THE CHARITY and LOYALTY Of some of our CLERGY. IN A short View of Dr. M's SERMON before their Majesties at Hampton-Court, July the 14th, 1689. Wherein he still charges the Protestant Dissenters with Schism.  
With some occasional Remarks upon a Clergyman's Considerations for taking the Oath of Allegiance to King WILLIAM and Queen MARY.  
And upon the History of Passive Obedience since the Reformation.  
LONDON, Printed for Richard Janeway in Queen's-head-Court in Pater-noster-Row, MDCLXXXIX.   

THE CHARITY and LOYALTY Of some of our CLERGY.  
SIR,  
YOU might well be backward in crediting the Account I gave you of Dr. M's seeming pacific Sermon: Yet I hope now it is out in Print, you are abundantly satisfied, that though he would not be thought to repine at the Indulgence now granted to the several Dissenters amongst us; 
Page 27.  he cannot forbear the old charitable Appellation of Schismatics: And I think there can be no greater Evidence of being in a Passion, of one sort or other, than the giving hard Words, or calling Names. To do this before the glorious Repairers of those Breaches which some among us would be continually making, you may well believe not to be very discreet: But there is a certain Bigotry which, I may say, fatally transports some Men.  
When the chief Marragers against the Protestant Dissenters seemed weary or ashamed of those Arguments, which they by sad Experience found equally serviceable to the Papists: when the Political Union between Christ and Believers yielded to the Spiritual; and a fancied Catholick-Communion, in Rites and Ceremonies, to one upon the Terms of common Christianity; 
Compare a certain Treatise of Union and Communion with Christ Jesus; and two Sermons of the same Persons about Church Communion, with his Treatise of the Unity of the Church, and another of Protestant Principles.  It might seem strange to have the old Cant revived by one of less Art, though smother Address: Were it not that the Errors of the Leaders of any Party stand for Maxims and Principles, till plainly retracted. And though the Mortification may be severe to Flesh and Blood; yet whoever has served the Papists or Arbitrary Power with his Doctrines, aught, if he be of Reputation with his Party, the rather to suffer an Eclipse of his Fame by coming to the Stool of Repentance, lest that very Fame help to spread the Contagion, and make his Errors Canonical. The Church indeed, whose Articles and Homilies they profess to receive, is far from authorising their Conceits: but Men are apt to believe that they hear the Voice of the Church from the Pulpit; and that the Priest's Lips preserve the true Knowledge; yet I think no Man need desire greater Advantage for confuting their Ecclesiastical or Civil Politics, than the laying hold of what themselves own in cool Blood.  
Though the Doctor, on whom I now animadvert, has nothing of any Moment, but what we may easily trace him in from one of the Leaders: Yet in one respect he is himself an Original; being the first, who, 
Page 27.  to use his excellent Chime, has admonished Men, though the Law has given them Liberty of Conscience, to make Conscience of their Liberty: Or that charges the Protestant Dissenters with Schism, 
Ibid.  notwithstanding the Legal Indulgence or Ease.  
Which though I must own to be but an Opiate, which allays, but does not remove the Distemper; yet I cannot for my life understand how Noncompliance with Rites and Ceremonies instituted by humane Laws, should be a Schism, when the same Law allows a Liberty: and would gladly know what is that Law of Christ which is immutable and not to be repealed, 
Pape 28.  obliging Men to communicate in those Rites and Ceremonies, which he never enjoined; nor were enjoined by any Law, but what ceases to be one to him, whom it allows in a Dissent from those who are in possession of the Profits.  
If it be said, 
Page 24.  That he charges Schism only upon such as Hypocritically and Maliciously make Breaches and Disturbances in a Church, to revenge or advance themselves by the ruin of it.  
1st. It is evident, that if he do not insinuate that all Dissenters are thus Guilty, 
Page 16. & 23.  he therein departs from his Question, which is of such as upon dissatisfaction divide, and will not join with us. 
Page 23.   
2ly. Even these, as such, are terrified with what the Fathers have declared about this Matter, that is, dividing upon Dissatisfaction: Upon which, he says, the Fathers, considering the ill effects and consequences of Schism, have pronounced it as heinous a Sin as any whatsoever.  
Wherefore the matter to which this Censure is applied, being dividing upon Dissatisfaction; this, if he speak consistently, is Schism in the Language of the Fathers. Nor can any Inconsistencies or Contradictions be thought to qualify positive Assertions, till they are as positively renounced.  
Nay, he says in another Place, 
Page 18.  that though the Recusants here are greater Schismatics than any other Separatists among us: Yet neither can any of the other that separate, well clear themselves from being such. So that according to him, the Protestant Dissenters in general (not only such as maliciously and hypocritically make Breaches) cannot well clear themselves from being Schismatics. And he advises such Dissenters not to presume and encourage themselves in that Separation, 
Page 27.  which he will have to be causeless, because i Laws of the Land are so favourable to inflict no Penalties upon them for it. These, says he, do not undertake to justify the Thing, as if it were no Sin, only forbear to judge in it, and leave us wholly to the Law of Christ, which is immutable, and not to be repealed.  
So that he, it seems, is wiser than the Law, and does judge them guilty of this Sin of Schism, though the Law forbears to judge so. But there is more than this in the matter, and little less than a Reflection upon the Parliament, for making a Sin before God lawful to be committed: And if Schism be as heinous a Sin as any, and yet the Parliament makes this lawful; others will say, it might better make Murder so far lawful as to take off the Sanction by Penalties, which the Laws against it have. For admit all humane Penalties were taken away from Murder, it would be no less a Sin in the Eyes of all Men. Whereas in this case a Man incurs the danger of sinning in the Doctor's sense, without a sufficient Buoy: For, as all Religious Assemblies, with other Rites and Ceremonies than those which are: used according to our Liturgy, were forbidden to Protestants only by Statute-Law upon certain Penalties; many cannot but think, that the Act which takes away those Penalties from Protestant Assemblies, makes those Assemblies lawful. And if it be a Sin for them still to assemble together, though the Penalties are abolishded the amoving of them would but lead Men into Temptation: 
Page 27.  and the Statute become a Legal Snare in lieu of the Illegal one.  
