A Reply to the Defense of Dr Stillingfleet

SECT. I.

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

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

• 1. His Reflections on the Title of the Enquiry.
• 2. His Censure of the Author's Design.
• 3. The Defense of the Dean.

I will begin with the First.

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

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

The first instance of Immodesty is thus expressed,

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

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

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

However, seeing our Author will not be satisfied, unless some notice be taken of those that once already Ruin'd King and Kingdom, &c. I will out of Dr. Heylin 's Life of Laud, a good Record, at least in the sense of the Dean 's Defender, show, who they were that did it. In a perusal of which 'twill appear, That 'twas the Papists, who had a sole hand in the Plot; no Protestant, I verily believe, ever designed what was the unhappy product of the Hellish Conspiracies of the bloody Papist. This hath been long ago discovered by Dr. Du Moulm, and since by Dr. Oats, and here most exactly related by Dr. Heylin a Son of the Church, in these words, viz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rep. That I might prevent any just offense here, I was express in distinguishing between the Deans own intent, and tendency of his Treatise. Take my words in the Enquiry,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 1. That every Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, by his Ordination is made a Minister of the Catholic Church; though for the better edification of the Church, the exercise of his Office is more peculiarly confined to some particular place.
• 2. Every Bishop and Presbyter receives into the Catholic Church by Baptism, and shuts out of the Catholic Church by Excommunication.
• 3. That the Catholic Church is united and coupled by the cement of Bishops, who stick close together; for which you produce Cyprian.
• 4. That the Unity and Peace of the Episcopacy is maintained by their governing their Churches by mutual Consent. Whence you mention the Collegium Episcopale, the Episcopal College, which I take to be a Council of Bishops, which Bishops have an Original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church, (i.e.) the foreign Bishops, as those of Alexandria and Rome, &c. have an Original Power and Right in relation to the whole Church, even a Right and Power in relation to England.
• 5. That every part of the Universal Church is under the Government of the Universal Bishops assembled in their College, or in Council; and what Bishop soever abuse his Power, he shall be accountable to those assembled in Council.
• 6. That there is no such thing as the Independency of Bishops, their Independency being almost as inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity, as the Indpendency of single Congregations. Whence the Church of England, called either Archi-Episcopal, National, or Patriarchal, is not Independent, but accountable unto Foreign Bishops, if at any time they abuse their Power.
• 7. That this Council of Forreign Bishops, unto which they are accountable, must look on the Bishop of Rome as their Primate; the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome being acknowledged, it seems, by our Author himself, as well as by Bramhall. The Primacy (he saith) out of Cyprian, being given to Peter, that it might appear, that the Church of Christ was One; and the Chair, that is, the Apostolical Office and Power, is One. Thus Cyprian, on whom lay all the care of the Churches, dispatches Letters to Rome, from whence they were sent through all the Catholic Churches. All this is to be found from p. 208 to the end of the Chapter. Thus you agree with Bramhall, though you express not the Notion so well as he doth, and should learn it better.

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

But you go on to assert,

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

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

• 1. That Schism is a separating from the Catholic Church, which notion taken singly, will stand the Dissenters and all true Christians who must be acknowledged to be members of the Catholic Church, in great stead, freeing them from the odious sin of Schism. The Dissenters divide not themselves from the communion of the Universal Church, Ergo, not Schismatics. But the mischief is, that as this notion of Schism which our Author adheres unto, is the same with that of the Papists, as is to be seen in Filiucius, Azorius, &c. but in an especial manner in Charity maintained by Catholics; even so he closes with the same Popish Faction, in asserting,
• 2. That separating from the Church of England is a separating from the Catholic Church, as if the Catholic Church had been as much confined within the bounds of the Church of England, as the Papists says within the limits of Rome. Whence whoever separates from the Church of England, cuts himself from the Catholic Church, puts himself out of a state of salvation; He is extra Ecclesiam, extra quam nulla salus; they are all, while Schismatics, in a state of damnation. But surely if these men believed so much, methinks they should not be at rest until all their unscriptural impositions were removed, unless they have greater kindness for such trifles, than they have for such immortal souls for whom Christ died.

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

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

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

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

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

But to return to the third Memorandum.

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

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

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

§ 1. Take My Lord Fauklkland 's Speech made in the House of Commons, as represented by Dr. Heylin in the Life of Archbishop Laud, p. 383.

