Imprimatur,  
Febr. 23. 1676. H. London.   

ANIMADVERSIONS Upon a Late PAMPHLET Entitled THE Naked Truth;  
Or, THE TRUE STATE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.  
The Second Edition.  
LONDON, Printed by T. R. and are to be sold by Benj. took at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1676.   


ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE TITLE, THE DEDICATION, AND Epistle to the READER.  
OF all the Rarities which of late have been the discourse of the Town (where men spend much of their time, as the men of Athens did, either in hearing or telling some New thing) nothing has been more talked of, than a cerrain Pamphlet called The NAKED TRUTH. Now having got a sight of it, and scanned it throughout, I am abundantly satisfied, not only from his Style, which is sometimes Enthusiastic, but from his Matter and Principles (if he stick to any) that the Author is a Borderer upon Fanaticism and does not know it. But by Naked Truth he seems to mean Christianity without either Welt or Guard (as they say) and not set off with Ceremony. For his Title-page stands thus: The Naked Truth, or the True State of the Primitive Church. This Title-page of his, he explains very sufficiently, p. 17. In the Primitive times (says he) in the greatest Storms, when the whole World of Jews and Gentiles were Enemies to the Church, and not one of your Ceremonies in the Church to preserve it; The simple Naked Truth without any Surplice to cover it, without any Ecclesiastical Policy to maintain it overcame all: and so would do now, did we trust to that, and the Defender of it. If he means its great Defender in Heaven, we put our whole Trust in him: or if he means his Vicegerent upon Earth, the Defender of the Faith, we repose an entire Confidence (as we ought) in the gracious Declarations and Expressions His Majesty is pleased to repeat upon all Occasions, of his perpetual good Affection and Compassion for the Church of England. Or if by Trusting to the simple Naked Truth, this Author means, the Truth of our own Cause, we dare trust to that, and to many Defenders of that too. But if trusting to the Naked Truth, be to this Pamphlet and this Project; we dare not trust to it. Why, this is stripping the Church bore to the very skin, nay, Skin and all must go, an Article of a Creed if need be, for he spends his first long Chapter in Reforming there too, and reducing the Faith to, I know not what, Naked Truth. Methinks he should have called his Pamphlet The TRUTH FLEYED, for NAKED TRUTH is too short, and not spoken through his Subject. But Skin for skin, and all that a man has will he give for his life: for This he contends on his Principle of Self-preservation, This he concludes the only possible expedient to keep out Popery, This is his healing Salve, This is the product of his Fasts, the Answer to his Prayers, the effect of his seeking God (as he takes care to acquaint us) This has been the Travel of his mind, since he had these thoughts, which he has been humbly conceiving these two years, time enough for an Elephant to bring forth in.  
This is the thing which he Dedicates to the Right Honourable, the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament. Pity it was not presented to the Lords during the last Session, than I believe, it would have been delivered over by their Lordships, to be confuted by the same experienced hand, that took to task a more Primitive piece of Naked Truth, viz. the Solemn League and Covenant in the Palace-yard at Westminster, where it expired into ashes. As for those Noble Patriots in the House of Commons, 'tis probable they would have voted him their Thanks too after the same manner, for laying a Libel at their doors, making a breach upon their glorious Act of Uniformity, and violating their Act (their most necessary Act) against Printing without a Licence: though he makes a neat Excuse whilst he is doing it, that he does it against his Conscience, for which he very poentiently begs pardon of God and Them, and so sins on: for, all this while he goes on with his Printing and Publishing it without a Licence.  
How he will justify his claim to the Title of An Humble Moderator, I cannot imagine; unless Assuming, Imposing, and turning all upside down, be the signs of Humility; and immoderate Zeal for one Party to be the qualification of a Reconciler, or Moderator.  
In his Address to the Reader he gives an Account, why he is so scrupulously careful to conceal his Name: because he cannot bear reproach. So all that is like to fall upon the poor Fatherless and Motherless Pamphlet; though he would have done a piece of Justice, to have named himself, and so to have cleared others, for it has been confidently laid to the charge of more than one Reverend person who (I have great reason to believe, and am several ways assured) had no manner of hand in it, yet he does himself and me a particular favour, in making it impossible for me to reflect upon his Person (which I know no more than the Man in the Moon) only as he makes himself the Patron of so vile a Cause. For whosoever vents his own Amusements, to the Churches great and real prejudice (and that's this case) he must not think to scape for the Godliness of his Style, nor for a man of good Intentions, as sure he is, or else he would never give the Devil so much more than his due, as to make so strange a Protestation as he does here, that he would never condemn any good Action though done by the Devil (as if he supposed, the Devil might do some such for aught he knows) but Hell itself, they say (though we never heard before of any good Actions there, yet it) is full of Such as were once full of good Intentions.   

Animadversions upon his first Chapter concerning Articles of Faith.  
I Confess when first I saw this Jewel of a Pamphlet, and had run over two or three pages of this Chapter, I suspected its Author for some Youngster that had been dabbling among the Socinian Writers, and was ambitious of showing us his Half-Talent in the way. I was quickly delivered from this jealousy by his Orthodox contradictory expressions in other places: But I find he is one of the Men of the Second Rate (as I take leave to style them) that hardly ever see to the Second Consequence. Therefore once for all I protest, that I do not charge Him with many of his own most obvious Consequences as his opinions: for 'tis plain he does not discern them. But the Church may justly complain of him, for thrusting out such crude, indigested matter, without communicating these conceptions of his, to some that would have showed him the weak and blind-sides of them. Now since the mischief is done, to undo the Charm again it becomes a duty to Expose him; and most of all for this Chapter, where he has most exposed himself: a Chapter of most pernicious consequence, and admirably serving the turn of the rankest Sectaries. Who not being able to keep up their Congregations any longer, or to keep their Disciples from ours by trivially declaiming against our Ceremonies; They ferment them now by instilling into them new fears and jealousies of our Doctrines: Warning them away from our Churches, as if there was some strange Fury working, or some Innovations contriving in the Church of England: and as if we were allowed to preach and maintain even in our City-Pulpits, new Articles of Faith, Socinian or Pelagian, in opposition to the Catholic and truly Primitive. How unsufferably J. O. for one has reflected, not only upon some particular Persons, but upon the whole Church of England and its Governors upon this account, any one may read, that does but run over his Survey of a discourse concerning Ecclesiastical Polity. No wonder then, if now they are transported with joy, when an Author appears as one dropped down from heaven to plead their Cause, vouching himself a Son of the Church of England, teaching as one having Authority like a Father, venturing at first dash upon the tenderest Point in the World, concerning Articles of Faith, implying and supposing all along, that some are extremely to blame for improving the Faith, not by confirming, but enlarging it, ask, whether the state of Salvation be altered ' and, what need any other Articles? In what Church does he ask these Questions? and how monstrous impertinent are they here, if we do nothing like it?  
