſe authority is great, where he reports) deſcants upon theſe paſſages of St. Paul ſmartly, and fully to my purpoſe. Then (ſays he) we do Galaticari, that is, act like the Galatians indeed, when we obſerve the Jewiſh Ceremonies and Legal Solemnities, for if the Apoſtle intended in this place to take away all devout obſervance of Days and Months, why (ſays he) do we celebrate Eaſter every year in the firſt Month? (that is, in March) why do we go about and carry with us Joy and Exultation, wherever we come for fifty days after? 'Tis apparent then, St. Paul calls them, and only them, weak Brethren, who having embrac't Chriſtianity, yet hanker'd after the Jewiſh Feſtivals and their other Ceremonials. Now to ſay that all Chriſtians, who contend for the keeping of the Feſtivals, and obſerving the Ceremonies of the Chriſtian Church, are guilty of Judaizing; and that all ſuch Ceremonies are to be aboliſht (all which if it be not ſaid, there can nothing be drawn from St. Paul to this Author's purpoſe) would be ſpoken almoſt as ſenſleſly, as was that ſaying of a certain weak Brother indeed, that Chriſtmaſs was a Jewiſh Ceremony aboliſht at the coming of Chriſt. Or to inferr (as this Author is pleas'd to imply) becauſe the Zealous obſerver of ſome Ceremonial matters is ſtyl'd by St. Paul a weak Brother, therefore all Zealous obſervers of any Ceremonies are weak Brethren? 'tis argued much at the ſame Rate, as another inferr'd, from ſome other words of St. Paul, Acts 17. 22. Ye men of Athens, I perceive that ye are in all things too ſuperſtitious. But Athens, (ſaid he) was an Univerſity: whence I conclude (ſaid he) that all Univerſities are much given to Superſtition.

What follows to the end of this Chapter, is ſo thin ſpread, that I cannot bring it all to make up any thing like one ſolid Reaſon; and it ſeems he is not ſtudying Reaſon, but Every man in his humour, for (he tells us) Man has a Will as well as a Reaſon, and will have his own Will in many things: Even the Godly. So then the Godly will have the Ceremonies down, becauſe they are our Will-worſhip (as they uſe to call it;) But they will have their own will, that is, they will ſet up a certain Idol, called Propria voluntas, or Self-will-worſhip.

For the overture he makes us at laſt of a New Sett of better Ceremonies one day, if we will part with theſe; though we beleve his Intereſt may do much with the Anti-ceremonian Party; yet we dare not truſt to that in this affair, becauſe he would have the New Ceremonies to be ſuch as ſhall be Edifying, but he does not conſider that ſuch would be Significant Ceremonies: which has been the great Objection againſt ours, ever ſince Biſhop Morton undertook their defence. So that if any be introduc'd in lieu of theſe, they muſt be Inſignificant, that is, Impertinent Ceremonies: Therefore without trying his Experiments, we deſire to retain thoſe we have already.

But with what Forehead does he charge us, in Chriſt's name, with proceeding ſo ſeverely againſt them in our Courts of Judicature, p. 20. and with our violent preſſing of Ceremonies, p. 21. which he humbly conceives hath been a great hindrance from embracing them; Men fearing our Intentions herein to be far worſe (that is, more Popiſh) then really they are? Whereas every body may ſee with half an eye, what patience and gentleneſs has been exerciſed towards this Party: and how that has embolden'd them to ſtand upon ſuch terms, and at ſuch a diſtance as amazes the Proteſtants abroad, thoſe at Geneva, and thoſe in France: as the Reverend and worthy Dr. Durell has made it ſufficiently appear from the Letters and Expreſſes of his Learned Correſpondents in thoſe parts. In ſhort, if there be no ſuch fears of Popery coming in, then has this Author written a dangerous Pamphlet to inſtill into the People ſuch dreadful apprehenſions of it, as of a thing almoſt unavoidable, unleſs this project of his can prevent it; and then there is not that danger which he ſuppoſes, of preſſing the Ceremonies, and ſtanding our ground: and if there be juſt fears of Popery coming in, then thoſe he Patronizes againſt any ſevere Proceedings, are men of exceeding honeſty and prudence to ſtand out all this while, and venture all, themſelves and all, by not coming into the Church of England; and if they have a reſerve to themſelves, that they will run into it one day; then is it well or wiſely done of them, to weaken the Fort, by pulling down as much as they can of it, when they mean to enter at laſt, and truſt themſelves in it?

But as he is blaming us for being ſo hard-hearted, and preaching to us not only Comprehenſion but Toleration, as I ſhew'd before, he has one expreſſion towards the end of this Chapter, p. 20. ſo extremely pleaſant, that I confeſs it inclines me after a great deal of dulneſs to no unpleaſant thoughts: That expreſſion of his is this; that We may break the heart-ſtrings of many in winding them up ſo high, and thus crack all their Religion: and perhaps we ſhould find it ſo our ſelves, had the Non-conformiſts the ſcrewing Us up, as we Them. Why, this of the Screw is neater Rhetorick than that of his naſty Surplices, or the Winding-ſheet, or the Nuts to an Ape, or that of knocking Faith into the head with a hammer, or that of a King leading on a Morris dance, capering and frisking moſt featly, when his Country was invaded. But although this Author declares himſelf not much a friend to any thing that is Mathematical, yet his cho ce Metaphor of Screwing up the Non-conformiſts as an Inſtrument of Muſick (as if we meant to make Organs of them) puts me in mind of a rare Engine, an extraordinary kind of Organ, which I have ſeen deſcribed in words at length, and in a Figure too a Braſs-cut, in Gaſpar Schottus the Jeſuite's Mathematicks, or Mag. Univerſ. To 2. l. 6. p. 2. rather Mechanical Tricks. He deſcribes (or rather borrows from Kircher, his brother Mountebank, the deſcription of) a Muſical Inſtrument found out (he tells us) by an Ingenious fellow, to divert a certain great Prince from a fit of Melancholy. So he took a company of Cats all of a different ſize, and conſequently (ſaies he) of a different Tone or Note: all theſe he put together into a kind of Cheſt that was fram'd for the purpoſe, and plac'd them ſo, that their Tayls ſhould be gently ſcrewed up through certain holes in a board; and ſo they ſhould be faſtned all along in a row, and Needles under their Tayls ſo diſpos'd or plac'd, that as the Muſician ſtruck the Keys, the Needles prickt their Tayls, which ſo nickt the Cats, when the Organiſt came to play a leſſon upon them, that ſtill as they were toucht they ſet up their Notes, ſome high, ſome low, according to their ſeveral Capacities: which made ſuch harmony (ſaies he) as made the Rats dance, and the men ready to burſt with laughing.