I rememember the time when Clergymen thought it their Interest to maintain that the Sanction of a mere positive Law lies in the Penalty. 
Vid. Grand Question concerning the Bishops voting in Cases Capital, Pag. 68 The Sanction of the Law is ceased which was irregularity, Pag. 69. If the irregularity be taken away, the Sanction is gone. And if the Sanction be taken off in a mere positior Law, the force of the Law is gone too. And therefore this Canon Law which forbids Clergymen being present in Capital-Cases and giving Votes therein, is wholly taken away by the Reformation.  Wherefore some would ask what now becomes of the Laws about Conformity, the Penalties being taken away? Though I must own the late Act to be penned with abundant Caution, to prevent the Cavils of a nice sort of Men; yet it speaks of separate Assemblies for Religious Worship permitted or allowed by it. And gives such encouragement to them, as to exempt their Preachers from certain secular Employments, the better to attend to the Work of their Ministry. And though God Almighty may permit or suffer Sin, as he does not necessitate the avoiding it, yet he cannot be said to allow it, (it being difficult to distinguish between allowing and approving) much less can he be thought to encourage it. Nor can that be thought a Sin, against which he has denounced no Judgement, especially where he declares there shall be none. And if any thing became a Sin by humane Law, if that declare there shall be no Penalty, one would take it to be a virtual declaring, that it ceases to be a Sin; unless we can imagine that the Law which frees the Body, would ensnare the Mind. Nay, the Doctor seems to forget that he had called the late Act, 
Page 27.  an Indulgence granted the Dissenters, in the Page immediately before his Assertion, that the Laws do not undertake to justify the Thing he was then speaking of, which was the Liberty of Conscience which they give, as if it were no Sin: Which surely is a palpable Reflection that the Laws give indulgence to Sin.  
But in charging this Sin of Schism, the Doctor here must needs go upon the Supposition that the Terms of Communion with the Church of England are enjoined by Christ's immutable Law: Upon which I dare say the Dissenters will readily join Issue. Nor do they believe that Christ has made any Law for England but what he has made for all Mankind.  
Yet the Doctor thinks he had proved them guilty from the Notion of Schism: 
Page 18.  it being, as he says, the strict and proper Notion of Schism for Persons causelessly to rend themselves from the particular Church whereof de jure they are Members.  
If it be causelessly in the Judgement of the Party that divides, it were something: But according to him, the Protestant Dissenters who divide upon Dissatisfaction, notwithstanding such real Dissatisfaction, without any thing of Malice or Hypocrisy, are Schismatics: For he will have their Division to be causeless in itself. For such to say they agree in Doctrinals, it is only upon account of Ceremonies that they separate, 
Vid. Dr. Bringhurst's Sermon before the Ld. Mayor, May 26. 1689. The spirituality of God's Worship under the Gospel being a necessary qualification of it; some Men may possibly scruple without any Malice or ill Design, some Rites or Usages in the Worship of God as being contrary to its Spirituality. Nothing but Order and Decency may be designed by them, or some external Ornaments for the Service of God, and by a fair and rational Interpretation, they may be so used without being impediments to the purity and spirituality of Divine Worship; yet seeing all Men cannot have the same sense of these things, and seeing what a Man scruples, he can never be edified by it, we are to consider the infirmities of our Brethren, for Order and Decency here is best, when they are in subservency to Edification.  seemeth (says he) so far from excusing the Thing, it really maketh it worse.  
But since Men are not apt to make due Allowances for humane Infirmities, till the Case comes to be their own; it may not be amiss to put it so, as may affect some of our present Clergy. For them to rend themselves from their People, and to intermit or wholly leave off their Ministry causelessly, must needs be as Schismatical, and as great a Breach of the Political Union, as for the People causelessly to separate from them. But we say, and are ready to prove, that they who are suspended, or may be deprived for refusing to take the Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, causlessly rend themselves from their People. If they say that they really scruple, Why should causeless Scruples excuse them from Schism, and not the more ignorant Laity? If it is so far from excusing the last, that it makes it worse that they scruple not upon account of Doctrinals, the same will return upon them, whose Scruples are founded upon a supposed knowledge of humane Law, in which they are evidently mistaken. And herein the Point turns the stronger upon them, that whereas the Law with great Equity gives Indulgence to Consciences scrupulous about Religious Worship, and doubtful of the Power of humane Laws concerning it: the Law neither does nor can without Injury to the Public give Indulgence to them, who, unless they give reasonable Assurance of Fidelity, are to be looked upon as of a contrary Allegiance; and so no Friends to the Power which protects them. And this is the rather to be believed, because no Man who will take any promisory Oath, can scruple swearing Allegiance now, but upon Supposition that the subject matter of his former Oath remains, and the late King still continues his Liege Lord, according to the Laws of the English Government. For Allegiance must follow the Law; it being nothing more than the Fidelity and Obedience which the Law requires. Were it more, we should swear ourselves Slaves, and the King Absolute.  
Though in relation to a future State, it may be too severe to charge all Men of Understanding with the immediate and obvious Consequences of what they hold; many being better than their Principles: Yet it may be as needful for Civil Governments to judge accordingly, as to preserve themselves. But as poor Dissenters are suppofed to be shut out of God's Church, and deprived of all the ordinary means of Salvation, because of their Mistakes; 'tis requisite thus to turn the Question upon them who cast the first Stone.  