Well! to begin with him, and follow him step by step through his many turn and wind, and sometimes nothing but a rope of Sand to guide me; He makes a discovery to us in the first place, that That which we commonly call the Apostles Creed, is the sum of Christian Faith. And again, that the Primitive Church received this as the sum total of Faith necessary to salvation. Why not now? I answer, it is so now, and all true Sons of our Church hold it so now: Then why this Question? Why that which follows? Is the state of Salvation altered? No doubt the terms of Belief, on which Salvation is ordinarily attainable, are never changeable, but, like God himself who established them, fixed and . But still he follows his blow, though he fights with the Air: If it be complete (says he) what need any other Articles? There may have been needful heretofore, not only other Articles, but other Creeds, for the farther explication of those Articles in the Apostles Creed: and yet in those new Creeds, not one new Article. The Apostles Creed is the sum of Christian Faith. True; yet I hope he will not think the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, and the Athanasian Creeds were superfluous and unnecessary: And in his Chapter about preaching he seems concerned for this last the Athanasian; and yet his censure is so bold upon Constantine the Emperor, and some godly Bishops (he conceives more zealous than discreet, and so do some godly Bishops conceive of this Author) and his pique at the new word Homoousios carries such an ugly reflection upon that Creed, that I scarce dare understand him. But we shall have more of this hereafter.  
He would have men improve in Faith, but rather Intensiuè, than Extensiuè, to Confirm it rather than Enlarge it. And yet 'tis certain that all formal and mortal Heretics, that are not Atheists, are justly condemned for want of due extension in their Faith.  
He prays us to remember the Treasurer to Candace Queen of Aethiopia, whom Philip instructed in the Faith: His time of Catechising was very short, and soon proceeded to Baptism. This is soon pronounced (as he uses to do) but not proved. It does not appear how long, or how short was the time of his Catechising: or how many Leagues they traveled together before they proceeded to Baptism. 'Tis true there needs no great length of time to propose and demonstrate Christianity (as St. Peter and the Apostles did it in few words, and) especially out of the Prophecies of the Old Testament, which the Eunuch was then reading. But then a great deal must and may be learned in a little time: as the prime Articles of Faith are so strongly and rationally knit together, that 'tis indeed impossible to teach or learn any one of them, without teaching or learning them all. Whereas then our Author proceeds thus. But Philip first required a confession of his Faith, and the Eunuch made it, and I beseech you observe it: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God: and straightway he was baptised. How? no more than this? no more. What! nothing of the Holy Ghost till he heard of him in the Baptismal form? What does he mean then by that which immediately follows? This little grain of Faith being sound, believed with all his heart, purchased the kingdom of Heaven. Had he believed the whole Gospel with half his heart, it had been of less value in the sight of God. 'Tis not the quantity, but the quality of our Faith, God requireth. I answer, the true and full notion of Saving Faith is embracing from the whole heart the whole Fundamental truth of the Gospel. Why does he talk then of the whole Heart, and yet supposes but half or a part of this Fundamental truth? Does he dream that St. Philip the Evangelist Christened the Eunuch after Christ's Ascension into Heaven, only as St. John the Baptist brought men to his Baptism, before Christ appeared in his Ministry upon earth? and made him such a Disciple, as those whom St. Paul found in Ephesus, that had not so much as heard whether there were any Holy Ghost? to whom thereupon St. Paul proved Christianity from their Master the Baptist's Testimony: and to make them perfect Christians, which they were not before, but only a sort of Disciples, Baptised them in the Name of the Lord Jesus, Acts 19  
Yet this Author will not let go his hold, and will needs be thus objecting against himself. But, sure the Eunuch was more fully instructed. It may be you are sure of it: but I could never yet meet with any assurance of it, nor any great probability of it. Yes, I am sure of it, if he means by more fully instructed, taught other Fundamental Articles beside this one, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And I will give him one demonstration of what I say (which is more than a Probability) out of the story itself; and he might have met with this demonstration in it himself, if he could have seen but an inch before him; for we find in the story that the Eunuch himself made the motion to the Evangelist, and reminded him of baptising him. Therefore 'tis evident they had discoursed before even of this particular, though we are told no more in express words, but that St. Philip preached to him Jesus, the Faith of Jesus. Yet he had branched out this Faith into all its Fundamental Articles, and had declared to him even the necessity of Baptism; which he understood not at all, if he did not apprehend it aright, and as it was presently to be celebrated; in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Why, this very short Baptismal form is a perfect Creed by itself, if it be throughly penetrated and explained in its full latitude: for it seems the Name of the Son was by a divine Criticism chosen and interposed between the other two Persons, whose Godhead was confessed and acknowledged by the Jewish Church, rather than that of the Word, to denote the Second of the 3 Persons of the most equal and inseparable Trinity, as God of God from the Eternal Father; and also to connote the Coeternal Son, made man in the fullness of time, and therefore born of a Woman, the Virgin Mary. Why, here's a great part of the faith already. And then the Baptismal action itself, the Immersion and Emersion out of the Water, did, in its full and plain importance (as no doubt the Eunuch was made to understand it, before he was brought to it) acquaint him and instruct him abundantly in those other great points of Faith, the Dying, Burying, and Rising again of Christ for our Justification from our sins; as also with the whole Practical duty of a Christian man: that being the Inward part, or Thing signified in the Sacrament of Baptism: viz. a Death unto Sin, the great comprehensive duty of Mortification, and a New birth unto Righteousness: where he must needs be told the mystery of the First and Second Covenant, that being by nature born in sin, Original sin, and a Son of wrath, he had hereby Forgiveness of sins, was adopted and made a Child of Grace, and Heir and Co-heir with Christ in the Communion of Saints, to live with him after the Resurrection in life everlasting. Now this Author may see what use and need there was of the Constantinopolitan Creed, that put in, One baptism for the Remission of sins: Since the true understanding of that Sacrament is so instructive of all other Fundamentals. For, all this our Apostle St. Paul supposed, as the common Notions all Christians should have of their Baptism, Know ye not that as many of us as were baptised unto Jesus Christ, were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father: even so we should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his Death; we shall be also in the likeness of his Resurrection, Ro. 6. 3, 4, 5, &c,  
To as little purpose than is his next Application of that passage in St. John, Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. 1 Joh. 4. 2. Why, the Mahometans confess, in some sense, that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, as a great Prophet sent from God. Will a Mahometan, or a Socinian confession of this suffice? For the Socinians will admit the Apostles Creed as the sum of Faith; the words I mean, but not the Catholic sense of it: And they will say, through Jesus Christ our Lord at the end of their own Prayers, in their own distorted sense of it. But if confessing Jesus Christ be, as St. John means it, confessing the God and the Man (otherwise it is not indeed confessing the same Jesus Christ, whom Christians ought to confess) this takes in whole Christianity, that is, all its few primary Fundamentals are couched in this: All these no question, were virtually contained in St. Peter's short confession of faith, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God; for which confession he was blest, and upon which faith Christ declared he would build his Church as upon a Rock. And all these no doubt St. Paul preach to the Corinthians, when yet he determined to know nothing amongst them, but Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Cor 2. 2.  