Juſt ſuch a Machine of a Church would this Author make us, as this Muſical Inſtrument, if inſtead of our Screwing up the Non-conformiſts (which we do not) or their Screwing us up (which once they did ſufficiently) he could ſcrew them into the Church, without more ado, by this Project of his for Univerſal Toleration (at leaſt of all, or very many Sects, except the Papiſts;) for by what he delivers, not only concerning the Ceremonies, but alſo concerning Articles of Faith, we may well conclude, that he would not only have the Presbyterians (who ſeem to ſtand out only upon Punctilio's of Ceremonies) but alſo Independents, Anabaptiſts, and I know not how many more Sects (if they call themſelves Proteſtants) taken into the Church: or rather into the Drag-net (as Biſhop Laney calls it in his Sermon about Comprehenſion) large and capacious enough to hold the Leviathan himſelf: whom this Author follows a great way in his Notions of Sufficient or Inſufficient Means for Peoples Conviction. And when all ſuch are received into the Church, what will they do but ſet up their Cries, and make their rude Noiſes in it, if any thing in it afterward happens to pinch them? Then inſtead of any Harmony or Concord, I doubt there would be nothing in the Church but ſuch a Diſcord, as would make us only ridiculous to all that come near us.

Animadverſions upon his Chapter concerning Church-Service.

HIS next diſcourſe concerning Church-Service is all of a piece with the foregoing one about Ceremonies; but one comfort is, 'tis not of ſo great length, and every whit as remarkable for ſhortneſs of Reaſon. Yet here, as he makes his entrance, he is a pretender to Reaſon; for he ſlights and paſſes by ſome, with whom he has no Reaſon to expect that reaſonable Arguments ſhould prevail. Is he then for Reaſonable Arguments? But he ſhould have added this Caution, Provided they be not deduc'd from Scripture, for you have ſeen he thinks it unſafe to make Deductions, that is to Reaſon, from thence. Well, he Suppoſes there is nothing in our Common-Prayer-book that is directly contrary to the Word of God (and I may juſtly ſuppoſe, till the contrary be proved, that there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God, either directly or indirectly;) and p. 29. He alſo Conceives it abſolutely neceſſary to have ſome Form preſcribed to be uſed by all, &c. But now, In Chriſt he humbly beſeeches the Governours of the Church calmly to conſider, Were it not better to have ſuch a form of Service as would ſatisfie moſt?

It is to be doubted, or rather 'tis out of doubt, that moſt who are ſo unſatisfied with this, are diſguſted with all Sett Forms, or would not be ſatisfied with any other. Therefore we muſt be excus'd from trying his trick, till he or ſome other Undertaker have corrected Magniſicat, and the People, the People (whom he would have ſo careſs'd) have declared themſelves ſatisfied with it, or elſe have ſubſcribed a Blank, to be ſatisfied with whatever the New Projectors ſhall introduce.

His next Pique is at our ſaying the Second Service at the Altar, which (he ſaies) was retain'd by the Fathers, and firſt Reformers from Popery, as carrying ſome reſemblance with the Maſs, the Peoples delight, which being now become the Peoples hate, ſhould for the ſame Reſemblance by the ſame Reaſon be taken away.

For our Reading the Second Service at the Altar, any one that can but read, and is not a mere ſtranger in the Old Liturgicks, knows that the Prayers were at the Altar, many whole Ages before Popery, either Name or Thing was heard of. Therefore, unleſs this Author knew the Reformers thoughts, he can have no reaſon to put it upon them (not at all for their honour, though he would fain have it ſo) that they preſcribed this as carrying ſome reſemblance to the Maſs, the peoples delight. Why ſhould he dream they did it to follow the Multitude in the Novelties of Popery, and not rather to follow the Primitive Church? I ſuppoſe the Reformers meaning in preſcribing the Prieſt's going up to the Altar ſtill, was to declare and teſtifie to the Chriſtian World, that the Church of England highly approves Communion upon all High Daies, as the Chriſtian Sacrifice of Commemoration, and the moſt Sacred Office in our Publick Worſhip: and as it was conſtantly uſed in the Ancient Church upon every Lord's Day, and every Solemn Feſtival. They would no longer allow the Prieſt to receive the Sacrament alone, becauſe there was no ground either in the Scripture or the Fathers for ſuch a Solitary Communion. The very terms ſound like a Contradiction: But for all that, the Refor ers from Popery kept up the Communion Service at the Communion Table, and ſo the Rubrick orders it ſtill, where the Place will bear it (for it muſt be confeſs'd, many of our Pariſh Churches are ſo built, that the Second Service cannot be audibly read from the Eaſt end: But where it can, there it ought to be) for a very ſufficient reaſon, that the mem ry at leaſt of Weekly (if not Daily) Sacraments might not be loſt: and that, if the Peoples Devotion could be raiſed again, which the Monkery of thoſe times had turned into the Formality of Communicating once a year (as the Roman Church requires no more of Lay perſons) then the Prieſt ſhould be in his ſtation to ſhew himſelf ready to Adminiſter, not only thrice a year (which is all our Church has thought fit to exact hitherto) but every Sunday and Holy-day. It were better then that we fell to our prayers and endeavours, that the People may be ſo well fitted and prepared to Receive, as the Primitive frequency of Sacraments may be reſtor'd, than to ſit and make wiſhes, that Reading the Second Service at the Altar may be taken away.