And some will be ready to suggest, that Obstinacy, Vanity to be at the Head of a Party, an Expectation of being considerable enough to be bought off, too great Pride to acknowledge an Error, or the like, are more truly Ingredients in the Clerical Schism, than Malice or Hypocrisy in that which the Laity are aspersed with.  
But to return to our Doctor. He had owned that Christ's Mystical Body is an Aggregation or Collection of all throughout the Face of the Earth who embrace the Faith he hath delivered. From St. Austin he tells us, Schismatics are not to be looked upon as Christians.  
And yet they who agree in the same Faith, and separate, or are driven or kept out only upon the account of Ceremonies, nor are charged with want of Charity, are Schismatics with him: and that though many of them were bred up under other Pastors, and cannot be faid to have rend themselves from the Church of England.  
This indeed must be said for him, that though St. Austin, and other ancient Fathers, make no Degrees of Schism, and knew of none, but in such as divide out of Malice or Hypocrisy, or at least from such terms as Christ required: Our Doctor makes Degrees of Schism without Authority from the Apostles, or the Fathers. He tells us, some are greater Schismatics than others; yet the least are guilty of the Sin of Schism. And so perhaps we may find a Schism which is not a Rent from God's Church, nor a Breach of Charity among Christians: And then I would gladly know how the Nature of Schism remains?  
And indeed it is evident that as he applies the Name of Schismatics to them who embrace the Faith Christ has delivered; and whom he cannot in general charge with dividing from other Christians out of Hypocrify or Malice: he imputes Schism to them who certainly remain true Members of God's Church, and maintain that Bond which unites them to their Fellow-Christians.  
Yet notwithstanding all the seeming softenings, 'tis plain the Doctor will not allow such to be true Members of God's Church: For, he says, to be a Member of the Catholic, 'tis necessary to be of some particular Church. Nor can it be denied that he charges the Protestant Dissenters with failure of what is necessary to being of the Catholic Church. And though in the Choice of Churches he restrains it to such as God may be acceptably served in: Yet I shall soon show he makes it absolutely necessary to be of some visible Church, and therein agrees with the Papists; and differs only, in that he will have the Church of England so called, that is, they who are united under the same Ecclesiastical Polity, to be the Church. Yet some would think that as Christ's mystical Body, or Church Universal, is a Collection of all throughout the Face of the Earth, who embrace the Faith Christ has delivered: Wherein, according to this Doctor himself, Visibility is by no means essential to the being of the Church-Universal, (for embracing the Faith is a pure Act of the Mind) so the Church of England, as it is a part of the whole, is a Collection of them who embrace that Faith in England. Every part must be in some place: but it would not cease to be a part if there were no other part upon the place to join with. And therefore a single Person may make as true a part of Christ's Body, as the greatest Numbers.  
But examine the ground for the Imputation of Schism upon our Protestant Dissenters, 
Page 18.  because they causlessly divide or rend themselves from that Church of which de jure they are Members. 
Page 16.  This he had explained before, where he says, that I call every Man's particular Church, not which it may be he himself doth call so, but which the lawful Authority of the Country where he liveth hath made so.  
Now I would gladly know by what Law Dissenters are still obliged to comform to the Ceremonies of our Church, and in that respect to become Members? Is it because the Law leaves others the Possession of the material Churches made with Hands? 
Page 18.  This indeed I think he offers at, when he tells us how they under whose spiritual Conduct such Persons put themselves, can satisfy their own Minds, he knows not  
But I should think they might say, Are Ye Ministers of the Gospel? So are We. Are Ye to take care of the Flock over which Christ hath made you Overseers? So are We. Nay, what if they should say, Your Bishops look over the Clergy and not the Flock: 
Vid. The Prayer in the Lyturgy for Bishops and Curates; and at the Consecration of Bishops: Bishops the Pastors of the Church.  Your inferior Clergy are not Pastors, but Curates to the Bishops: Wherefore we are ready to enter upon the Trial, which of us are most properly Pastors of Christ's Institution. 
Vid. The same Protestant Principles.   
Or what if they should say farther, Your Bishop's Lord it over the Flock, and contrary to the Apostolic Example, and the ancient usage in England, claim a Power of making Laws, Canons, and Constituons in the Church without the Laity; 
Vid. Spelm Council de modo tenendi Synodos apud Anglos.  with this only difference among them, that some place the Power in every single Bishop, and so far are Independants; others in the Episcopal College, 
Vid. Protestant Principles Licenced.  or Assembly of all the Bishops in a Kingdom: The last of which I think is most agreeable to their Notion who are only for a National Church: 
Vid. Protestant Principles  the others seem not ware, that, according to them, every distinct Diocese makes a Church. And if it should fall out that the primitive Dioceses were but single Assemblies of them who worshipped God in the same place with one Heart and one Mind, 
Vid. Clackson's Primitive Episcopacy.  though with different Postures, than every Protestant Congregation may chance to put in for as complete a Church as any: and others may be as great Schismatics in refusing to Communicate with them, as they for not Communicating with others.  
The Doctor indeed, speaking of the Dissenting Ministers receiving those whom he takes de jure to be Members of the Church of England, 

Pag. 18. They under whose spiritual Conduct such Persons put themselves.  
Na be not where takes the Ministers for Brethren.   says, How opposite soever they may be to the Pope in other matters, in this his Usurpation they agree with him, and can no more be justified in it than he.  
And thus in the Spirit of Meekness and with many gentle strokings to the Laity, the Preachers are called Usurpers, the hearer's Schismatics.  
For my part, waving the Question about a complete Pastor, and the due Government of the Church, I should rather fear that the Charge of Schism might be retorted upon them, whoever they are, who so far usurp upon Christ's Office, as to make more or other Terms of Communion than Christ hath made. And whosoever insist upon Conformity to other Terms, I should think to be real Schismatics, howmuch soever others suffer under the Name.  