But whereas, in the next place, he charges some with introducing new and many Articles of Faith; I hope he does not mean all our 39 Articles: most of which, as (a late Right Reverend and learned Praelate) Bishop Lany, Lord Bishop of Ely styles them in one of his 5 Sermon▪ p 48. are Articles of Peace, and consent in certain Controversies, not Articles of Faith or Communion. Not as if the Subscribers to these Articles engaged themselves to no more than not to contradict them, or never to preach against them; No, the Church is so just to herself, as to exact for the security of her own Peace, that all whom she trusts with teaching others, or whom she recommends to the world with University Degrees, shall subscribe to these Articles as their own Opinions, and what they believe as convinced in their own Judgements that they are true; Yet this I take to be one of her greatest Ecclesiastical Policies, that she admits the many thousands and hundred thousands, without any Subscription to these Articles, ad Communionem Laicam, that is, not to Half-Communion (as some would ignorantly construe it, because they have Sacrilegiously taken away the Cup from the Laity) but to that which the Primitive Church called the Communion of Laics: that is, such a Communion as was given without such Conditions as were anciently required of ecclesiastics. But my best excuse for him is, that, though he be scuffling in the dark, yet he strikes at the Papists especially, and would narrow their Faith, rather than ours. 'Tis true they have introduced many a new Article of Faith which is bad enough; and, which is worse, many a one that has not a syllable of truth in it. He puts the Papists, Lutherans, and Calvinists all together. One cries, this is a Demonstration, Another (says he) cries, no such matter, etc. He may make as bold with any of these as he pleases, for we are none of these; and I am not bound to make war in their vindication.  
In the 4th. page concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, he does implicitly condemn the Catholic Church both in the East and West, for being so presumptuous in her Definitions. 'Tis modestly done of him. But he means, we have no comprehensive knowledge of the matter declared. His meaning is good and true; But his Inference is stark naught, if he means, therefore we understand not at all that this or that is declared. And I am sure, I do him no wrong in fixing this meaning upon his words, for these are his very words, If then our Reason understands not what is declared, how can we by Reason make any deduction by way of Argument from that which we understand not? Is it even so? Then let us put the case with reverence, That Almighty God, who assuming, I suppose, the shape of an Angel treated with Abraham face to face, as a man does with his friend, should for once have spoken in the same manner to Arrius or Socinus, and made this one declaration to either of them, that the Catholic Church's doctrine of the Trinity was true, and his false; Then I demand, would not this have been demonstration enough of the Faith which we call Catholic, either to Socinus or Arrius? And yet all those contradictory Arguments, which either of them had once fancied Insoluble, supposing them not answered in particular, would remain against it, and stand as they did before any such declaration; and yet all this without giving him any comprehensive knowledge.  
But as to the ground upon which he raises all this dust, in p. 4. about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, I can easily answer for the Church of England; let the Church of Rome answer for herself, if she can, for her trampling upon the poor Greek Church as she lies in the dust, and branding her with Heresy for her doctrine of the Procession, as cruelly as her Turkish Masters burn their Halfmoons on the bodies of those whom they enslave. But our Church is not so uncharitable, as to define it a Heresy for any to maintain, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son, though we maintain also with good reason, as a great truth, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. But this makes no breach of Communion between us and the Greeks, the difference arising only from the Inadaequation of Languages, which notwithstanding, we agree in the main of this Article. So that I may answer all this needless discourse, as Demosthenes once answered the Orator Aeschines, who kept much ado about a word which the other had not used so properly; But the Fortunes of Greece, said he, do not depend upon it.  
But if in Divine matters we once give way to human deductions, a cunning Sophister may soon lead a weak disputant into many Errors. So I doubt some such one has misled this Author, who, whatever he be, I dare say is not condemned by St. Paul for one of the disputers of this World, but rather is one of those whom the same Apostle forbids us to admit to any doubtful disputations. But is this Author serious against human deductions from Scripture, as he calls them, especially since he confesses, p. 7, that Heresies never appear at first in their own natural shape, but disguised with specious pretences drawn from some obscure places of Scripture, capable of various interpretations; And thus having gotten footing by degrees, they lay aside their disguises and march barefaced? Now after this observation, would one think it possible for one that is but master of coherent thoughts for three minutes, within the compass of three pages to tell us gravely, Wherefore we have no other safe way to speak of divine matters but in Scripture language, ipsissimus verbis, with the very same words. Admirable! What way then is there to oppose those new arising Heresies, that draw their specious pretences from those obscure Scriptures, and do not in express words contradict any plain Texts, if there be no safe way to speak against them, or to speak at all in Divine matters, but in express words of Scripture? Nay our Author, as it happens, is ware of this horrid consequence, and admits it: blaming for his imprudence that most prudent and most pious Constantine (as he calls him) the first and best of Christian Emperors, that he did not pursue his own Intentions, to suppress all Disputes and all new Questions of God the Son, both Homoousian and and Homoiousian, and command all to acquiesce in the very Scripture expressions without any addition, and then he is confident the Arrian Heresy had soon expired. Why, this was the very design of those Arrians themselves, that which they drove at in the Court, that which they urged in all their little Councils and Cabals; that silence might be enjoined both Parties, and the Nicene profession of Faith not imposed upon them: as if it had not been ground enough for the Church safely to declare and define one divine Essence in the Trinity, when St. John had set it down, There be three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are One, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What signifies ●●● but Unum, that is, Una Res, or Una Essentia, One Essence? and what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more than this? Only the Church had a necessity of using that word directly to meet and encounter the opposite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Heretics took up, to speak their new Faith in a new Term, and beside and against the Scripture.  