How conſiſtent he is with himſelf in that which follows in the ſame page, requiring Uniformity and Conformity after ſuch and ſuch Amendments, I have already diſcourſed, and ſhew'd it unpracticable even upon his own Principles. As for his varying the Phraſe, and ſaying that again p. 24. which he had ſaid over and over, that Certainly his Religion is vain, that would abandon the ſubſtance for want of the Ceremonies; which he acknowledges to be no way neceſſary; I anſwer, that certainly his Religion is as vain, if not vainer, that would abandon the Subſtance (as they do that are guilty of Schiſm) for the Ceremonies, which he muſt acknowledge to be no way Unlawful.

But his next Figure is a rare one. Surely a very uncharitable mind that would not leave ninety and nine unneceſſary Ceremonies, to bring one ſinful ſtray'd Sheep into the Congregation. An admirable Metamorphoſis! Ninety Sheep in the Text, turn'd into Ceremonies by this Commentator. And would the Author of Naked Truth have all theſe poor Innocent Lambs, otherwiſe call'd Ceremonies to be left naked and ſhivering in the Wilderneſs? But (as one reply'd upon the like Expoſition of another Text, Nonne ſunt decem Mundi? Engliſh'd by one, Are there not ten Worlds?) Sed ubi ſunt Novem? Where are the Nine? much leſs Ninety nine Ceremonies. Sure he muſt take in all the Ceremonies at Court, and the Inns of Court, the Serjeants Coifes, and their Mens party-colour'd Coats, and all our Univerſity Ceremonies; (for we ſhall ſee anon, he is no great admirer of Univerſities;) all theſe put together will hardly make up Ninety nine Ceremonies, though we take in the Batchelor's Hoods and Lambskins: and why muſt theſe be expoſed to be devoured by Wolves? And yet we will go as far as he to bring one ſinful ſtray'd Sheep into the Congregation, and convert him from the error of his Non-conforming waies; and therefore he does ill to reflect upon us thus, Yet theſe men will moſt paſſionately (and pardon me if I ſay, moſt uncharitably and irreligiouſly) cry, Away with theſe Idiot-Sectaries and Phanaticks: let them wander and periſh in their own wild Imagination: We will not leave one Ceremony, nor any one line of our Common prayer-book to gain Thouſands of them. No, if you alter that, we will rather leave the Church and go the Papiſts Maſs. Whoſe words are theſe, but his own? Which of us ever ſaid ſo? therefore to retort him part of his own Cenſure, this is ſaid Paſſionately, I will not ſay, as he ſpeaks, Uncharitably and Irreligiouſly.

After he has Complemented both Parties, calling us, too zealous Ceremoniſts; Them, blind and wilful Separatiſts; He takes his leave: aſſuring us, that after our charitable Condeſcention, their Populous (I ſuppoſe he means Popular) pretences will be ſo confuted, their mouths ſo ſtopt (or open'd to ask the more, but that's all one;) as for mere Shame, if not for Reaſon or Religion, they muſt come into the Church: and their Paſtors coming in, the Sheep will follow. (Alas! it is rather the cuſtom of theſe Shepherds to follow the Sheep, whatever Toy they take.) So the Shop-prating Weavers will ſoon be deſerted, ſeeing their own Naked Folly; (ſomewhat akin to this Author's NAKED TRUTH).

Animadverſions upon his Chapters concerning Preaching, Confirmation, and Church-Government.

I Knew a Scholar, a man of Wit, but no very hard Student, that quickly after the Church was reſtor'd, would needs become an Author upon this Subject, How neceſsary all the parts of Univerſity Learning are for a Divine. One of his Books he preſented to an Eminent Perſon, who told him pleaſantly, that he was extreme happy in the choice of his Subject, for he could not fail to demonſtrate effectually, whether he writ upon it Learnedly or Unlearnedly, what need a Divine had of Univerſity Learning. Our Author in his Chapter upon Preaching has very ſufficiently prov'd the ſame thing, even where he makes it his buſineſs to prove the contrary. Little did we think at this time of day to hear of a Second part of Mr. Dell againſt Univerſities. The two Authors have many Expreſſions in them ſo exactly parallel (if it were worth our while to ſet them in two Columns, over-right one another) one would ſuſpect the Junior of the two for a Plagiary.

