A Reply to the Defense of Dr Stillingfleet, Chapter 3

A Reply to the Defense of Dr Stillingfleet · Chapter 3

p. 49CHAP. III. A Reply to the Defence of the Dean of Paul's, ſo far as it concerns the Modeſt and Peaceable Enquiry.

SECT. I.

The Anſwer to what the Enquirer inſiſted on in ſhewing the Deans Miſtakes about the Jeſuits Doctrine, concerning Spiritual Prayer, Examined. § 1. The preſent Aids of the Spirit in enabling Miniſters in the Exerciſe of their Function, agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England. Dr. Burnet's moſt Chriſtian Reproof to ſuch Miniſters, as neglect the inward Motions of the Spirit. § 2. The Ground of the firſt Separation in Queen Elizabeths days, the very ſame with that of the firſt Reformation from Popery, beginning in Henry the 8th's time, and Sealed after with the Blood of our Martyrs.

p. 50THE Deans Subſtitute doth at laſt apply himſelf to the Defence of the Doctor, in doing which he conſiders the Reaſons I collected out of the Dean's Preface, which the Dean urges to engage the Reader to believe, that the Diſſenters are a people carrying on the Popiſh Deſigns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 52There being nothing elſe of moment in the Reply to what I offered againſt the Dean about Spiritual Prayer, I might fairly, without ſaying any thing more, proceed to the next particular. But ſeeing ſome have ſpoken contemptibly of the Spirit of prayer, which is ſaid to aſſiſt ſuch as uſe free or extempore prayer, as if thoſe who ſpake of receiv'd help from the Spirit in prayer, were Enthuſiaſtical, &c. and becauſe our Author talks as if the Jeſuits had the firſt hand in the Separation of the old Nonconformiſts from the Church of England, crying down the Common-prayers as a dull, formal, ſuperſtitious Worſhip, and the ſetting up free prayer in the room of it; I will ſhew,

1. The ſenſe of the first Reformers about the aid of the Spirit. And

2. What was the great and chief ground of the First Separation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 60Mr. Tyndall judg'd, that according to the Apoſtolical Inſtitution, there were no other Officers in the Church but Elders and Deacons. The Elders being of the ſame Office and Order with the Biſhops, they being two names belonging to one and the ſame perſon. There is (ſaith he) Presbuteros called an Elder by Birth, which ſame called immediately a Biſhop or Overſeer to declare what Perſons are meant—they were called Elders, becauſe of their Age, Gravity, &c. and Biſhops and Overſeers by reaſon of their Offices. And all that were called Elders or Prieſts (if they ſo will) were called Biſhops alſo, though they have divided the names now, which thing thou mayeſt evidently ſee by the firſt Chap. of Titus, and the 20th. of the Acts—Thoſe Overſeers, which we now call Biſhops after the Greek word, were alway biding in one place to Govern the Congregation there. (Tyndal of the word Elder.) But Deacons were Overſeers of the Poor and crept not into Orders till the Church grew Rich.

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

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

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

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

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

p. 63Moreover 'tis manifeſt, that this was not only the apprehenſion of Tindall, Barnes, and Lambert, but that all the Clergy in Henry the 8ths time, denied a Dioceſan Epiſcopacy to be of Divine Inſtitution, aſſerting, that in the New Teſtament there is no mention made but of Deacons or Miniſters, and Prieſts or Biſhops. This is in a Paper ſign'd by Cromwell, and many others; Yea, and in the neceſſary Erudition of a Chriſtian man, as is acknowledged by the Judicious Dr. Burnet, who in his Addenda to the firſt part of the Reformation, doth ſay, That both in this Writing, and in the neceſſary Erudition of a Chriſtian man, Biſhops and Prieſts are ſpoken of as one and the ſame Office. Though I muſt confeſs, that the Dr. doth differ from thoſe Divines; and although he gives us not ſatisfaction in his Reply, yet he ſpeaks more ingenuouſly, and more to the purpoſe, than either this Gentleman, or Dr. Stillingfleet himſelf.

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 66For which conſult the Learned Dr. Burnet, who ſaith, In the Sponſions made by the Prieſts, they bind themſelves to teach the People committed to their charge, to baniſh away all erroneous Doctrines, and to uſe both publick and private Monitions and Exhortations, as well to the ſick as to the whole, within their Cures, as need ſhall require, and as occaſion ſhall be given. Such as remember that they have plighted their Faith for this to God, will feel the Paſtoral Charge to be a load indeed, and ſo be far enough from relinquiſhing it, or hiring it out to a looſe or ignorant Mercenary. Theſe are the blemiſhes and Scandals that lye on our Church, brought on it partly by the corruption of ſome Simoniacal Patrons, but chiefly by the Negligence of ſome, and the Faultineſs of other Clergy-men: Which could never have loſt ſo much ground in the Nation, upon ſuch trifling accounts, as are the conteſts ſince raiſed about Ceremonies, if it were not that the People, by ſuch palpable faults in the Perſons and behaviour of ſome Church-men, have been poſſeſſed with prejudices, firſt againſt them, and then upon their account againſt the whole Church: So that theſe corrupt Church-men are not only to anſwer to God for all thoſe Souls within their charge, that have periſhed through their neglect; but in a great degree for all the miſchief of the Schiſm among us; to the nouriſhing whereof they have given ſo great and palpable occaſion. The importance of thoſe things, made me judge they deſerved this Digreſſion.

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

p. 67SECT. II.