But this Principle will misled him farther yet: for upon his measures and rules of Faith, what will become of our Prime and most necessary Principles of Faith (as he very truly calls them p. 4.) the Trinity three Persons and one God? Why do we find this Author p. 29. solemnly affirming this in the presence of God, that he has known some pass for very good Preachers that could not give a good account of the Athanasian Creed. I suppose this Author passes for a very good Preacher himself, and firmly believes this Creed, and professes his Faith by it openly in the Church: yet what good account can he give of this Creed, if we have no other safe way to speak of divine matters, but in Scripture language, and may not safely use deductions or inferences from Scripture? How many Terms are there in the Athanasian, which to seek for in the Apostles Creed or in the whole Bible, were to as much purpose, as it was for the old affected Ciceronian in Erasmus, to labour and toil his brains to turn that Creed into Ciceronian Latin? Yet these are the Terms in which the Catholic Church has thought she spoke safely in these Divine matters; But it seems she has spoken all this while at the peril of her understanding. In the mean while the old dormant Heresies may safely revive again, as the Monothelites that affirmed that there was but one Will in Christ, and the Nestorians that asserted there were two Persons in Christ, etc. Now, their Ghosts may rise and walk and invade the Church again, under this Author's shadow: for though by immediate consequences they destroy the Faith, and rob us of our Saviour; yet these consequences are only Rational Deductions, an human (or Heathen) way of Argumenting, as he words it. But there's no safe way to speak of these Divine matters but in Scripture language, Ipsissimis verbis; with the very same words: Then these and twenty other sorts of Heretics are safe enough, unless they lay aside their Disguises and turn such errand Mooncalves, as to state their Heretical conclusions point blank contradictory to some express propositions in the Bible. But any thing to avoid the plague of School Divinity (as he very feelingly calls it) though I dare say, he was never infected with it: But alas! poor St. Augustine had a touch of it, and so had Athanasius before him. And, if we believe this Author, Many of the primitive Doctors and Fathers being converted from heathenism, and having by long and great industry acquired much knowledge in natural Philosophy, Antiquity, History, and subtle Logic or Sophistry, were very unwilling to abandon quite these their long studied and dearly beloved Sciences (falsely so called) and therefore translated them into Christianity, applying their School-terms, Distinctions, Syllogisms, etc. to Divine matters, intending perchance through indiscreet Zeal to illustrate and embellish Christian knowledge with such Artificial forms and figures, but rather defaced and spoiled it. Kindly and learnedly spoken of Learning in general, and Reverently spoken of the Primitive Doctors and Fathers! Why, he could hardly have declared himself with greater animosity and severity against Greg. de Valentia, or Suarez, or some other of the late Popish Schoolmen. As for the Fathers, that they were no defacers or spoilers of Christianity, 'tis defence enough for them, if I allege in their behalf the Testimony of One that was none of their greatest Champions, even Mr. Dallé himself: who in that very book, which he was so many years collecting and writing on purpose to expose them for all their little failings: yet he confesses and contends, that they were guilty of no Errors amounting to Heresies in their Controversies of Faith. And by this Author's good leave, the Fathers were not the men that corrupted our Christianity through Philosophy; but if any have done so, it is rather that sort of men (the Popish Schoolmen,) who (pardon the expression) Aristotelized the Fathers. As for the elder Schoolmen their design was noble, to draw the whole Scheme of Divinity into such order and method, that a Divine might sit and see, as it were, his whole world of Matter before him; and to arm him at all points where he might possibly be attaqu'd, they set themselves to go into the bowels of all Controversies, herein they have often exceeded in beating matters too thin; and I say not, all their Armour was of Proof, but that which is firm and good, as a great deal of it is, ought not to be thrown away because it is too heavy for some men's shoulders. That unlucky Pantaenus set up Disputing (if you'll take our Author's word for it) in a School of Alexandria, though others verily believe that one St. Paul before him, disputed daily for the space of two years in the School of one Tyrannus. And some differ from this Author's Opinion, that the damnable Heresy of the Arrians sprang from the School of Pantaenus, they rather think, and our Ecclesiastical Historians say, that Arrius' spleen had never wrought so furiously against the Church, but only for a disappointment he received in his aspiring expectations of some great Bishopric.  
But we must needs look back to the second and third pages, to see how he justifies all this, by alleging & proving, with a great deal ado, from Reason and Scripture, that No man should be forced to Believe, for No man can be forced to Believe. As for example (says he) If you hold a clear printed book, with a clear candle, to a man of clear eyes, and able to read; he will certainly read: But if the print be not clear, or the candle, or his sight not clear, or he not learned to read; Can your force make him read? and just so it is with our Understanding, which is the eye of our Soul, and a Demonstration being as a Candle to give light; If then your Demonstration or Deduction, or his Understanding be not clear, or he not Learned; You may with a Club dash out his brains, but never clear them. It were easy to confound his Similitude, by showing the disproportion between the parts of it. For he brings the sense of Seeing, which is linked and tied to the dull dimensions of a Body, and the studied acquired faculty of Reading, which is the other term on the one side; I say he brings these into comparison with our Understanding, which be calls the Eye of our Soul; and a Demonstration, which he makes the candle to give it light: But if it be, as he supposes here, a demonstration indeed about things absolutely necessary for us to know, it must of necessity so irresistibly dart its beams into the mind of any, that is not born without any brains to let them in, as there shall need no force to clear them. But 'tis more to my purpose to retort his Similitude thus: Suppose you held a clear printed book, with a clear candle, to a man of clear eyes; and suppose the man shuts his eyes, and suppose all men that look upon him attentively, see that he shuts his eyes (as that's a thing may be seen) [or, which is all one, that he stops his ears (as some that will not so much as enter our Church-doors) refusing to hear the voice of the Charmer, charm he never so wisely] and suppose this book thus held to him be the Word of God itself: Then, since the same Word tells us, that some may be damned for shutting their eyes upon it; Certainly the Magistrate may, and aught to force him not to wink so hard, but to open his eyes: (and sure all this may be done without dashing out his brains with a Club) and then indeed it will follow that he will certainly read, but not otherwise. The Jews in Rome are constrained once a week to hear a Christian Sermon: The Pope indeed cannot make the Jews Believe, but he can make them hear, unless they close up their Ears with wool, or purposely send their Wits a woolgathering (as the Country phrase is) which would be a fault in their Wills, to be punished if it could be proved: Whereas this Author would ascribe all to men's want of common Understanding, or want of Discerning ability in the matters now in question, which are the great matters of Faith. But God is wanting to no man in Necessaries: and the Reason which helps every man to see these Truths, at least when they are showed and pointed out to him, is a vulgar, a popular thing. But sure this Author imagines there are a world of Idiots, that he may not be forced to admit any man's hypocrisy & wilfulness to be gross & palpable. Thus he concludes, Our force may make him blinder, but never see clearer, may make him an hypocrite, no true Convert. No! by this Author's favour, he that shuts his eyes, yet pretends to see clearly, is an hypocrite already: and we that would oblige him to open his eyes, whether he will or no, do not go the way to make him an Hypocrite, but a true Convert from his sinful Hypocrisy.  