Yet have I no quarrel to him for his blaming that way of Preaching, upon this or that nice Speculation, or that way of keeping alwaies in Univerſals, and never coming to Particulars, the Duty between Man and Wife, Parents and Children, &c. or that way of Dividing and Subdividing into Generals and Particulars, the Quid, the Quale, the Quantum; though he will find, if he looks abroad, that this is at a very low ebb, and the Tide runs now another and a better way. We care as little as he for a witty Rhetorical Harangue, or a cunning Syllogiſtical diſcourſe in the Pulpit: and 'tis almoſt as ill a Character as can be given of a Sermon, or a Catechizing, to be ridiculouſly Learned: yet to talk, as this Author does, as if Univerſity-Learning were unneceſſary to a Preacher, is to be ridiculouſly Ignorant of the uſe, or rather the neceſſity of it as matters ſtand. He beſeeches us to tell him, Did not Chriſt and his Apoſtles preach the beſt way? and are not we to follow their example? And I beſeech him to tell me, Do not many good Divines preach the ſame way, as far as it ought to be followed by thoſe that only ſit at the Apoſtles feet? that is, Do they not with all plainneſs prove from Scripture all that they deliver as God's Word? This is our Unapoſtolick way of Preaching (as he calls it) the vain unediſying practice we now are in. Indeed we have no Miracles at command to prove what we ſay (as the Apoſtles had) and therefore muſt do it by Reaſon, which ſerves us to prove the Apoſtles did ſuch Miracles: and that again rationally demonſtrates the Scriptures to be God's Word: and then by the Teſtimony of the Church in ſeveral Ages (beſides the underſtanding we muſt have of all the Internal Arguments for it;) we muſt be able to ſhew that theſe are the Books of Scripture: and after all this, the ſame Reaſon muſt be employed to eſtabliſh the true ſenſe and meaning of them. In order to theſe great Ends, Reaſon muſt be improved by the ſtudying of Arts, Sciences, and Languages; unleſs we had all theſe infus'd as we needed them, we muſt acquire them. Therefore his Argument is ſo far from holding good, God thought the gift of Tongues needleſs after the Goſpel was once ſpread over the World: I pray let us be no wiſer than God and his Chriſt; that is, Let us think the ſtudy of the Languages needleſs: (for that he means, or nothing:) Yea, ra her the ſtudy of Tongues is therefore neceſſary becauſe the Gift is ceaſt, and they cannot be had without ſtudy: For the certainty of the Chriſtian Religion, and the verity of the Original Scriptures cannot be defended without a go d meaſure of skill in the Languages, Arts and Sciences, which every one that is not unworthy to wear the Name of a Divine, ſhould be competently able to do. Thus much the Apoſtle St. Peter (1 Pet. 3. 15.) requires, even of the Laity in their degree, that they be ready alwaies to give an Anſwer to every man that asketh them a reaſon of the Hope that is in them. Now (to ſum up the Argument) where is it almoſt poſſible for theſe Acquiſitions to be made, except in Univerſities? Therefore we are ſtill in that vulgar Error which he taxes as the General Opinion, p. 27. that (except ſome very few extraordinary Inſtances to the contrary) none are fit to be admitted into Holy Orders, but ſuch as have ſtudied in the Univerſity.

But I beſeech you (ſaies he in the ſame page) what have theſe Sciences (falſly ſo call'd) to do with the Goſpel? and he inſtances preſently in the Mathematicks as a Science (it ſeems) falſly ſo called. His quarrel at the Jeſuites in China, I muſt needs ſay, is an idle one, for recommending themſelves to the King and his Courtiers by the Skill ſome of the Society, whom they ſent for, had in the Mathematicks: Whereas their Errand thither was to preach the Goſpel. What of all that? are theſe ſo Heathen-Studies, that they are not to be tolerated even then, when they help to introduce Chriſtianity? But he ſeems to have the ſame compaſs of underſtanding in theſe Arts and Sciences) (falſly ſo call'd you muſt think) that a certain old Head of a Houſe had, who coming one day by chance into the Colledge-Library, and finding there an ingenious young man reading Chriſtoph. Clavius (the Jeſuite) upon Euclid, Now a ſhame take thee (ſaid he) why doſt thou not get thee ſome Proteſtant Mathematicks?

But ſincence his greateſt Pique is at Logick, and he can never leave inveighing againſt Syllogiſms and Human Deductions, and ſtill he is rating off his Preachers from Plato, Ariſtotle, Euclid, Scotus, Aquinas (ſo he puts them together, p. 28. very Chronologically) and then very Logically contradiſtinguiſhes Mathematicks, Logick, Phyſick (whether Medicine or Natural Philoſophy) to Gravity, Sobriety, Meekneſs, Diligence, and the like. I ſhould not ſufficiently acquit my ſelf in the Defence of Univerſities (which I have undertaken, for the Church of England no where looks more hopefully than in the Univerſities) where the faculty of diſputing is ſo well taught, as it can hardly be learnt any where elſe, if I ſhould not vindicate this Faculty from being that, with which (he ſays p. 15.) God will not endure to be fetter'd, as with Philoſophical Sophiſms and Human Conſequences, but beyond his promiſe (I ſuppoſe the very words of any Promiſe, as he explains himſelf, ipſiſſimis verbis) he is not ſure of any thing, though it ſeems ever ſo rational. It were in vain to produce St. Auguſtine's Teſtimony (l. de Ordine c. 17.) where he praiſes Logick, for he was one of the Fathers who by this very means defaced and ſpoiled Chriſtianity. And I know not whe her Biſhop Davenant have any better Credit with him, who in his Learned Commentary on the Coloſſians, Chap. 2. falls into the ſame Hereſie, and beſtows great Commendations on that Noble Art or Science. Perhaps it will be to no purpoſe to put him in mind that our Bleſſed Saviour was pleas'd to be a kind of Quaeſtioniſt (as our Univerſity Statutes call young Logicians) when he diſputed with the Doctors, being himſelf but twelve years of age. And if I ſhould tell him of St. Stephen's diſputing with certain of the Synagogue of the Libertines, who were not able to reſiſt the Wiſdom, as well as the Spirit by which he ſpake. Or if I ſhould urge the Example of Apollos an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, as well as fervent in ſpirit, who mightily convinc't the Jews, and that publickly, ſhewing by the Scriptures that Jeſus was Chriſt: that is (no doubt) by deductions from Scripture; Perhaps he would phancy ſtill that they us'd ſome other Logick than what we ſtudy at Univerſities, for which we are ſo much beholding to ſome Heathen Philoſophers, as if it were for the Honour of Chriſtian Religion, to have a Logick made on purpoſe to juſtifie its Doctrines, and as if it were not much more for its Honour to be able to maintain thoſe Doctrines by the ſame ſtanding Rules which all the World, even the Heathen World, found out and eſtabliſht, as immediately founded upon Natural Reaſon. I will therefore ſhew him that Chriſt and his Apoſtles did many times Argue explicitly in Mood and Figure: and ſometimes only ſo implicitly, that Men may be damn'd for not making ſuch Deductions as they ought to make from Scripture. As in St. John 8. 47. our Saviour tells the Multitude, He that is of God, heareth God's words; ye therefore hear them not, becauſe ye are not of God. 'Tis a Syllogiſm in the fourth Mood of the Second Figure, and runs thus:

Whoſoever is of God hears God's words: But ye do not hear God's words; Therefore ye are not of God.

St. Paul, Heb. 12. 7, 8. Argues in the ſame Mood and Figure.

Every Son is chaſtned by the Father: But ye are not chaſtned by the Father; (on ſuppoſition that they would not endure to be ſo) Therefore ye are not Sons: that is, ye are Baſtards.

In the 22th of St. Matthew, Chriſt in his Diſpute with the Sadduces calls that Siripture, which was only a Rational deduction from Scripture: and they are pronounc't by our Saviour to err and not to know the Scriptures, which did not know how to collect a true Inference from Scripture, though they knew the Words well enough. And yet our Saviour's Argument cannot be explicated without two or three Syllogiſms, which may be theſe.

1. God is the God of the Living: God is the God of Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob; Therefore Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob live.

2. They that live not now in their Perſons, but live unto God, muſt be raiſed from the Dead: But they (viz. Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob) that live unto God, live not now in their Perſons; Therefore they (viz. Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob) muſt be raiſed from the Dead.

3. They that now live only in their Souls, live not now in their Perſons: But they (viz. Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob) now live only in their Souls; Therefore they (viz. Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob) live not now in their Perſons.

Now what if the propoſitions of ſuch a Syllogiſme happen to be disjoyn'd in the Scripture being about the ſame matter? is it not lawful and ſafe to put them both together, and make the Deduction? For Example, a great Divine (who is now a Reverend Prelate, the preſent Lord Biſhop of Ely) was arguing with a Perſon of Honour and Learning of the Romiſh Perſwaſion, againſt Tranſubſtantiation; and in that Diſcourſe the Doctor ask't him, If the Subſtance of the Bread and Wine remain'd no longer, but was done away, then what did the wicked eat and drink, that eat and drank unworthily? nothing but Accidents? The Nobleman anſwer'd, That they eat the Body, and drank the Blood of Chriſt. Whereupon the Doctor urg'd him with this Syllogiſme:

Whoſoever eats the Fleſh of Chriſt and drinks his Blood hath eternal life, abiding in him, Joh. 6. 54. & 56. But no Murderer hath eternal life abiding in him, 1 Joh. 3. 15. Therefore no murderer eats the Fleſh of Chriſt, and drinks his Blood.

The Major Propoſition is Chriſt's own words; the Minor is the Apoſtle St. John's words; the Syllogiſm is true in the form, as well as in the matter; therefore the Concluſion is firm and certain. But that Honourable Perſon ſmil'd, and ask't the Doctor (in this Author's way) Whether he would have him build his Faith upon Syllogiſms? As if a true Syllogiſm, both for matter and form, were any thing elſe but true Reaſon: And as if any part of our Faith were (not only above our Reaſon, but) unanſwerably contradictory to Reaſon, and to the rules of Reaſoning. Sure if the Apoſtle prays for a Deliverance from unreaſonable men, for ſome men have not Faith; implying that ſuch men as have not Faith are unreaſonable in that, (however rational they be in other affairs); Then we may ſafely and truly convert the ſenſe of that Propoſition, and conclude, this or that (as Tranſubſtantiation in the Caſe before us) is indeed unreaſonable, therefore it ought to be no part of ny man's Faith.

A thouſand more ſuch Inſtances may be raiſed out of other Texts, but theſe may ſuffice. This is that which St. Paul calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to convince Gainſayers, the very word of Ariſtotle, which is honour enough for that Philoſopher.

If he had his wiſh (which is ours as well as his) that only grave, diſcreet, and conſcientious Perſons we e put into the Miniſtry: then he foreſees, and foretells that many Perſons of good rank and eſtate, would think it no diſhonour, but rather an high honour to enter into it, as they did in the Primitive Times. Though we cannot ſhew ſo many Heroick Examples of this kind as were in thoſe bleſſed times, yet, thanks be to God, many perſons of good rank and eſtate do think it no diſhonour to be Clergy-men: and perhaps there were never ſo many well-born men in the Church ſince the Reformation, though he takes no notice of it, but rather implies the contrary, that men of Quality count it a diſparagement to be in Holy Orders. He might conſider that two of our greateſt Prelates are Sons to Peers of the Realm, and that my Lord's Grace of Canterbury my L. Biſhop of Wincheſter, and my L. Biſhop of Hereford (beſides ſeveral other Biſhops) are Gentlemen of ancient Families, and Honourable Names in this Kindgom: and always muſt be. Of ſuch as theſe, the Prefacer to Mr. Herbert's Country Parſon ſpeaks thus, with holy and lofty Eloquence; Theſe Noble Perſons ſo excellently qualified with Vertues, Learning, and Piety, by bringing along with them into the Church, the Eminency of their Birth alſo, have caſt a luſtre upon the Clergy, as greater Starrs help to brighten up their leſs ſhining Neighbours: and have advanc't their Chriſtian Prieſthood to the height it was at, under the Law of Nature, when it was the hereditary Honour and Prerogative of the Firſt-born, or chief of the Family, to be the Prieſt of the moſt High God.