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

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

2. Touching the Design of working a Reconciliation betwixt us and Rome, 'tis acknowledged by Heylin, and the Design applauded. Take his own words,

3.

But the Doctor goes on,

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

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

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

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

SECT. II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 6. The Papists, with whom the Doctor's Substitute doth agree, assert, That the Universal Church is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Church-Government; That all Church -Officers belong to the Universal Church, and have an Original Right to govern the whole Universal Church.

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

§ 7. The Protestants (excepting some obscure Writers) assert particular Churches to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Church-Government; among whom there are these differences.

• 1. The Episcopal and Presbyterian differ from the Congregational and Anabaptistical about the extent of particular Churches, e. g. the latter concluding that their number must be no more than are capable of personal communion; the former contrarily judge, That a company of a greater extent may be included within the confines of a particular Church, who in the management of their discourses concerning it, give too great an advantage unto the Papacy.
• 2. The Episcopal and Presbyterian differ from some of the Congregational concerning the nature of Discipline, the Congregational being esteemed as espousers of a Democracy, or Populacy, the other against it.
• 3. The Episcopal differs from the Presbyterian, in that the Episcopal are for a Monarchy, the Presbyterian for an Aristocracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECT. III.

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

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

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

• 1. The Dissenters have used all just means, but without success, for the obtaining of it.
• 2. Some of the Episcopal Clergy have for these last Twenty years made it their business to stir up Authority to a severe execution of such Laws as were made against Dissenters.
• 3. They were not ashamed to expose His Majesty to the great contempt of His people, when he began to show pity and compassion to the oppressed Dissenters. What Invectives came out after it! What Satyrical Declamations against it!
• 4. The Dr. himself judged a severe execution of Laws against Dissenters, to be the most effectual means for the obtaining a firm and a lasting Union. And therefore,

• 1. Preached that Sermon which has been the shameful occasion of our late contests. Thus they press for a Comformity as the only way to Union, as if there can be no Union among Christians without such Uniformity.
• 2. He so states the case between Relief and no Relief to Dissenters, as to incline more for no Relief. He hath but Three Arguments for Relief, and Six against it. Dr. Stil. Preface, p. 53, 54.
• 3. He inveighs against a boundless Toleration, as the Mother of all confusion; and then tells us, That the suspension of Penal Laws against Protestant Dissenters, is to open the Flood-gates to such a boundless Toleration; and yet they are for great Abatements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECT. I.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 1. The sense of the first Reformers about the aid of the Spirit. And
• 2. What was the great and chief ground of the First Separation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It may be some may inquire, How comes it to pass then that so many of the Clergy thus ordained, do not only neglect their own work, but by their uncomely discourses reflect on this very spirit? To this no other answer but that of the Learned and Pious Dr. Burnet shall be given, who in his Hist. of the Reformation, Par. 2. l. p. 145. thus expresseth himself:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Mr. Tyndale, a blessed Martyr burnt at Brabant for his firm adhering to the Truths of the Gospel, doth in those Discourses of his published by Mr. Fox show, that the many Abominations of his Times proceeded from the viciousness of a Proud, Covetous, & Sensual Clergy, who having forsaken the Apostolical Rule, in process of time through the Bounty of some wealthy persons, who had embraced the Christian Religion, and divers other ways, got an abundance of Riches, which occasioned their Pride and Luxury, to the ruin of the true Religion: Thus in that Treatise of The Obedience of a Christian man,

The Clergy growing rich, labor'd that their Honor might equalize their Wealth, which was followed with Idleness, a Neglect of God and their Duty. Hence Preaching is let down, the Ceremonies being esteemed as the most effectual means of Instruction. This occasions the multiplication of significant Ceremonies, which was the great Reason of the dreadful Ignorance, into which the whole European world was plundg'd, when Popery prevailed. So Mr. Tyndale,

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

2. 'It is as manifest, That the Pride of the Clergy was discovered by their Prelacy, their aspiring after a Dominoon over their Brethren. Whence the One gets the name of Bishop appropriated unto him, and with that name an Unaccountable, yea an Unscriptural Power. So Mr. Tyndale in his Practice of Prelates;

3. The Malady, and Disease of those times, with their Causes, were no sooner understood, but several Worthy Persons applied themselves to a diligent search after the most proper Remedy, and found, that a Reformation must begin among the Clergy, that all things must be reduced to the Apostolical Institution. Discipline must be strictly exercised, the which could not with effect be accomplished, but by bringing all things to the first Institution; For which reason, Mr. Tyndale makes his enquiry after those Officers the Apostles ordained in Christ's Church, and what their Offices were, concerning which take Mr. Tyndale 's own sense, in his discourse of the Practice of Popish Prelates.