But he still eagerly pursues his ill-chosen Principle in mistaken charity: If a man do not see a thing clearly contained there (i. e. in Scripture) you cannot force either his Sight or his Faith. p. 4. He had said before, p. 3; He than that believes the Scripture, cannot but believe what you clearly demonstrate from Scripture, if he hath clear brains: if he have not, your force may puzzle and puddle his brains more, by the passion of Anger and Hatred, etc. And again in the same page, Can you drive Faith, like a Nail into his head or heart with a hammer? Nay, 'tis not in a man's own power to make himself Believe any thing farther than his Reason shows him; much less Divine things. Put this together (and there's a great deal more of it) and see whether it does not lead us into the very dregs of Mr. Hobbs' Divinity; i. e. Fatality. For if it be not in any man's power to discern Fundamental truths (of which we are treating in this Chapter) when they are laid before his eyes; Then I am sure it is none of his fault: of which the result is this, that whereas our Saviour has pronounced, that He that believes shall be saved, and he that believes not (that is, he that disbelieves after a sufficient proposal) shall be damned; This Author will have it, that He who does not believe, even after such Evidence, cannot believe, and therefore cannot be saved, and so cannot avoid being damned. Only, this Author is better natured indeed than Mr. Hobbs, who allows the Civil Magistrate to correct, and even to cut off those that are thus necessitated to do evil (as men kill Vermin or noxious Creatures:) Whereas this Author (as much in the other extreme) dares go no farther than that a Christian Magistrate should punish or banish those that trouble the Church of Christ with Doctrines apparently contrary to the clear Text, and such as are destructive to Christianity. But who will judge what is clear? or what is thus destructive? the Party accused, or the Civil Magistrate? For, as for the Ecclesiastic, he makes the Church all along in this discourse a party: and we shall see anon that he will not allow her, even in a General Council, for a competent Judge, to be relied upon by both Parties, no not in points of Faith. But if he dares go no farther than this, I dare not go so far: I am very far from thinking, as he does, that it was any part of S. Paul's meaning in this place, I wish they were even cut off that trouble you to wish there were a fitting Power, that is a Christian Magistrate to punish or banish them: and his Reason is nothing, why St. Paul should not mean here, a cutting off from the Church by way of Excommunication: for that (says he) was in his power to do. Why then should he wish it? It might be in his Power, i. e. he wanted not authority, but yet he might justly apprehend it a perilous thing, formally to cut off and excommunicate so numerous and powerful a Faction, for fear of some great apostasy from Christianity; from which these men, by his favour, had not cut off themselves though they ran into Schisms or Heresies. Therefore he might well consider it as a thing rather to be wished than executed: and if this were no wish of St. Paul's making, that the Troublers of the Church might be punished or banished, than I cannot find in my heart to go along with this Author in making it my wish, that they should either be banished or more severely punished for the present, than by forcing them into our Churches (whence they have indeed banished themselves) that they may hear our defences of an honest Cause. And if it wring their Consciences to come thither to Prayers, I cannot choose but make another wish, that they might first be satisfied either in our public or private Conferences with their Leaders. The notable effect of such Conferences, he that does not believe let him but read what my Lord Bishop of Winchester, (then of Worcester,) printed, of what passed, in that short one, at Worcester-house, or the Savoy, where as soon as ever it came to writing in Syllogism, which this Author so despises here and every where, the adverse Party was driven immediately to that wild Assertion, that whatsoever may be the occasion of sin to any, must be taken away. But this Author, without making any such provision for their Souls, as has any thing in it of constraint is for leaving them to their fate. As for those (says he) who keep their erroneous opinions to themselves, who neither publish nor practise any thing to the disturbance of the Church or State (as if to set up Altar against Altar, were no disturbance) but only refuse to conform to the Churches established Doctrine or Discipline (pardon me if I say) I cannot find any warrant, or so much as hint from the Gospel to excuse any force to compel them. No! let all such live like Pagans, and go to no Churches at all, if they have a mind to it.  
But he knows full well there is a common Objection about the Magistrates using any compulsion, taken from S. Augustine. Some Heretics Donatists came to him in his later days, and gave thanks that the Civil Power was made use of, to restrain them: Confessing, that was the means which brought them to consider more calmly their own former extravagant Opinions, and so brought them home to the true Church. To this he answers, First, the Donatists are well known to have been a Sect, not only erroneous in judgement but very turbulent in behaviour, always in seditious practices. & in that case (he tells us) he showed before how the Civil Magistrate may proceed to Punishment. But, he says, our case is not in repressing seditious practices, but enforcing a confession of Faith, quite of another nature. Though I could easily and justly retort him a sharper answer, I say only this; the very Act against them calls them Seditious Conventicles: and openly to break so many known Laws of the land, after so many reinforcements, is not this to be turbulent? And was it not ever understood so in all Religions? even in heathen Rome? The most learned P. Aerodius tells us, when a sort of Innovators kept their Conventicles in opposition to the way received among them of worshipping their Gods, the Senate made an Act there should be no such Meetings, as tending to the disturbance of the State, and the public Peace. Et si quis tale Sacrum solemn & necessarium duceret, and if any one judged such a Sacrifice to be necessary, and a Solemnity not to be omitted without a Crime, he was to repair to the Praetor, and the Praetor was to consult the Senate, when there were at least a hundred Senators present (so that the Rump of Parliament would not do neither); And if the Senate gave him leave, it must be with this condition, That when he performed his offices of Religion his own way, ita id sacrum faceret, dum ne plures quam quinque sacrificio interessent, there should not be above five persons allowed to be present at the Meeting. The self same number, besides the Dissenter's own Family, is so far forth endured by an Act of this present Parliament, that there must be more than five to make it a Conventicle: But what are 5 to 500? as commonly they meet: And are not such Meetings formidable? and whatever is formidable to the Church and the State, is not that also Turbulent? And if they were thus solicitous to preserve and establish, as a sacred inviolable thing the Idolatrous worship of their false Gods, what care of ours can be great enough to secure the Godly worship of the only True God, when it is shaken by such Divisions? But to return to St. Austin; how did the Civil Magistrate proceed to punish the Donatists for their sedition? even by laying his Commands upon them, at that good Father's Request, That they should come to Church. A severe punishment and very likely indeed to be inflicted upon them, as Traitors to the Imperial Crown! But secondly, says he, to answer more particularly this story, I suppose, says he, there is no man such a stranger to the world, as to be ignorant that there are Hypocrites in it; and such for ought we know) these seeming converted Donatists might be, who for love of this World more than for love of the Truth, forsaken their heretical Profession, though not their Opinion, etc. Incomparable! for aught he knows, they were Hypocrites! So for aught we know, This Author is all this while a Jesuit, and writes this Pamphlet only to embroil us Protestants. But he goes on; unless it can be evidenced, that these Donatists' hearts were changed, as well as their Profession (a thing impossible to prove) all this proves nothing. Very good! So unless it can be evidenced that he writes all this Pamphlet from his Heart (which is impossible to be proved) it all signifies just nothing. But thirdly, says he, put the case their hearts were really changed as to matter of belief, 'tis evident their hearts were very worldly still, grovelling on the earth, not one step nearer Heaven. A horrible charitable saying! we may forgive him any thing after this: as his supposing, in this next sentence, that the pruning of the Tree by the Magistrate's Sword is doing evil. As for his putting the Case, Malchus had been converted by St. Peter 's cutting off his ear, and saying, this would not have excused St. Peter 's act, which our Saviour so sharply reproved, and threatened by perishing with the sword: In the first place (I humbly conceive) St. Peter was no Civil Magistrate: unless he that will not allow him to draw o●e Sword here as a private Person, will admit the fine Monkish conceit of Ecce duo Gladii! behold here are two Swords, the Spiritual and the Temporal for St. Peter and his Successors. And secondly, for his cutting of Malchus' ear, I suppose there is some difference, between the Magistrat's giving one an ear to hear with, or compelling one to hearken and listen to reason; and cutting off one's ear, or setting one in the Pillory.  