But whether Univerſity men or not it matters not, ſo as fully inſtructed in the Doctrine of the Goſpel by ſound Commentators. And, why matters it not? Where are they like to be ſo fully inſtructed in the Doctrine of the Goſpel? or even in ſound Commentators (if they are all in all with him) as in Univerſities? But, I ſuppoſe, he means ſome Engliſh Commentators, ſuch as the Aſſemblies Notes: for Dr. Hammonds will miſlead them concerning Epiſcopacy. For ſuch as were never Academians, the Latin they bring from School, together with ſome Hebrew, and little or no Greek, will hardly carry them farther, except into ſome renowned Poſtillers. Yet theſe are the men whom he would ſet up to Preach, with that which he calls the Demonſtration of the Spirit. By which I cannot gather what he means from all that he ſpeaks, unleſs it be to ſpeak (as he does) Magiſterialy: But that that is not to ſpeak with Demonſtration of the Spirit, I refer him to the firſt part of the Friendly Debate, where that is clear'd ſufficiently.

But, to return to the point we were upon, the Intereſt of Univerſities, Would he have Men of Quality come into the Church, and not be capable of its higheſt Dignities? And would not this be a rare Breeding for ſuch as ſhould be deſign'd for our greateſt Dignitaries and Praelates, never to come near either of the Univerſities, but to live in the Country poring upon his Commentators? A good way indeed to make them Gentle-Readers; as he tells us, Julian the Emperour's Kinſman, and afterwards Emperour himſelf, was admitted a Reader in the Church: or for a need, to make them ſuch Lecturers as he is forming in this Chapter: or ſuch, as one verily thought King Henry the Eighth had been, when reading his Life as it is written by my Lord Herbert of Cherbury; inſtead of the words of the Noble Hiſtorian, which are theſe (p. 2.) His Education was accurate, being deſtined (as a Credible Author affirms Concil. r d. l. 1.) to the Arch-biſhoprick of Canterbury, during the life of his elder Brother Prince Arthur, he miſtook and read it, His Education was a Curate, being deſtin'd to the Arch biſhoprick ef Canterbury.

For Confirmation, he is in the right where he urges the Neceſſity of it: And perhaps not much in the wrong, where he propoſes an Expedient for the Biſhop to appoint ſome diſcreet Conſcientious Miniſters (as our Deans Rural ſhould be) in ſeveral Circuits to examine. Though 'tis a little hard that he will not truſt every Pariſh-Prieſt with Examining, praeparatory to Confirmation, when he makes them one and the ſame Order with the Biſhops themſelves. But whereas he adds, to Examine and Licence to the Lord's Table; (for I paſs it as granted, that Confirmation is no Sacrament;) ſo do I take it for granted, that 'tis not only a Licenſe to the Lord's Table, and to think it is only ſo, is to run into one extreme of ſpeaking too meanly of it to avoid the other of ſuch as call it a proper Sacrament. For by his favour, our Youth may receive the Sacrament before they are Confirmed. To what purpoſe then does he put the caſe ſo tragically againſt the Biſhops? It may often happen (ſaies he) that a pious Child, well fitted for the Holy Sacracrament, and perchance being weak, earneſtly deſires it before his death, yet muſt ſtay ſome years till next Viſitation, or take a long journey to the Biſhop, for which he may want ſtrength or means to ſupport him. No, his pious Child need not ſtay ſome years, nor yet ſome hours for the Sacrament, nor travel any farther than the Rubrick (which one would think this Author never ſaw;) the words of which are theſe, And there ſhall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until ſuch time as he be Confirm'd, or be ready and deſirous to be Confirm'd.

It is indeed not poſſible for a Biſhop in a large Dioceſs and Triennial Viſitation to perform this Neceſſary work as it ought, if there have not been good Catechizing and praevious Examinations: but (ſuppoſing thoſe) Why may not Prieſts, nor Biſhops, perform it? And why muſt Confirmation be taken out of the Biſhop's hands upon this wild account? When St. Philip had converted Samaria, Acts 8. 15. whilſt the Apoſtles were at Jeruſalem, can we think, when ſome of them came thither, that they Perſonally examin'd all the People in that place, who with one accord gave heed unto thoſe things which Philip ſpake? And yet they laid their hands on them, being I preſume well ſatisfied with Philip's account of them, and they received the Holy Ghoſt. For Philip's Examination of them was in order to Baptiſm, and after that it was uſual to adminiſter Confirmation, and the Euchariſt alſo to Adults at the ſame time.

For his Exception at Baptizing, tolerated in Neceſſity to Midwives; and he would gladly ſee any ſuch thing in Antiquity. Tolerated by whom? by the Church? Pray let him look upon the Rubrick concerning Private Baptiſm before he writes again, where the words are theſe, Firſt let the Miniſter of the Pariſh, or in his abſence, any other lawful Miniſter that can be procured, with them that are preſent call upon God. Yet were Tertullian now alive, who knew the Cuſtomes of the Ancient Church as well, I ſuppoſe, as this Author; he would not have cenſur'd our Church for Tolerating ſo much in that point: For ſure he goes much farther, and will ſhew him ſomewhat more than this in Antiquity, in caſe of Neceſſity (ſuch a Neceſſity they did believe of Baptiſm) his known words are theſe, that in ſuch a caſe, Quilibet Laicus ting it. And I know not in this caſe, and according to this Author's Principles, what a Lay-man can do more than a Woman.