Sure I am Schism lies in something else besides causeless Separation from external Communion: for other wise the Apostle would never have charged it upon them who continued in the same external Communion; as did the Corinthians, to whom alone he applied the word. If the Apostle applied this to them who continued the same external Communion, and never to them who divided or separated from such Communion; 
Vid. 1 Cor. 12.25. that there should be no Schism in the Body, but that the Members should have the same care one for another.  'tis evident Schism does not lie in Separation from external Communion, though there may be Schism in the Separation. I take it not to lie so much in divided Communions, as the uncharitableness of them on either side.  
As Schism is a Rent, we shall never know what sort of Rent is Schism, till we settle the bond of Union, which I should think to be Charity: For they who are united in the same Faith and external Communion, may be guilty of Schism, both in Relation to others, and among themselves; which they who maintain that perfect bond of Charity cannot be, in either Respect.  
But evident it is that the Papists, and others from them, have taken up a Notion of Schism which the Apostle never mentioned. And, according to this Doctor himself, was never intended by St. Austin, or other ancient Fathers. And if the Live will not satisfy our Pluralists, unless the Non-conformists be exposed, as the Christians of old, in the skins of wild Beasts, to be hunted down, they will find their Congregations thinner than yet they are: for it is not to be thought that the Laity in general will Countenance this Uncharitableness, and Communicate with them in this real Schism. But let them not any longer hang up that Theological Scarecrow Schism, till their Church, or rather aggregation of Churches, 
Vid. Gal. 1.2. unto the Churches of Galatia.  is wide enough to comprehend all Christians. But till it is so, why may it not be enough for us here, to do as he shows to be our Duty in Relation to other Christian Churches abroad, mutually to own and Acknowledge every one the other, 
Page 26.  as far as they own and acknowledge Christ.  
Indeed he says, 
Ibid.  Inasmuch as to be a Member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be of some particular Church: if he may acceptably serve God, and finally save his Soul in it, every Person ought for Peace and Order sake to live in Communion of that Church, where the Providence of God hath placed him, and not for every Dislike, Defect, or Blemish, to departed from it.  
Here he manifestly speaks of a visible Church, to which Men must outwardly conform for Peace and Order. This he owns that Men are not obliged to conform to, unless they may acceptably serve God in it. Yet without observing that, it is possible for the Church, where the Providence of God has placed a Man, to be such an one, as God cannot be acceptably served in it. (Though indeed this is employed in the if it may, for as it may be, it may not be) He makes the being a Member of a Particular Church necessary to being of the Catholic, and by Consequence, to Salvation. And yet it is a very great Question how a Man can serve God acceptably in any Church, which he believes has such Defects or Blemishes, as justify his Separation for the sake of a Communion with fewer Defects, or Blemishes. And I know not what can hinder such a Communion from making a visible Church wherein he may serve God acceptably. Or why the external Peace and Order in a Church, for all to move together like a piece of Clockwork, should be perferr'd before his spiritual Advantages. And now the Law allows a Liberty, some will think that they who leave the Parochial Worship for the sake of another Religious Meeting, are no more Schismatics, than they who refuse to Communicate in the Cathedrals, for the sake of Parochial Worship with fewer Ceremonies.  
But suppose all Churches or Communions visible, should impose Terms which a Man conscientiously seruples: What hinders but the same Lord, the same Faith, the same Baptism, with a readiness, as far as he has attained, to walk by the same Rule with all Christians, may rather make him a Member of Christ's Family both here and in Heaven, than that his scruples in other matters, wherein he has not attained to the Sentiments of Men of larger Capacities and Opportunities, should shut himout, and leave him extra Ecclesiam forâs.  
Thus I have set those Notions in their proper Light, which are such means to remedy our Differences, 
Vid. pag. 14.  as Procrustes his bed for the different lengths of men's bodies.  
And methinks this Procrustian humour is pretty evident, where he vindicates the vein of Creed-making, while he condemns the Church of Rome for her uncharitableness in damning all that come not punctually up to her Tenants: which though himself does not directly, it will appear that he, by a Consequence of his own, damns all them, who do not in matters of belief comply with the Church where they live, when that Church is such an one as he supposes, a Man may serve God acceptably, and finally save his Soul in it.  
So far, says he, was the ancient Church from it, 
Page 9  that all the Credenda she required of them she admitted to her Communion, for some ages, was only an Acknowledgement of the Articles of the Creed we call the Apostles, and pressed no more on them; and though all Churches since have added others some more some less; it appeareth by their not judging one another about receiving or not receiving them, this is not so much from any Opinion they have of the absolute Necessity of holding those Articles, as of the absolute Necessity of preserving Peace among their own Members, who were like to make Disturbances about them.  
Wherein there is couched this excellent Paradox, that it is absolutely necessary for the Peace of some particular Churches, that, before Men be admitted into Communion, they should receive some Articles of belief which are not of Universal Obligation, and by confequence are more than Christ or his Apostles required.  
So that it seems Men are to be deprived of Church-Communion, for matters of Belief enjoined by mere humane Authority, and some who talk high for Catholick-Communion, themselves shut the doors against it.  
It is needful to be a Christian, but it would certainly be much better for Mankind, than it is, if they would be so wise to take neither side, while Churchmen play their Prizes.  
Few that are not wedded to a Party, and think it needful to make Peace by the Destruction of all but their own Faction, can believe that new Impositions, especially in matters of Belief, are any other than the occasions of Differences, and the Shiboleths which divide the Christian World: Nor can they comprehend why any thing should be needful to be believed in one Church, which is not in every Church.  
