A Reply to the Defense of Dr Stillingfleet, Chapter 1

A Reply to the Defense of Dr Stillingfleet · Chapter 1

p. 1CHAP. I. A Reply to the Reflections on the Title of the Enquiry.

SECT. I.

The Introduction. The Acts of the Enquirers pretended Immodeſty Examined. The Diſſenter vindicated from the Reproach of ruining King and Kingdom. The Civil War the product of Jeſuitical Councels, as is confeſs'd by Dr. Heylin. The VVar begun by the Epiſcopal on both ſides. The tendency of the Deans Defence towards Popery, as 'tis a revival of the Grotian Deſign.

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

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

1. His Reflections on the Title of the Enquiry.

2. His Cenſure of the Author's Deſign.

3. The Defence of the Dean.

I'll begin with the Firſt.

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

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

p. 3The firſt inſtance of Immodeſty is thus expreſs'd, He begins his Epiſtle to the Dean, with obſerving how induſtrious the Papiſts have been, ever ſince the Reformation, to ruine England and the Churches of Chriſt in it, which he ſufficiently proves from their Rebellions and Inſurrections in King Edward's days, the Spaniſh Armado in Queen Elizabeths, the Gun-Powder Treaſon in King James's, &c. and the late Helliſh Conſpiracy, which was deſigned for the utter Extirpation of the Proteſtant Religion, and the univerſal Deſtruction of all the Profeſſors thereof, whether Epiſcopal or Diſſenter. But this modeſt man (ſaies our Author) takes no notice, That King and Kingdom, Church and State have been once ruined already by ſuch Modeſt Diſſenters, and may be in a fair way for it again, if we ſuffer our ſelves to be Charmed and Lulled aſleep by ſuch modeſt Inquirers: We are aware, Sir, what a Popiſh Zeal would do, and what a Factious Zeal has done; and think our ſelves concern'd, as much as we can, to countermine the Deſigns of both. But however, I confeſs it was very modeſtly done to paſs over this, that while men are zealous againſt Popery, they may fear no danger from any other quarter.

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

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

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

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

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

p. 7We are aware, Sir, what a Popiſh Zeal would do, and what a Factious Zeal has done, &c. q. d. We are aware of what the Papists would do, not what they have done. What the Papists have done muſt not be mention'd, not one word of that: Not one word of their old Rebellions and Inſurrections; not one word of the Gunpowder Plot; not one word of the Plot diſcover'd by Andreas ab Habernsfield; not one word of the Murder of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey, of the Aſſaſſination of Juſtice Arnold; not one word of what they have done, only what they would do. A pleaſant Inſinuation, as if the Papist never yet diſcover'd by any Overt-acts their Horrid Deſign, &c. 'Tis the Factious Zeal only which has done ſomewhat. But yet this is not to prepare the people to expect a Presb…terian Plot, when there is none among Proteſtants, but what is carried on by the Sons of the Church: This is not to act ſuitable to the P…piſh D…ſigns, which were to deſtroy the King, after they had prepar'd the People to believe the Presbyterians were Reſolv'd for it. Whether this was the Dean's Deſign in miſrepreſenting Diſſ…nters, I could not tell; but as to your ſelf. I muſt ſay, That whatever your Deſign is, if you had been hir'd by a Popiſh Plotter, you could not more effectually do his work for him; and that the Protestant Gentry, who mind the Substantial part of their Religion, more than an indifferent Rite, cannot but deeply reſent theſe your Proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. That every Biſhop, Presbyter, or Deacon, by his Ordination is made a Miniſter of the Catholique Church; though for the better edification of the Church, the exerciſe of his Office is more peculiarly confin'd to ſome particular place.

2. Every Biſhop and Presbyter receives into the Catholique Church by Baptiſm, and ſhuts out of the Catholique Church by Excommunication.

3. That the Catholique Church is united and coupled by the cement of Biſhops, who ſtick cloſe together; for which you produce Cyprian.

4. That the Unity and Peace of the Epiſcopacy is maintained by their governing their Churches by mutual Conſent. Whence you mention the Collegium Epiſcopale, the Epiſcopal Colledge, which I take to be a Council of Biſhops, which Biſhops have an Original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church, (i.e.) the foreign Biſhops, as thoſe of Alexandria and Rome, &c. have an Original Power and Right in relation to the whole Church, p. 12even a Right and Power in relation to England.

5. That every part of the Univerſal Church is under the Government of the Univerſal Biſhops aſſembled in their Colledge, or in Council; and what Biſhop ſoever abuſe his Power, he ſhall be accountable to thoſe aſſembled in Council.

6. That there is no ſuch thing as the Independency of Biſhops, their Independency being almoſt as inconſiſtent with Eccleſiaſtical Unity, as the Indpendency of ſingle Congregations. Whence the Church of England, called either Archi-Epiſcopal, National, or Patriarchal, is not Independent, but accountable unto Foreign Biſhops, if at any time they abuſe their Power.

7. That this Council of Forreign Biſhops, unto which they are accountable, muſt look on the Biſhop of Rome as their Primate; the Primacy of the Biſhop of Rome being acknowledged, it ſeems, by our Author himſelf, as well as by Bramhall. The Primacy (he ſaith) out of Cyprian, being given to Peter, that it might appear, that the Church of Chriſt was One; and the Chair, that is, the Apoſtolical Office and Power, is One. Thus Cyprian, on whom lay all the care of the Churches, diſpatches Letters to Rome, from whence they were ſent through all the Catholique Churches. All this is to be found from p. 208 to the end of the Chapter. Thus you agree with Bramhall, though you expreſs not the Notion ſo well as he doth, and ſhould learn it better.