But all this, he says, in reference to compelling men to believe or conform, still reserving to the Magistrate power according to Scripture to punish evil doers, not evil believers, not who think, but do publish or do practise something to subvert the Fundamentals of Religion, or disturb the Peace of the State, or injure their Neighbour. God, the only searcher of hearts, reserves to himself the punishment of evil thoughts, of evil belief, which man can never have a right cognizance of. And does he take all this pains only to put a fallacy upon us? and only to prove the truth of an old Adage, that Thought is free? And that no body can be punished in this world for his Thoughts only? or that it is all one for a thing not to be, and not to appear to be? But for all this, evil believers, if they profess their evil belief, plainly appear evil doers, and are to be treated accordingly: Though I speak nothing more against them or their greatest Speakers, than that they may be brought to our Churches, and give us a fair hearing.   

Animadversions upon his Appendix to the former Subject.  
HIS Appendix to the former Subject gins with censuring the modesty of our first Reformers, for their deference to the Ancient Fathers and Councils. We thank him for this reproach. Hereby (says he) they were reduced to great straits in their Disputations. He shall find himself reduced into much greater before we have done with him, for thus aspersing and deserting, both the Ancients, and the Modern Fathers (as I may style them) of this Church, and the Reformation. His reason for thus rejecting Antiquity is, because some Popish Errors were crept very early into the Church. The Superstition of the Cross and Chrism were in use in the second Century. They were in use: but none were then allowed in any superstitious abuse of them. As for the Millenary Error, and the Necessity of Infants receiving the Blessed Sacrament, (Errors indeed, but no Heresies, and common Errors, but by no means to be charged on the Church Universal of those Ages, which is but a Vulgar Error,) since the Papists, he confesses, reject them both, I hope these do not prove the Fathers Papists, nor yet Heretics, that the Reformers should balk them on these Surmises.  
However this Reformer urges them where he thinks they serve his turn. St. Cyprian tells us, that every Praepositus, which we call Bishop, is to be guided by his own Reason and Conscience; and is responsible to God only for his Doctrine. St. Cyprian only says in the place which he means (though he is not pleased to quote it) that a Bishop was Praepositus, and responsible to no other: that is, to no other Bishop, and particularly not responsible to the Bishop of Rome. But St. Cyprian never says that a Bishop is not responsible to the Church, or a Council of Bishops, which without any usurpation have always taken to themselves the authority of calling even Patriarches to an account for their Doctrine: as that General Council held at Constantinople by the Emperor Constantinus Pogonatus, judged, and condemned five Patriarches at once, and Honorius the Pope of Rome for one of them.  
But St. Augustine believed it a direct Heresy to hold there were any Antipodes. 'Tis true, he held there were none, and rallied those that held there was any such thing: This was for want of understanding the System of the World, which in those Ages few understood before the late Discoveries. But St. Augustine is so little guilty of believing it either a Direct or an Indirect Heresy, that he scarce makes Religion at all concerned in it. And if he touch it only as a point of Philosophy, than his Reputation of Wit is as safe as that of Herodotus and Lucretius, and many of the greatest Wits, that made as fine Burlesques as he, upon this opinion of Antipodes. But if so great a Divine as St. Augustine, and so great a Scholar as Lactantius were liable, to such mistakes for want of skill in the Mathematics; Then why does this Author inveigh against that part of Learning for a Divine, in his preaching Chapter, p. 27. & 28?  
He can't but wonder that men of any brains or modesty should so grossly abuse this saying of our Saviour, He that will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican, spoken of private differences between man and man, to be referred to the Determination of the Church, that is the Congregation of the Faithful which they usually and by order should assemble in; and refer this to the Church in General, in matters of Faith, not in the least pointed at there. He will have much ado to make us believe that a man is not bound to tell his Brother of Heresy, a matter of so great Consequence, and to tell it to the Church, if his Brother will not hear him; and yet prove that he is bound to do this, in matter of private difference, or petty quarrel between them. Wherefore (to borrow his own Conclusion of this matter) I pass this over as very Impertinent.  
And so is that which follows, I do not believe, nor am I bound by Scripture to believe such Expositions as the Popish Church makes of this place, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church. Who bids him believe the Popish Expositions? But if that place be not spoken of the Roman Church, therefore does it signify nothing to prove the Visibility or Indefectibility of the Catholic Church? But 'tis plain he advances the notion of a Church Invisible, a Church that shall be driven into the Wilderness (where her Ninety nine Ceremonies are to be left to attend her) scarce visible in the World: whereas the Learned understand that place of the Church's Persecutions the first three hundred years, which made it the more illustriously visible: and our nineteenth Article calls it the visible Church of Christ.  
Now he proceeds to the business of General Councils, whether they may Err in some points of Faith? The Church of England acknowledges they may Err, and have Erred in things pertaining to God. No doubt of it. But this Author immediately flies higher, with a why not in some points of Faith. All the Evangelical Doctors grant (says he) that the later General Councils have Erred: if so, why not the former? what promise had the former from Christ more than the later? True, there is no more promise to a Council of the fourth Age, or to that of Nice, than to one that should be held in the seventeenth, if it were as General and as free. He asks concerning this promise, The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, what's this to a general Council (which is) not the thousandth part of the Clergy, nor the thousand thousandth part of the Church? We shall find him mistaken in this Account at long running. Lastly, he shows his charitable Divination, in foretelling how much more mischief General Councils would have done, if more of them had been convened. But say you (says he) No General Council determined those errors? Why? because none was called about them: had any been called, who can doubt but they would have avowed that in the Council, which they all taught in their Churches? This he says: but his Yeas and Nay's are no Oracles with us: For why should they be, when a General Council is not so with him? Then presently he humbly craves pardon for his bold presumption: viz. of these hard say against General Councils. And I as humbly beg leave to speak for them in behalf of the Church of England, and the Law of the Land: both which I'm sure I have on my side, and both give much deference to General Councils. The twentieth Article of our Church has these words, The Church has Authority in matters of Faith; And the Statute of the Land runs thus, (Eliz. 1. c. 1.) That none, however commissioned, shall in any wise have authority or power to order or determine, or adjudge any Matter or Cause to be Heresy, but only such as heretofore have been determined, ordered or adjudged to be Heresy, by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Councils, or any of them, or by any other General Council, wherein the same was declared Heresy, by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be ordered, judged, or determined to be Heresy by the Court of Parliament of this Realm with the Clergy in their Convocation. But for all this we do not confess or acknowledge all or many of those for General Councils, which they at Trent, or which Bellarmine is pleased to account for such, a parcel of eighteen of them; But those very few we count for General, which the Church Universal, before the unhappy breach between East and West, received for General.  
But now to unravel the skein which is much entangled and ruffled in his confused way, the diminutions he puts upon general Councils may be reduced to these three Heads.  

1. That General Councils may err in points of Faith, because they have no promise to the contrary.  
2. Because they want Numbers, even of the Clergy, being not the thousandth part of them: and therefore (to put this Argument as far as ever it will go) are not truly General.  