It may often be requisite, for Peace sake, to Provide that no Man hold publicly any thing contrary to a received form of Words; but whoever impose them as terms of Communion, aught to produce a Warrant from Divine Authority.  
To be of the Catholic Church is necessary to Salvation, and if, as Men of the Doctor's Sentiments contend, no Man can be of the Catholic, who is not of the particular Church where he lives, if that be a true Church, or such an one in which he may serve God acceptably, and finally save his Soul; Then such a Church, requiring other Articles of Belief, or in other words than Christ or his Apostles required, makes those Articles necessary to Salvation: and if they who are shut out of one true Church, ought not to be admitted into any other, without Letters Commendatory from the Church, of which he had been, or de jure was a Member; then at least there may be a total Exclusion from the Catholic Church for such terms as Christ or his Apostles never required: and thus Men may become Schismatics for Doctrinals as well as Ceremonies, which they honestly scruple. They who hold this, would do well to preach up St. Zavierus his new Gospel, 
Vid. Dr. Stillingfleets Fanaticism of the Church of Rome.  invented with the like pious Intention: But when they talk of these things for the Peace of the Church, I cannot but apply the old observation, solitudinem faeiunt, & pacem vocant: but for certain, how merciful soever God Almighty may be hereafter; you must believe as the Church where you live believes, if you would have Peace here.  
But if there ought to be a Catholic Communion on Earth, and they who are deprived of one Churches Communion, aught to be of all; this shows how necessary it is that Communion should be upon terms truly Catholic.  
The contrary to the other Notion shines methinks with native Light, in an excellent Discourse of my learned Friend, Dr. Bringhurst, who adorned his Doctrine, by a steady Adherence to it in the worst of times.  
We, says he, 
Vid. Dr. Bringhursts Sermon before the Lord Mayor, May 26, 1689. Page 24.  make this Yoke and Burden uneasier than Christ has made it to one another, when we impose, as necessary Articles of our Faith, either what it is certain our Saviour and his Apostles never imposed, or uncertain whether they did or no.  
Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation can derive Authority from none but God; he only can tell us what will be acceptable to himself, so that the Scriptures only of the Old and New Testament (by all Protestants,) being the Revelation that God hath given of his Will in this case to us; Whatever is made necessary that is not here, must be a very uneasy Yoke and heavy Burden: for 'tis not in a Man's Power to believe as Men would have him; we cannot believe beyond our Evidence; and our Evidence must be as we can understand it; so that what is necessary must be supposed to be intelligibly revealed to all concerned in the Belief of it. 
Vid. P. 8. Wherever the Scripture itself does imprint a Character of necessity either for Faith or Practice, we cannot speak plainer to one another than that doth to us: And if any thing be revealed which we cannot comprehend, as for Instance, the Article of the Trinity, yet the Revelation is plain; and in all matters of Revelation we are to believe no more than is revealed, and no otherwise of it, than as it is revealed; etc.   
This hath often made me think that we should be easier to one another, were the Articles of our Faith given us in the very words of the Scripture. I am sure that both the Orthodox and the Arians in the Council of Nice concurred in this; that all the Mischiefs in the Church of God were caused by bringing in words into the Creeds of the Church, which were not in the Scriptures. Consequences indeed are as sure as the express terms of the Scriptures, but Infallibility in these Consequences, seems to be necessary for Articles of Faith, because infallible Authority only can create them. Certainty may satisfy a Man's Conscience for his own sense and Compliance, but for terms of Communion that may not be sufficient, because that is so according to men's different Capacities and Apprehensions, etc. We are to believe no more than the Word of God declares to us, and also as it declares it; and if we desire more of one another, we make Christ's Yoke more uneasy, and his Burden heavier than he hath made it.  
As all Men are presumed to have some end in what they do, unless where they act in passion without Consideration: It were worth enquiring to what end this Sermon (which, for the sake of my Country, I cannot but disrobe) was preach dat this time? Was it to convince the Dissenters? Then since he could not expect that such should be his Hearers, it must have been preached to be printed. Which may take off men's Surprise at such a Command, more likely to be obtained, than given ex mero motu: Unless it should proceed from Dislike, and be intended, as it has proved, a gentle enjoining of public Penance: which all must agree to be suitable to his Majesty's great Judgement and Clemency. However there was small reason to believe, that they were thus to be brought over now, who persisted in their Dissent, when they could not serve God in public without being made Rioters: And to be a Diffenter, was counted not only a Dividing from God's Church, but the being of a Faction against the State. And in all respects both themselves, and all who wished well to them, suffered accordingly.  
Was it to induce his Majesty to withdraw his Protection and Favour from such; as being shut out from God's care, and not worthy of his Majesties? But surely 'tis not to be supposed that his Majesty, who had reason to believe that he served God acceptably in Holland, where there was no National Church, should be persuaded of the Necessity of being a Member of such a particular Church, that one may be a Member of the Catholic. Was it to raise a Contempt of the Protestant Dissenters in the Generality of the Hearers; and thence to animate a party for the Church? This may with better ground be looked on as the encouraging a Faction against the State, at a time when the Union of Protestants is little less than essential to its being.  
Whoever goes to make the King, a King of one party of Protestants, under a pretence of advancing the Interest of the Church of England, would certainly have a Reward according to his Merit, if the late King should be the Advantages such put into his Hands, come again to be its Defender.  
Such must understand, that though the greater part of the Nation have fewer Scruples than the Dissenters have; yet, as they are united with them in the same Profession of Faith, and Affection to the present Government; they cannot but desire to live with them as Men who must stand or fall by the same common Interest.  
