Friendly Debate with Non-Conformist Part 3 Appendix, Body of text

Friendly Debate with Non-Conformist Part 3 Appendix · Body of text

p. 1AN APPENDIX TO THE THIRD PART OF THE Friendly Debate.

SIR,

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

IYou cannot but obſerve ſure with what a grave and ſerious impertinence this N. C. Catechiſm begins: Alledging theſe words (wherewith Biſhop Bramhal concludes his Vindication of the Church of England) for a reaſon why an Anſwer was not given ſooner to my Book; viz. We little imagine with what difficulties poor Exiles ſtruggle, whoſe minds are more intent on what they ſhould eate to morrow than what they ſhould write. It was very unadviſedly done, methinks, to put us in mind at the very firſt daſh how cruelly they uſed ſuch excellent perſons in time paſt, who, as the Biſhop there feelingly complains in the words immediately following, were chaſed as Vagabonds into the mercileſs World to beg relief of p. 3ſtrangers aaSee pag. 275 and his Pathetick Addreſs to England, p. 277.He ſhews himſelf alſo a very careleſs Writer, who in the very entrance of his Work confeſſes that extreme rigour and ſeverity againſt the men of the Church of England, which afterwards he denies; telling us, That ſcarce any man in thoſe days, who was able ſober and peaceable, but might, if he had pleaſed, have employment and a livelihood bbHumble Apol. p. 23. & 151.But to uſe the Biſhop as their Advocate in this caſe (as he ſpeaks) that is to make his heavy complaint a reaſon for their ſilence, is ſuch an abſurdity as none could be guilty of but one whoſe wit is turn'd Vagabond, and gone a wool-gathering. For ſuppoſe he be an Exile (which I do not believe) are the reſt of the Non-Conformiſts, and they who are beſt able to write a Book either baniſhed into a ſtrange Land, or expoſed to thoſe hardſhips which the Biſhop there ſighs under? One would think rather that this Apologiſt (for his part) is in ſo good plight that he hath time to be idle and trifle; or that he hath not yet loſt that niceneſs and delicacy which I p. 4noted in this ſort of men, who complain of every little reſtraint as if it were the hugeſt oppreſſion. They are Exiles, forſooth, becauſe ſome of them may not live within five miles of their former Dwelling: They are baniſhed, becauſe they are confined to a Country Town, and may not dwell in a Corporation. I can make no other meaning of his application of thoſe words to themſelves; Unleſs you will have it, that he had a mind to ſport a a little as Luther ſometimes did; who was wont to call the place of his retirement, when the Pope thundred againſt him, by the name of his Patmos ccMelch. Adam. pa. 121, &c.though it was a good Caſtle where he lay obſcured from his Enemies, was well entertained by his Friends, had the liberty ſometimes to gather Strawberries, or to go a Hunting in the neighbouring places; and which is beſt of all, had there the happy leiſure to tranſlate the New Teſtament into the German Tongue. And ſo indeed this Writer tells us (p. 47.) that the Non-Conformiſts are turned out p. 5to graſs, and for that cauſe, the Circingle will not become them. By which merriment you may ſee the Animal is in good caſe, and that you are like to find wonderfully ſerious reflections on the Friendly Debate. But let it be as he ſuppoſes, that they are poor Exiles, and that the Paſture into which they are turn'd out, is but ſhort; yet I hope they are not ſuch Evil Beaſts, ſlow bellies ddTit. 1.12.Titus 1:12as the Cretians were, that is (as ſome underſtand their Character) ſuch great feeders, but that they might have chopt a little Logick with me without pinching their guts, and given an Anſwer to a Book that hath ſo little reaſon in it, if he may be believed, without indangering the defrauding of their ſtomachs. The great work of eating might have gone on, and this not have been neglected. For it would not have coſt much more time to confute, than it did to read a Book, in which, as he tells youeePreface, p. 5. the words are more than the matter, the Rhetorick far beyond the Logick, and which hath ſmitten them not ſo much p. 6with the Fiſt, as with the Palms of the hands. I ſhould think it would coſt him a great deal more to reconcile theſe words with thoſe that follow in the end of his Preface, That I have made ſo many hard and deſperate thruſts at them (which it is not eaſie to do with the Palm of ones hand) that it hath forced them at laſt to draw in their defence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jan. 13. 1669.