3. Because of the prejudices they that should sit in Council would bring along with them; & than who can doubt but they would avow that in the Council, which they all taught in their Churches?   
1. In answer to his first Exception, I premise these limitations. If by erring in some points of Faith, he means some points belonging to the Piety of Faith (as Divines use to speak;) or to the Perfection of Faith, or remotely belonging even to the essence or necessity of Faith, and wounding it by far-fetched Consequences; I will not deny but even great Councils may possibly be circumvented for a time: yet I may safely venture (with our Learned & Pious Dr. Hammond in his Paraenesis) to reckon it among the pio credibilia, or a thing piously credible (as we say) that God will not permit a Council truly General and Free to err in Fundamentals; which thus far only I presume to explain, that God will never permit them to deny and declare against any Fundamental Truth, and much less to affirm and declare any Fundamental Error to be a Truth, and least of all to declare it a Fundamental Truth. And if this Author asks which of God's Promises give us encouragement to hope and believe this, I refer him to the Prophet Isaiah, ch. 30. v. 20. And though the Lord give you the bread of Adversity, and the water of Affliction; yet shall not thy Teachers be removed into a Corner any more; but thine eye shall see thy Teachers. That this Chap. is Evangelical will not, I suppose, be denied; and so is that Isai. 54. 17. and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgement shalt thou condemn. If this be denied to be spoken of the Christian Church, I prove it undeniably from our Saviour's application of the Context. And all thy Children shall be taught of God. It was then a Prerogative of the Christian Church that her Teachers should be driven into a corner no more; that is, be always Visible, even when the Lord gave them the bread of affliction, that is, even in times of Persecution, as the lawful Catholic Bishops were never more Visible than when the intruding Arrians, that were far enough from being Lawful Bishops, persecuted them away from their Bishoprics, and drove their Persons indeed into Corners; yet they held intelligence, and kept exact correspondence with one another still, and with all their Flock's that persevered in the Faith, and disowned the uncanonical Arrian Bishops. This they did by their Literae Formatae; by this method the Church preserved in her Communion her own Members amidst their Dispersions, and before any General Councils, except at Jerusalem held by the Apostles themselves, though the greatest Heresies arose early; by this means they proclaimed their Faith loudest of all, then when they were silenced and excluded by the Arrians from their own Pulpits; as the Sufferings which happened to St. Paul fell out rather to the furtherance of the Gospel. So that his bonds in Christ were manifest in all the palace, and in all other places, and many of the Brethren in the Lord waxing confident by his bonds, were much more bold to speak the word without fear; Phil. 1. 12, 13, 14. And if the Church has a power of Condemning in judgement every tongue that rises up against her; I think this amounts to a promise, a glorious promise (and there are many such) that all or near all the Bishops in the Christian world, shall never apparently fall from an Outward Profession at least of the Catholic Faith in Fundamentals, and profess the quite contrary Heresies instead of them. And he that will not allow thus much at least to the Church, must run into wild airy suppositions of sheep without any shepherds, People without any Priests, a Church without any Orders, and as invisible as the Leviathan makes it in his parallel between the Church of Rome and the Kingdom of Fairies. Thus sar methinks this Author should go along with me, for all his ask What's this to a General Council? for the promise was made to the whole Body of the Church; since even he acknowledges that the Gates of Hell would prevail against Her, if the Devil could so wound the whole Body of the Church as to destroy the Vitals, the Fundamentals. And if this be not a mortal wound to the Body, to lose all its Pastors and Teachers by their falling into formal and mortal Heresy; then nothing at all can wound it deadly, but a total Dissolution of all and every one of its members: and at this rate, this Author may fancy, as a certain great Enthusiast did before him, that Himself alone might be the Catholic Church, and that it might wholly subsist in his Single Person. But he would fain avoid this inconvenience, though a General Council should fall into such Fundamental Error, and persist in it, because Secondly (says he) 'Tis not the thousandth part of the Clergy, nor the thousand thousandth part of the Church, which in the Scripture is always put for the whole Body of the Faithful, though of late it be translated into quite another notion, and taken for the Clergy only. I answer, if the Church be always put for the whole Body, yet the Clergy sure are the voice or the mouth of that Body, and God has promised Isa. 59, 20. And the Redeemer shall come to Zion (to put it out of doubt that all this Chapter is Gospel;) and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord: As for me this is my Covenant with them, saith the Lord, my Spirit which is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever; Farther I add out of the Author's own confession, in his Chap. concerning Bishops and Priests, The Church was always governed by Bishops, that is by one, whatsoever you please to call him, set over the rest of the Clergy, with Authority to ordain to exhort, to rebuke, to judge and censure as he found cause: no other form of Government is mentioned by any Author for fifteen hundred years, from the Apostles downwards. I make account then, that a General Council of Bishops is, as Tertullian styles it, Representatio totius nominis Christiani, a Representative of all that are called Christians, Inferior Clergy as well as Laity; And what then if they are not the thousandth part of the Clergy, nor the thousand thousandth part of the Laity? nay, to strengthen his Argument, what if there is not actually met in Council the twentieth part of the Bishops that are in the Christian World? Suppose that all are invited with assurance of safe conduct to a place of security, and time enough allowed for their convening, all which can never be effected without the consent of Kings and Princes, and without that it never must be attempted: nevertheless, because very many cannot possibly take such a voyage, and must needs be absent, it was never pretended to have the force of a General Council, till it was manifestly accepted by those absent Bishops of the Church Universal wheresoever dispersed, or at least by the visibly Major part of them, so that it might appear to any one at first glimpse (as they say) and without any scrupulous enquiry, which way their much greater number had declared themselves. If there be still a few Dissenters 'tis inconsiderable, as what were seventeen Arrian Bishops (for there were no more Arrians that were lawful Bishops) in the Council of Nice, where there were three hundred and eighteen Catholic Pastors, equal almost to the number of Servants bred up in the House of Abraham?  
I know not then what they mean that would evacuate and annihilate almost the whole authority of general Councils, by sending us to Ortelius' Maps or Geographical Tables, bidding us take a survey of all the great Cathedrals or Metropolitical Churches, and then demand of us whether there were ever any Councils so Ecumenical from which above half the Bishops of these Sees were not absent? True; but if they were present upon their own Charges, and did but what would be certainly required and exacted of them there, or wherever they were; they must needs accept, subscribe, recite, publish, and preach, and cause to be preached over all their Dioceses, the Decrees concerning the Faith, such as the Nicene Creed or the Constantinopolitan: Nay, the Bishops did many times summon Provincial and National Councils to sit a little before and at the same time with the General, on purpose to ratify and spread their Decrees. And if any Council was pretended to be General and Free when it was not so, as was the second of Nice, which being overawed by an Imperious woman Irene, decreed Image-worship, Immediately two or three other great Western Councils, as that of Francfort in Germany, and that at Paris, and the British Bishops, declared themselves openly against it. And Charles the Great himself wrote against it. Whilst this exact Correspondence was among all the Bishops of the Catholic Church, and in every Diocese between the Bishop and his Clergy, and all his Flock, then as one of the Father's glories, If any man asked the way to the Catholic Church no Heretic had the face to show him the way to his particular Church, as if that were the Cotholique. And thus although the Body of the Clergy be a thousand times greater (as this Author observes) than any Council, and for this very reason for their unmanageable numbers, cannot be convened in one place, nor their Suffrages gathered, yet 'tis observable that the Universality or whole Fraternity of Christians that were in the Apostles Fellowship or Communion, had honourable mention made of them and of their concurrence in the Letter of Decision from that first Apostolical Council in the Acts of the Apostles. And so the Legates of Princes and several Learned Priests and Deacons have been Assessors to General Councils, but no Voters there (for that were endless) & consentiendo subscripsere (that is) subscribed their assent and consent; therefore our Author is not to think it a Monopoly of ours, though the word Church be sometimes used and taken for the Clergy only: for as I showed before, there can be no sheep without Shepherds, so 'tis an equal absurdity to imagine, that the Shepherds should be preserved without their sheep.  