And if they who are otherwise minded are not guilty of making a Schism in the State, I am sure they who refuse to swear Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, are. And this more truly answers the Apostles Notion of Schism, than that which Clergymen have taken up to keep together a Party, which, if they give the Word, may be, and often have been, troublesome to Civil Governments. Unreasonable Quarrels, and Strifes, proceeding from Pride, and carnal Considerations, are the most truly Schismatical. And why the Dissenters may not be even with many of them in returning the Censure, I see no reason. Sure I am, they have had more tender Usage than the Dissenters had. Their Consciences were to be admitted to labour with Qualms for many Months: In which time a great Judgement might be made, which side would be uppermost. Whereas the poor Dissenters must in an instant be resolved of all their Scruples, or yield to a speedy Deprivation, without any intermediate Suspension, to bring them to consider, by feeling a temporary loss.  
Some may think this an uncharitable Insinuation; that the Clergy by their Friends pressed for so long time, till they might see which side would prevail. But besides that the Points in question might otherwise soon be determined one way or other: this can be no great doubt to them, who have heard how many were seized with sudden Scruples, upon the flying report of General Maccay's being routed; or who consider upon what Ground many of them have prayed for King William; which is barely as he is King de facto, as appears by their now declining to swear Allegiance to him. 
Considerations for taking the Oath of Allegiance. Page 53.  And of them who swear Allegiance, some at least go upon the same Ground. Or if more, as his Title is allowed of by the Law, and conferred with those Formalities of Law, and with those usual Ceremonies and Rites, which customarily are obseroed in the most regular Collation of Titles. Wherein that Clergyman who offers Considerations for taking the Oath of Allegiance, leaves a Surmise that our King's Title may not have been according to the strict Rules of Justice, as being obtained by due means, or conferred without Injustice or Injury done to any Person; which he distinguishes from a Title barely allowed of by the Law. Nay, 
Page 46, & 47.  he manifestly supposes that the late King is injured; he being God's Ordinance, the Minister of God for good, not to be resisted, and we bound to be subject to him, however he demeaned himself in the Exercise of the Government. And this he applies equally to wicked Magistrates, who act without regard to those Bounds which the Law has set them. And even Usurpers; that is, to Usurpers both of Power and of Title, as long as they are in Possession. But herein only is he unequal, 
Page 50.  that whereas he tells us that though Prince's exert Power without due Title or Commission from God: 
Page 56.  that is, are Usurpers of Power, we are bound to suffer patiently, and be subject for Conscience towards God, and cannot forceably resist them without Peril of Damnation: Yet when he speaks of a King de facto, coming in with usual Formalities of Law, supposed by him to be an Usurper of Title, he says that which we translate Damnation, 
Page 57  is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Judgement: And Treason against a King de facto is punishable by the Judgement of Death. This is Treason by our Law; and I do thus offend by levying War against the King for the time being, though in favour of a King de jure. It may be Judgement to resist the King de facto, in favour of a King de jure, i. e. it may be an offence which by the Law may render me obnoxious to Judgement. And by Consequence, a Man may rebel against the King de facto, whenever he has Opportunity or fair Prospect of Impunity here, and may be subject for Wrath, but not for Conscience sake. In short, if you resist him, you shall be hanged; if you resist the other, you shall be damned.  
Suppose then that the late King, encouraged by them who believe him still to continue King de jure, should land here with French and Irish Forces, having their Commissions sealed within the Kingdom: 
Page 34. Not the Power in being while uncapable by being out of Possession to exercise any Act belonging to the Suppeam Power, So. Pa. 37.  according to this Doctrine, neither he, nor the Forces commissioned by him, are to be resisted: Nor is our King to expect Assistance from such Men in other Exigencies. Taxes indeed 'tis confessed are to be paid as a Salary for his protecting them, 
Page 56.  for this very cause that he attends continually upon the Government. Yet it may be a Question whether they would not think that the others presence might discharge or transfer the Taxes. But as for our Endeavours to keep King William in his Station by our Arms, according to this Divine, It can only be so far our Duty, as it is lawful so to do; which is as much as to say, it is no Duty at all, but is left indifferent, whether you will exercise your lawful Power or no. 
Page 56.   
Nor, says he, Do I find St. Paul inculcating it as any part of our Subjection to the higher Powers.  
This goes upon the Notion of a certain Leading Man, who makes Nonresistance to be absolute Subjection, and as much as can or aught to be required by the Sovereign Power: as if active Obedience to lawful Commands were not in the least employed in being subject. But I take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Word which the Apostle uses, chief to import Action in a regular Discharge of the Duties of an Inferior to his Supeour; and when St. Peter uses the same Word in Relation to every humane Ordinance or Creature, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I would gladly know whether 'tis meant of the Fountain and Derivation of Power, or else of the Commands issuing from the Power? If the first, than the right of the late King was not, 
Vid. History of Passive Obedience. Page 106.  as some contend, such as no Religion, no Law, no Fault or Forfeiture can alter or diminish: If the last, then active Obedience to lawful Commands is required by the very Letter: but I cannot see how the same Text should require passive Obedience to unlawful Commands, any more than it does active; and whoever does not actively obey the lawful ones, 
Page 59  does as much resist the Power, nay more than he who resists a Person assuming a Power which never was given him by God or Man. He says farther, Nor doth our Law since the Cessation of the Tenure of Knight's Service, require it personally of all Subjects; at least, we of the Clergy cannot be concerned in it; because we by so many Statutes are exempted from bearing Arms.  
Herein he shows that he talks out of his Profession; for as to Personal Service, whatever might be requisite in Grand Serjeanty, by which a Man is to be the King's Champion, or the like in his own Person; 'tis evident Knight's Service was not personal; for otherwise it had been impossible for a Man who held several Knights Fees, to have discharged the Duty of his tenure.  