The Deſigns of the Jeſuit againſt a Prelatical Epiſcopacy, found to be none. Some Differences between the firſt Reformers and our Author. A Letter of Sir Francis Knolles to the Lord Treaſurer Cecil, out of which 'tis prov'd, That there is a Difference between ſome old Queen Elizabeths Biſhops, and the Dean, &c. The Author's Pretences about Antiquity confuted out of Biſhop Jewel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 75The other part of his Reply is as little to the purpoſe, unleſs a declaiming againſt Proteſtant Arguments, ſuch as are too ſtrong to receive an Anſwer, be the moſt effectual way to ruine Popery. 'Tis true, we reject the Popiſh pretences about Antiquity as futilous; many Proteſtants (in the number of which ſome Nonconformiſts may be liſted) having unanſwerably proved Popery to be a Novelty.

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

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

SECT. III.

A ſearch for the Schiſmatick. A true ſtate of the Difference between the Church of England and the Proteſtant Diſſenter. The Diſſenter, according to our Author's Notion, clear'd from Schiſme. The p. 76Church of England found Guilty. Some Remarks on ſeveral other paſſages in the Dean's Defence. An Account of ſome of the Dean's Miſtakes. The Diſſenter no friend to Popery. The Concluſion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 84But to return to our Author, who leaping over all the difficulties, though but hinted in the Enquiry, runs unto another Queſtion, viz. From Ceremonies to Circumſtances; form the Parts of their Religion, to the external Appendages thereunto, confounding the one with the other, and then runs triumphantly, aſſuring his Reader, That 'tis impoſſible to worſhip God, or exerciſe any act of Religion, but it muſt be in ſome time, or in ſome place; it muſt be done in ſome circumſtances, therefore we may make ſome things a part of our Religion, which God has not. At this rate he fills up a great part of his Second Chapter. Inſiſting on nothing but what had its anſwer in that Enquiry he attempted to confute. Therefore if I ſhould ſay no more than what I have in giving the true ſtate of the Controverſie, it would be ſufficient: For it lies on him either to prove to our Conviction, that We may without ſin comply with their Impoſitions, (i. e.) He muſt ſo far effectually enlighten our Conſcience, as to help us to ſee, that the Impoſitions are not ſinful, and that we may lawfully Conform; or ſhew, That we muſt Conform contrary to the Convictions of our Conſciences, and render a blind Obedience unto their Commands, Believing as the Church believes; or they ought to remove the Impoſitions, or acknowledge that our Compliances are not ſinful. One of theſe muſt be done. Let him do either, and the Controverſie will be ended, and the Diſſenters freed from Schiſme. But if he cannot enlighten us to ſee the Lawfulneſs of their Impoſitions, nor perſwade us to render a blind Obedience, nor remove the Impoſitions, but plead for their continuance, 'twill appear, That they by impoſing what in their Judgments is but Indifferent, as things neceſſary to our Salvation, are the Schiſmaticks. This might ſuffice as a full Anſwer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 87But as to the true ſtate of the Controverſie, 'tis another thing; you make that a part of Religion which God hath not made; you impoſe uninſtituted ceremonies, and in many things recede from the Apoſtolical Inſtitution, and call on us on pain of damnation to comply with you. We muſt comply, or be cut off from the Catholick Church, even from the body of Chriſt, from all hopes of ſalvation.

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

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

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

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

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

1. That our Author hath, in a way different from the greateſt, or rather the better part of the Clergy, aſſerted, That our not holding external communion with the Church of England, is a cutting our ſelves off from the Catholick Church, a putting our ſelves out of the Way of Salvation. This is the main ſcope of his diſcourſe. A notion concerning which Dr. Stillingfleet's thoughts are deſired.

2. That notwithſtanding the abſolute neceſſity there is of the Diſſenters returning to the Church of England, that they may become members of the Univerſal Church, and be ſav'd, they will not part with any of thoſe things that are in their own judgment little, though it be to ſave the Diſſenters ſouls. If they would remove what is in their own judgment but little, and what may be done without their ſin, but what cannot be complied with by the Diſſenter without his great ſin, the Controverſie is ended, the Schiſ… loſt, and the Diſſenter reſtor'd to the Catholick Church, and may be ſav'd. Let the World judg then who is in the fault.

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

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

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

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

p. 901. THE Dean aſſerted, p. 14. a ſuitableneſs between the Diſſenters Pretences, and the Jeſuits Doctrines, about Spiritual Prayer: whereas I have evinced the contrary.

2. That the Grounds and Reaſons of the firſt Separation of the old Nonconformiſt from the Church of England, are ſaid to be the Jeſuits crying down all Forms of Prayer, and ſetting up Spiritual Prayer in the room thereof. But I have proved, that the firſt who ſeparated, did keep to a Form of Prayer.

3. That the Diſſenters do blaſt the honour of the firſt Reformation; but they ſo far countenance it, as to endeavour the carrying it on.

4. That the Diſſenters are the beſt Proctors the Papiſts could meet with, their fitteſt and apteſt Inſtruments; that they were made the Engins of the Roman Conclave, p. 16. All which the Doctor takes out of Archbiſhop Whitgift. But an unjuſt Cenſure, if not a great Miſtake.

5. That the Epiſcopacy now and in King Edward's days was the ſame; whereas in King Edward's days they held all their Courts in the King's name, but now in their own.

6. That there is no conſiderable difference between the Reformation begun in Edward the 6ths, and that carried on in Queen Elizabeths time: Whereas 'tis moſt apparent, that in King Edward's time they judged the Pope to be Antichriſt; but in Queen Elizabeths not a word of it; and many other differences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FINIS.