Mr. Tyndale judged, that according to the Apostolical Institution, there were no other Officers in the Church but Elders and Deacons. The Elders being of the same Office and Order with the Bishops, they being two names belonging to one and the same person.

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

I will give you in the first place Lambert 's own answer to the ninth Article, as I find it in Acts and Mon. Vol. 2.

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

Article 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Old Nonconformists still desiring a further Reformation than was carried on in King Edwards days, but •••• ing rather a turning toward Rome, could not but be greatly grieved. They in their places wait a while, but at length humbly desire a Parochial Discipline, instead of which they fall under the lash of new Impositions, unto which they could not Conscienciously conform; hence many Learned, Jud ••• us, Godly and Faithful Ministers are cast out, even at such a time when the Church had but a company of Illiterate Fellows to officiate in Public. From whence proceedeth the First S • parati • n, as appears from what the old Smith said in his Answer to the Bishop of London 's charge, where you will find, that although they separated from the Church, because their faithful Ministers were turned out, yet they even then made it manifest, That they left not the Liturgy, because it contained Forms of Prayer, for they made use of a Form at their Separate Meeting. Take Smith's words in a part of the Register.

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

For which consult the Learned Dr. Burnet, who saith,

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

SECT. II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECT. III.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When we provoke 'em to show us what Scriptures direct them to their Impositions, we are turned off with Where is it forbidden? as if they had acted exactly to the Rule Costerus the Jesuit gave his young Scholars. If any object, Where are those points, viz. The Invocation of Saints, The worshipping of Images, The abstaining from flesh, and the like, found in Scripture; and because not found in Scripture, therefore to be rejected. To which, saith the Jesuit, answer thus: Ask where 'tis forbidden in Scripture? if not forbidden in Scripture, 'tis no sin to observe 'em; for where there is no Law, there is no transgression. So far Costerus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 1. That our Author hath, in a way different from the greatest, or rather the better part of the Clergy, asserted, That our not holding external communion with the Church of England, is a cutting ourselves off from the Catholic Church, a putting ourselves out of the Way of Salvation. This is the main scope of his discourse. A notion concerning which Dr. Stillingfleet 's thoughts are desired.
• 2. That notwithstanding the absolute necessity there is of the Dissenters returning to the Church of England, that they may become members of the Universal Church, and be saved, they will not part with any of those things that are in their own judgment little, though it be to save the Dissenters souls. If they would remove what is in their own judgment but little, and what may be done without their sin, but what cannot be complied with by the Dissenter without his great sin, the Controversy is ended, the Schis •• lost, and the Dissenter restored to the Catholic Church, and may be saved. Let the World judge then who is in the fault.

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

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

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

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

• 1. THE Dean asserted, p. 14. a suitableness between the Dissenters Pretences, and the Jesuits Doctrines, about Spiritual Prayer: whereas I have evinced the contrary.
• 2. That the Grounds and Reasons of the first Separation of the old Nonconformist from the Church of England, are said to be the Jesuits crying down all Forms of Prayer, and setting up Spiritual Prayer in the room thereof. But I have proved, that the first who separated, did keep to a Form of Prayer.
• 3. That the Dissenters do blast the honor of the first Reformation; but they so far countenance it, as to endeavor the carrying it on.
• 4. That the Dissenters are the best Proctors the Papists could meet with, their fittest and aptest Instruments; that they were made the Engines of the Roman Conclave, p. 16. All which the Doctor takes out of Archbishop Whitgift. But an unjust Censure, if not a great Mistake.
• 5. That the Episcopacy now and in King Edward 's days was the same; whereas in King Edward 's days they held all their Courts in the King's name, but now in their own.
• 6. That there is no considerable difference between the Reformation begun in Edward the 6ths, and that carried on in Queen Elizabeth's time: Whereas 'tis most apparent, that in King Edward 's time they judged the Pope to be Antichrist; but in Queen Elizabeth's not a word of it; and many other differences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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