Even where there was no Knight's Service anciently, and since its being taken away, all Men have been, and yet are obliged to provide Arms, and the Bodies of Men, either their own or others, for the Defence of the Kingdom, according to their Estates real or personal. Nor have the Clergy any Exemption for this: Neither do the Acts establishing a Militia, discharge any Man from this, which is a Duty at Common Law; of which the Confessors Law, and the Statute of Winchester are declaratory.  
But what ever Exemption Clergymen have, it is because of their Attendance in their Ministerial Office; upon which account the dissenting Ministers have the like Exemption by the late Statute. What then if any of our Clergy decline swearing Allegiance till the time of Deprivation incurs? may and will they still exercise their Function? If they may and will; why might not they as well who were turned out by the Bartholomew Act? If they may not or will not, what Exemption can they claim more than Laymen? If they say still their Character is indelible, Is no Duty annexed to the Character?  
But is not this fine Doctrine to be insinuated now; as if no Man were obliged to endeavour by Arms to keep our King in his Station? Or if other Men are, at least not Clergymen: But that if you resist him by Arms, nothing but want of Success can make it criminal?  
Sure I am that egregious Pattern of Christian fortitude Mr. Johnson, on whom this Author reflects, was degraded by his Brethren, and delivered over to the secular scourge, for less than this.  
When I consider how earnestly this Man presses taking the Oaths, I cannot but think of the Advice said to be given by the late King to his Friends here, That as many of them as can should get into Offices. And we may hence observe what is to be expected from those Clergymen, who take the Oath of Allegiance with a Protestation, that they do it barely as to a King de facto: their Loyalty may vie with St. Beckets, who was for swearing to the King with a salvo jure to the Pope: whether such aught to be suffered to spread their Doctrines with a Face of Authority, and what Punishments they deserve, who accept of such Protestations, I submit to my Superiors. But sure I am this will not be enough in Law to keep their Live, unless they are favoured by an undue entry upon Record.  
Yet who can choose but wonder how from the same Text, a Clergy Man should enforce the Obligation of submitting to a Tyrant in the exercise of Power, upon pain of Damnation, and yet make the Penalty less in the case of resisting one, who is really God's ordinance, as he is a Minister of Good, but in his opinion wants Title, though the Law be on his side. This can be for no other Reason, but that whatsoever becomes of the State, 
Vid. pag. 41 without condemning the Doctrine of Nonresistance.  Churchmen must not recede from their darling-Notion of Nonresistance. And rather than they should be thought Ecclesiastical Weathercocks, the State must be turned round again into Confusion. Nor do they care how much they reflect upon those noble Patriots, who invited this King when he was Prince, 
Ibid.  and appeared in Arms with him for the Protestant Cause; If they can but free their Coat from the necessity of retracting those Slavish Doctrines, 
Vid. Jovoan, In all sovereign Governments the Subjects are and aught to be slaves if if the King pleases.  which though many of them have renounced in their Actions they would still justify in Principle. And as it is to be presumed that every Man will act according to his Principle when he has an inviting Opportunity; I leave it to all impartial Men to consider, which are most likely to be true to the present Government, they who believe the Sovereign Power inseparable from the Person of the late King, that they were in a State of Damnation who offered to resist his Arbitrary Usurpations, that themselves are exempted from assisting this Government with their Persons or their Arms in the utmost Extremity, and may resist when they are likely to escape temporal Judgement: Or they who are ready to hold to the Death, that our present King has as good a Title as ever King of England had; Which has already been evinced in some Measure; And did the Men of Scruples vouchsafe to produce any colourable Objection, 
History of Passive Obedience considered. Vid. Preface.  should be farther.  
Indeed a certain injudicious Author has, with a plain evil Design against the present Settlement, heaped up Numbers of Quotations to prove, that it is a Truth as eternal and unalterable as any Doctrine of Christianity, that a Superior is not in Things unlawful to be resisted, upon any pretence whatsoever: in the utmost extent of which Assertion, 
Ibid:  no sort of Superior, Justice of the Peace or other is to be resisted, even where he acts without colour of his Office.  
But what he drives at is, that Men ought to be unalterably true to their Oaths, and supposed Duty to the late King: at leasthe will allow of no discharge in Law sufficient, 
Hist. pag. 54.  unless the late King give an express release; and according to his Quotation out of Dr. Hammond's practical Catechism, 
History, pag. 54.  will have the Duty of Allegiance to continue where the supposed legal Sovereign doth still claim his Right to his Kingdoms, and to the Allegiance of his Subjects, no way acquitting them from their Oaths, or laying down his Pretensions, though for the present he be overpowered.  
This I am sure he will never prove to be the steady Doctrine of that Church, 
Preface.  which he calls poor and despised, and of whose Interests he pretends to the deepest sense, while he would render it, such, by keeping it too firmly attached to the Interest of the late misguided and unfortunate King: let him if he can squeeze this sense out of its Articles or Homilies. Certain it is, he is far from bringing a cloud of Witnesses to his imaginary eternal verity.  
Few of the passages which he citys enforce more than Obedience to lawful Authority: some indeed, and chief Persons now alive, let fall expressions through inadvertency, or prevalence of strong Temptations, which 'tis to be hoped that many of them have repent of; since their later Discourses and Practices notoriously contradict them: and surely little proof of the steady Doctrine of a Church can be had from such Inconstancy. I must own that this Collection is to one purpose very useful; for some of them wanted to be thus Admonished of their frailty: and 'twill be happy for them, if this Humiliation can expiate for that poison, which has infected many beyond Remedy, from the Antidote they now yield; while out of the Eater comes forth Meat, and themselves pull down that Edifice, which they had been building with great Pains.  