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

But you go on to aſſert,

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

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

1. That Schiſm is a ſeparating from the Catholick Church, which notion taken ſingly, will ſtand the Diſſenters and all true Chriſtians who muſt be acknowledged to be members of the Catholick Church, in great ſtead, freeing them from the odious ſin of Schiſm. The Diſſenters divide not themſelves from the communion of the Univerſal Church, Ergo, not Schiſmaticks. But the miſchief is, that as this notion of Schiſm which our Author adheres unto, is the ſame with that of the Papiſts, as is to be ſeen in Filiucius, Azorius, &c. but in an eſpecial manner in Charity maintain'd by Catholicks; even ſo he cloſes with the ſame Popiſh Faction, in aſſerting,

2. That ſeparating from the Church of England is a ſeparating from the Catholick Church, as if the Catholick Church had been as much confin'd within the bounds of the Church of England, as the Papiſts ſays within the limits of Rome. Whence whoever ſeparates from the Church of England, cuts himſelf from the Catholick Church, puts himſelf out of a ſtate of ſalvation; He is extra Eccleſiam, extra quam nulla ſalus; they are all, while Schiſmaticks, in a ſtate of damnation. But ſurely if theſe men believed ſo much, methinks they ſhould not be at reſt until all their unſcriptural impoſitions were removed, unleſs they have greater kindneſs for ſuch trifles, than they have for ſuch immortal ſouls for whom Chriſt dyed.

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

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

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

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

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

But to return to the third Memorandum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECT. II.

The Deans Subſtitutes agreement with the Papiſts about Schiſm, even when he differs from the Church of England, detected. His notion about the Government of the Catholick Church the ſame with that of the French Papiſt.

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

p. 23The Dean's Defender doth extremely inſiſt on the Unity of the Univerſal Church, as what doth conſiſt in more than in the Unity of the Faith, though in combination of thoſe other graces of Love, and Charity, and Peace, to wit, in an external communion, Take his own words in anſwer to a ſuppoſed objection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 25This Notion as 'tis groſly abſurd, in like manner 'tis moſt contrary to the old Proteſtant Principles. Conſult Hooker's Eccleſiaſtical Polity, lib. 3. and you'll find nothing more fully aſſerted than, That the Viſible Church of Jeſus Chriſt is therefore One in outward Profeſſion of thoſe things, which ſupernaturally appertain to the very eſſence of Chriſtianity, and are neceſſarily required in every particular Chriſtian man. — But we ſpeak now of the Viſible Church, whoſe Children are ſigned with this mark, One Lord, one Faith, one Baptifm. In whomſoever theſe things are, the Church doth acknowledg them for her Children. So far Hooker. But you will, it may be, object, That ſuch as are Schiſmatical, or Excommunicate, may acknowledge One Lord, hold One Faith, and receive One Baptiſm, And ſhall ſuch be conſider'd as Members of the Viſible Church? Take Mr. Hooker's own words for an Anſwer, If by external Profeſſion they be Chriſtians, then are they of the Viſible Church of Chriſt; and Chriſtians by external Profeſſion are they all, whoſe mark of Recognizance hath in it thoſe things which we have mentioned; yea; although they be impious Idolaters, wicked Hereticks, Perſons Excommunicable, yea and caſt out for notorious Improbity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Epiſcopal and Presbyterian differ from the Congregational and Anabaptiſtical about the extent of particular Churches, e. g. the latter concluding that their number muſt be no more than are capable of perſonal communion; the former contrarily judg, That a company of a greater extent may be included within the confines of a particular Church, who in the management of their diſcourſes concerning it, give too great an advantage unto the Papacy.

2. The Epiſcopal and Presbyterian differ from ſome of the Congregational concerning the nature of Diſcipline, the Congregational being eſteemed as eſpouſers of a Democracy, or Populacy, the other againſt it.

3. The Epiſcopal differs from the Presbyterian, in that the Epiſcopal are for a Monarchy, the Presbyterian for an Ariſtocracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 38The Objection that occurs to a common capacity, is, How can ſuch that give in Aſſent and Conſent to all that is ſaid of the excellency of the preſent Eſtabliſhment, do any thing that tends to its ſubverſion?

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

SECT. III.

A Third Overt-act of the Enquirers pretended Immodeſty, examined. The averſneſs of the Dean and his Subſtitute to a Proteſtant Union, proved. Their falling in with the Diſſenters about conſcience, conſidered. Some Remarks on the Author's modeſt treatment of others.

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

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

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

p. 391. The Diſſenters have uſed all juſt means, but without ſucceſs, for the obtaining of it.

2. Some of the Epiſcopal Clergy have for theſe laſt Twenty years made it their buſineſs to ſtir up Authority to a ſevere execution of ſuch Laws as were made againſt Diſſenters.

3. They were not aſhamed to expoſe His Majeſty to the great contempt of His people, when he began to ſhew pity and compaſſion to the oppreſſed Diſſenters. What Invectives came out after it! What Satyrical Declamations againſt it!

4. The Dr. himſelf judg'd a ſevere execution of Laws againſt Diſſenters, to be the moſt effectual means for the obtaining a firm and a laſting Union. And therefore,

1. Preached that Sermon which has been the ſhameful occaſion of our late conteſts. Thus they preſs for a Comformity as the only way to Union, as if there can be no Union among Chriſtians without ſuch Uniformity.

2. He ſo ſtates the caſe between Relief and no Relief to Diſſenters, as to incline more for no Relief. He hath but Three Arguments for Relief, and Six againſt it. Dr. Stil. Preface, p. 53, 54.

3. He inveighs againſt a boundleſs Toleration, as the Mother of all confuſion; and then tells us, That the ſuſpenſion of Penal Laws againſt Proteſtant Diſſenters, is to open the Flood-gates to ſuch a boundleſs Toleration; and yet they are for great Abatements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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