For the great things he ſpeaks of the Power of the Keys in his Chapter of Church-Government, they are well and truly ſpoken: but ſo is not that which follows, Yet this is in a manner quite relinquiſht to Chancellors, Lay-men, &c. The Church perhaps was never happier ſince the Reformation in men of this Profeſſion, that fill up thoſe places with great Ability and Integrity, and I add, with great deference to their Superiours the Biſhops. No doubt they are moſt capable to examine and declare upon matter of Fact, whether or no this or that perſon have done the fact, to which the Canon has decreed Excommunication: but they underſtand too well to think they have the Power of the Keys, wherefore the Sentence (where things are regularly done) is pronounc'd by a Prieſt, not by a Lay-Chancellour. And his Similitude of the Pariſh-Clark jingling the Keys when the Rector has lockt any one out of the Church, to which he likens thoſe proceedings in the Spiritual Court, is a Jingle it ſelf and no better. You will anſwer me (ſaies he) The Biſhops themſelves paſs it over, &c. Truly in this you have reaſon, and the blame muſt wholly light on them. No, I will not anſwer him ſo, but I will ask him one plain Queſtion: Are the Biſhops wholly to blame, that the Canons of 1640 are not obſerved, which make abundant proviſion againſt ſuch Abuſes? or rather, Are not thoſe to blame who explode theſe Canons?

He tells us, that in the times of Popery, when Spiritual and Temporal affairs were all intermingled and horribly confounded, the Biſhops were frequently Lord-Keepers, Treaſurers, Chief-Juſtices, Vice-Roys: and what not? which is ſtrangely Unapoſtolical and unlawful. No men were greater Bleſſings to their times, even in thoſe times of Popery when they ſat at the Helm, than the Biſhops. 'Twas Biſhop Morton's Induſtrious brain that made up the Fatal breach, and United the two Houſes of York and Lancaſter, in the happy marriage between King Henry the Seventh and the Lady Elizabeth; and it was under the Miniſtry of Biſhop Fox, who was Lord Privy-Seal, and by his reaching Parts, that the grounds were laid for a more happy Union between the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland in that Marriage, which was deſign'd with a deep and long train of memorable Policies, that the eldeſt Daughter of Henry ſhould marry James of Scotland, and the younger ſhould ma ch into France, that ſo if ever they ſhould come to inherit, Scotland might be the Annexe to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, and that England might never be in the nature of a Province to France. In the Old Teſtament there are Examples enow of Prieſts that were Miniſters of State; thoſe I confeſs were Unapoſtolical, that is, long before the Apoſtles, but he will have much adoe to prove them unlawful. He might have omitted Lord-keepers and Treaſurers for Biſhop Williams and Biſhop Juxon's ſake: one of them as able in the Chancery as the other in the Treaſury. And whereas the King is graciouſly pleaſed at this time to beſtow the great Seal of Ireland upon a Reverend Praelate there, I hope this Author will not deny, but his Majeſty has put him into a lawful Calling.

But whereas in the end of this Chapter he juſtly complains of exempt Juriſdictions as meerly Papal, and a thing altogether unknown to Antiquity (wherein he is much in the right) I wonder he does not diſcern his own Scheme concerning Biſhops and Prieſts to be Papal too, and that Presbyterianiſm has no pretence to Antiquity, but what it has from Popery. It was Pope Innocent the 4th. (whom for ſuch pranks as theſe his Party celebrate for a moſt wiſe Pope) who decreed, that ex diſpenſatione & deputatione ſolius Pontificis Romani, one Prieſt might ordain another: whoſoever then writes the Hiſtory of Presbytery ſhould make it begin from Rome, and not take its riſe from Geneva; who does not know that the Popiſh Schoolmen and Canoniſts have made it their buſineſs to degrade their Biſhops, and confound them into one and the ſame order with the Presbyters? to exempt the Regular Clergy from Epiſcopal Juriſdiction, and as many of the Secular as they pleaſe? who made the Cardinals, that were but mere pariſh-Prieſts, and many of them no Biſhops to this day, ſuperiors to all the Biſhops, nay, Governers and Judges over all Prelates in the vacancy of the Popedom? The Conſiſtory of Cardinals is then their only head of the Catholick Church upon earth, which is all one as if it were headed with a Geneva-Conſiſtory; both Papiſts and Presbyterians take down the Superior order and advance the middle, only Mr. Calvin and his Followers will have all this depend immediately on Chriſt himſelf, whereas the Romiſh Party makes it depend immediately on one they call Chriſt's Vicar: For how vehemently did the Papalins, even in their Council of Trent, urge and preſs it, That the Power and Juriſdiction was wholly given to the Biſhop of Rome? and that every particular Biſhop being only de Jure Canonico, may be removed by the Pope's Authority? he that would ſee more to the ſame purpoſe, let him conſult the Cardinal Pallavicino (if he will not truſt Padre Paolo) where he may read the long Speech of Father Laynez, all to this effect. But though I had prepared ſome Animadverſions upon this Chapter too concerning Biſhops and Prieſts, yet it has been ſo learnedly confuted in a Sermon preached at Whitehall, which I hear is to be publiſhed by His Majeſties ſpecial Command, that I ſhall not need, nor preſume to touch that Chapter.

Animadverſions on his Charitable Admonition to all Non-conformiſts.

I Find little to complain of in his Charitable Admonition, but that it is no longer: O ſi ſic omnia dixiſset! In the Cloſe he beſpeaks them at this rate; and I will do him the courteſie to tranſcribe a great deal in his own words, that ſo they may be reprinted with a Licenſe, though they were printed without one.