But what Rivers can wash away the stain of so much noble Blood, as has been offered up to this Moloch, a mere Figure, which some have made to worship? Had it not been for this Idol, worse than ever the Clowns chose, the Earl of Essex, Lord Russel, and Colonel Sydny had been now alive in their large Capacities for heroic Actions and wholesome Counsels, as well as in their immortal Memories; and had been as conspicuous now for the reward of their Merit, as they have been for their Sufferings. Under the Protection of this Figure, came out that shadow of a Vindication of the late Magistracy and Government of England, 
The censure of the two Vindications of the Magistracy and Government of England, written against the defence of Lord russel's Innocence.  in Two parts, which are more weak and Criminal attempts upon the never-dying Fame of the Ld. Russel, than any that he has been proved guilty of, otherwise than by a Verdict. The false colours in the first of these have been sufficiently exposed by Mr. Hawles, and the second Anticipated. Both of them, out of pretended Zeal for the present Government, justify the last, and therein condemn this, as wanting just Occasion or Foundation: and while the Author labours to wash the Blackamoor white, he bespatters the Innocent: and yet after his Thundering pretences to mighty feats, all resolves itself into a clearing the then Recorder, who pronounced Judgement upon the Indictment which was found: but the overruling and imposing Judges, the complying Jury (who in their passive Obedience to the Bench showed how much they had profited by that Doctrine) the scandalous Evidence, and stabbing Rhetoric of the eager Counsel, are left to shift for themselves.  
Our Collector I find as impotent in his Heat as the Vindicator: 
Page 118.  after all the formidable things which he has produced to show the remediless Case of Mankind by the Encroachments of Princes; 
Page 27.  he confesses that where a Government was founded in compact, and all privileges Sacred and Civil contrary to that agreement were invaded; this altars the Case, while it can no way hold good in Governments where there is no such Compact.  
And herein we are agreed.  
Hi motus animorum, atque haec certamina tanta,  
Pulveris exigui jactu composta quiescunt.  
Thus notwithstanding all the flourish of Quotations from Divines, he sends us to the Common-Lawyers. And one would think he was asleep when he made use of this passage from the witty Dr. Donne, 
Page 40.  Though some ancient Greek States which are called Regna Laconica, because they are shortened and limited to certain Laws; and some States in our time, seem to have conditional and provisional Princes, between whom and Subjects there are mutual and reciprocal Obligations, which if one side break, they fall on the other: Yet that Sovereignty, which is a power to do all things available to the main Ends, resides somewhere, which if it be in the hands of one Man, erects and perfects that Pambasilia of which we speak.  
If therefore those Expressions which run highest in maintenance of the unalterable Right of Princes, can reasonably be intended only of such as have the Power to do all things available to the main ends of Government, without Limitation to certain Laws; then they who have not this unlimited Power by the Constitution, may be conditional and provisional Princes.  
Should now our Historian strike out all his dead Authors, who have expressions of a quite contrary import to what he citys from themselves or others, and all those living one's who have contradicted themselves in Words, or a series of Actions; I assure myself his bulky Book would shrink into a very narrow Compass: and yet as it is, himself has condemned it to lie for waste paper, till he proves our Government was not founded in Compact, and that there are no Limitations by Laws to make it such an one as Dr. Donne calls Laconic. When he produces his Evidence of a Pambasilia here, I should think it no difficult task to convince all but himself of his Error.  
I take Judge Brouhgton to be the best Resolver of all Scruples in this kind that ever I met with of a Divine, even better than that Great Man, who as he has been shown most of his Mistakes upon the Grand Question, by that extraordinary Person, lately deceased, Dr. Twisden, little inferior to his Brother Sir Roger, so I suppose he is by this time satisfied that the Fundamental Contract is not so invisible, but it may be found and understood.  
The Collector refers to a Book, which I must own never to have been master of, written by a Person now of great Eminence and Station, with these Words;  
If you charge the Doctrine of absolute Submission as brutish or stupid, 
P. 73.  or contrary to the Law of Nature, see you do not run into Blasphemy, by charging the Holy one foolishly.  
Some would think the Obedience without Reserve required of the Scotch Nation, to be but a due Improvement of this. But I may refer him to the Laws of our Land, common Sense, or the same Persons better thoughts, for a more generous Idea of this matter.  
And if our learned Rabbis go about to show, that the frightful Representation which Samuel made of the way or manner of future Kings of Israel, 
Page 69.  was but the Jus Regium, the Fundamental Law of the Kings of Israel; 
Page 78.  and that the Kings of England have a Supremacy in their Dominion in all Causes Ecclesiastical and Secular, according to the Powers invested in the Jewish Kings under the Law.  
Wherein, indeed, I tack together the Proposition of one, in Explanation of the other; yet if the last meant it in the same sense, in which the other explains the Power of the Kings of Israel; I may well call for the Pedigree, to prove how our Kings derive their Title to this, or that Law which makes the Jewish Polity Universal: and for a clearer Argument ad hominem, I must say, that very Author's own Practice is a sufficient Confutation.  
But if they who are by the great and magnanimous Prince, who now fills the Throne, called to a more perfect Law of Liberty in this Year of Jubilee, refuse to be free; I may say, that like the Hebrew Servant bought with a price, or rather Slave, in the same case, they should have their Ears bored to distinguish them from others, who delight not in Slavery.  
And if while Blessings, like God Almighty's, descend upon the Evil and the Good, the Enemies and the Friends to our Peace; my Fleece, as that of Gideon's, remains unwatered with the Dew of Heaven; I must consider, that even that was to him a Sign of God's Presence.  
And the this should, with former Services to the Public, be made matter of Accusation, yet ought I not to faint in the Cause of Truth, and my Country; which amidst many Imperfections and Disadvantages, I must avow to the World, from the first dawnings of my Understanding, ever to have served with Sincerity, and the utmost Endeavours of,  
SIR, Yours most faithfully, etc.  
FINIS.