I beſeech you (ſaies he) to conſider the great miſchief you bring upon this Church and Nation by your Separation from the Church; you pretend to be the great Zealots againſt Popery, and yet give me leave to ſay, your indiſcreet diſobedient Zeal mainly brings it in; your ſeparation, and many following diviſions, have cauſed many to abhor our Church and turn to Popery, and doubtleſs you are to give an account to God for the ruine of thoſe Souls; for I can never yield that you have any reaſonable and true conſcientious cauſe of Separation, but merely miſtaken-Reaſon and Conſcience which I much pity, but no way approve; and therefore I muſt lay the advance of Popery to your charge, to your Separation, for I am ſure 'tis the main Snare wherewith they catch unſtable Souls, perſwading them our Church is not guided by the Spirit of Truth, ſeeing it is ſo confounded by the Spirit of Diviſion, it cannot be of God, who is both Verity and Unity. Now, though it be well known to the Learned, that their Church hath neither Verity nor Unity, yet this is not ſo diſcernible to weak Souls, &c.

'Tis true indeed, after great Searchings of heart occaſioned by our Diviſions, many ſet up their reſt upon Popery: though the Principles upon which the Church of Rome pretends to judge o Controverſies do claſh and fight even with one another, and therefore are moſt unfit to quiet other mens thoughts, yet becauſe that Church is a Great Promiſer, they take Sanctuary there, reſolving as Joab did, that if they Periſh, it ſhall be at the Horns of the Altar. But I would fain know of this Author, if our Diviſions fright ſo many from our Church, then would not ſtreightning the Terms of our Belief, as in his Chapter concerning Articles of Faith, and aboliſhing all our Ceremonies, and blending our Orders, be the cauſe of more Diviſions, and conſequently of more Separations from the Church of England? Would not this give the higheſt advantage to the Romiſh Party? And would not they be ſure to urge it upon their coming Proſelytes, that we had abandon'd our former Principles? That we had receded from our own Articles, by which we gave ſo good an account of our ſelves to the whole Chriſtian World at the Reformation? That we had baniſht not only all exterior Beauty, but Order and Decency out of our Publick Worſhip? That we had been falſe to God, and to the Church of God, in breaking ſo many Proteſtations as we had made heretofore againſt ſuch proceedings as theſe, and conſequently falſe (as all Cowards are) to our ſelves? Therefore whilſt he has ſo much Charity for ſome that will have their own will (as he tells us) he muſt be intreated to have a little Charity too for our Underſtanding; and not to expect we ſhould give away our Religion in a fit of Complaiſance, and throw our Church out at window in a frolick. His greateſt Argument why all this ought to be yielded, is grounded only upon Policy. And perhaps he is as much miſtaken in his Policy, as in his Divinity. They are not born to be any Repairers of our breaches, that are the Authors of ſuch raſh Counſels as theſe, which are worſe than thoſe Dolabella gave Cicero his Father-in-law, when the Commonwealth was in a manner loſt, Reliquum eſt, ubi nunc eſt Respublica ibi ſimus, potius quàm dum illam veterem ſequimur, ſimus in nullâ: But this Author would not have us take things as we find them, but make them worſe, becauſe they are no better. Thus, What the Romans ſcorned to do after the battel of Cannae, What the Venetians never did, when they had loſt all their Terra firma; That Men are Now taught to think a Vertue, and the ſign of a Wiſe and good man, Deſperare de Republicâ. They are the words of the Chriſtian Cicero (as I preſume to ſtyle him) the preſent Lord Chancellour in his Speech to both Houſes of Parliament, April 13th. 1675. And ſince I am fallen by chance into the Roman Hiſtory, I will conclude with a remarkable paſſage out of Livy (lib. 5.) When the Gauls a Barbarous People had ſackt the City of Rome, and cut the Senators Throats as they ſat in the Streets, and when afterwards Camillus a Baniſht man, had driven them away, and reſtored the Common-wealth; yet the People ſeeing the City ſo defac'd and ſpoiled, were importunate to remove the Imperial Seat from Rome and ſettle at Veii; whilſt the Senate were debating it very warmly, and rather inclining to remove; as the Regiment that had the Guard that day paſs'd through the Forum, the Centurion that Commanded gave Orders aloud, ſo that the Senate over-heard him into the Senate-Houſe, Signifer ſtatue Signum: Sta miles: hic optimè manebimus. Enſign ſet down the Colours; Souldiers ſtand; this is the beſt place for us to make our Station. Whereupon the Senate took the Omen, roſe immediately from their Conſultation; and all the People approv'd their Generous Reſolution. There is a Thundring Legion of thoſe that are at their prayers and tears, and who keep as it were God-Almighty's Watch for the preſervation of the moſt Apoſtolical Church in the World: And as a Holy Biſhop bid Monica the Mother of St. Auguſtine, before he was any Saint, go away and be comforted, for it was impoſſible the Son of ſo many tears as He had coſt her ſhould periſh; (And this, ſaies that good Father, was received as a Voice from heaven.) So I hope the Mother, over whom ſo many of her own Sons are weeping, and as it were, wreſtling with God in ſecret, can never miſcarry. But if the Queſtion be now, whither we ſhall remove the Ancient Land-marks, and carry our Church either toward Rome, or Geneva; the miraculous Providence of God in reſtoring it together with his Majeſty, after ſo many years Baniſhment, and ever ſince preſerving it, may, as a voice from Heaven, animate us to reſolve, that this is the beſt place where we are fixt, and here may we keep our ſtation.

FINIS.