But if he will grant any thing at all by way of deference to the Church's Judgement, he must not talk to us of the whole Body, nor of his thousands and thousand thousands, for fear of falling into the new oral-Tradition way, that rare invention of learning what is the Faith, by sifting and finding out (if we can) what was held at all times, and in all places, by all the Midwives, and the Dry-Nurses, and the Common People.  
I come now to his last pretence against the Church's Authority in General Councils, The Prejudices they that should sit in Council would bring along with them: and than who can doubt but they would avow that in the Council, which they all taught in their Churches?  
This again is a piece of my Author's unthought of Popery, for the Papists are not able to endure Councils free and truly General, which never failed to swinge their Popes and their Popery too; that is, the Quintessence of it the Pope's Supremacy: as no doubt they would condemn many other of their Doctrines and Practices, but that as there have been no such Councils of later Ages, so indeed there was no such Church of Rome in former Ages when there were such Councils: and the Council of Trent has made their Church so quite another thing, that we may well retort them their own Question, Where was your Church before Luther? Now ask them for any Decree of a General Council for praying to Saints, or worshipping Images, or the like, if we reject the Council of Trent (as we would do the Assembly of Divines at Westminster) they reply, the visibly major part of the Church, both East and West, have introduced it: and (as our Author expresses himself in another Instance) They all have taught it in their Churches, therefore if they met in Council, who can doubt but they would avow it? I desire to remind these overhasty Opiniators of that well known and remarkable story concerning Paphnutius, at the Sacred Ecumenical Council of Nice: when the Question was debated earnestly there, Whether married Priests should be separated from their wives? or no? and when the Major part of Bishops inclined to the wrong side, even to forbid them cohabiting any longer, the great Paphnutius stood up and set them right; proving the ancient Tradition or Custom of the Church to the contrary: And with one Speech he turned the whole Council: for it is one thing to strike at random, as commonly Polemical Authors do, or to oppose those passages in their Adversaries books, which are ready to fall of themselves, and to pass by those which urge and press them harder; and quite another thing to keep one another to a point, till it comes to an issue upon the whole affair: But this can hardly be when two Controvertists are as far distant from each other in place, as they are in opinion. But if sober, good and learned men were convened and met, prepared with study, not for a vain wrangle or victory, but for a mature deliberation to give such an account of their Belief, that all might end in some fixed determination, after full conviction; If Precedents and Moderators were designed, with one to do the office of a Prolocutor or Speaker, to see that all might be done orderly, and proceed in strict and punctual form of Argument (a Method which this Author so often declares against, that he will not be this Prolocutor.) If the Ratiocinators on both sides might have days given them, to recall any thing that slipped inconsiderately from them, that there might be no lying at the catch (as they say;) If such a Conference as this were protracted from time to time, till all were ripened for an issue; If there were ready at hand all books that would be of use, Fathers especially, and Former Councils, and above all the Holy Bible placed upon its Throne (as it was the custom to place it in Ancient Councils;) If I durst hope to see but such ● Council as this, than I would hope to see the Church restored to all her Ancient splendour and Serene glory. For I will but appeal to this Author (if we may compare those great things with our lesser affairs) if he has ever done any exercise at Divinity-Disputations in an University, what a vast difference there is between sitting in one's study and writing such Pamphlets, as his and mine; and defending in the School a material Question in Theology, where one stands a Respondent enclosed within the compass of his Pew; as Popilius the Roman Ambassador to King Antiochus, made a circle with his wand about that Prince, and bid him give him a determinate answer before he went out of it. Which puts me in mind of a certain Pope's reply (and it was a very shrewd one) when he was importuned to call the Council of Trent, he put them off a great while with this Answer, that he would not fight with a Cat in a Cupboard; meaning, he was loath to contend with all the Praelacy shut up together, for than he knew they would fly in his face; and so they did in the faces of his Successors, notwithstanding all their Artifices: whereas he could deal well enough with them severally and at a distance; And it is no wonder at all, if the Bishops of the Duffusive Church are fain to suffer and groan under many of the Papal Abuses, which they might easily remedy and reform, if they were protected (as they ought to be) by all Christian Kings and Princes, in meeting and acting freely. But incomparably beyond any short and cursory Debates (such as our Disputations in Universities must needs be) are the advantages of a free General Council (but Trent was neither Free nor General) to bring things in debate to a conclusion. I speak now only of those advantages that are in the nature of the thing itself: what shall I say then of the Supernatural Assistances, from the Blessing of Heaven upon such a Meeting? For though it be promised, Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them, yet sure St. Paul strengthens the Argument, 2 Cor. 4. 15. that the abundant Grace might through the thanksgiving of many, redound to the glory of God. For by parity of Reason, if the Thanksgivings, than the Judgements, and the Censures, and the Decrees of many, if not all the Governors of the Church, either met in one place, or afterwards consenting to the same thing, must also redound to the glory of God. Whom therefore he dishonours by Prophesying thus aforehand, that if any General Councils had been called, they would have miscarried. And so I have done with his two first Chapters concerning Articles of Faith; upon which I have been the longer out of a just Indignation, to see a man in his Enthusiastic fit threshing of Fathers, and Councils, and Faith, and all into splinters. For what is behind, though he will ever and anon enforce me to make a severe reflection, yet it will hardly be capable all along of a serious refutation.   

Animadversions on his Chapter concerning Ceremonies.  
I Have seen the Picture of an old Lawyer with this inscription upon it, that for a time he was the only Sergeant at Law in England; and then he appeared at the Common Pleas for Plaintiff and for Defendant, and said what he could say on either side with great indifference to both. So one would think this officious Advocate thought himself the only Divine in England, and that in this case of Ceremonies he had a privilege of speaking pro and con. But he quickly shows himself so earnest a Pleader for one party (for so he magnifies himself to the Non-conformists in his Charitable Admonition, p. 64.) that he makes himself a party against the other. He gins this Chapter with condemning the Non-conformists for breaking an evident Commandment without as clear evidence from Scripture, (which he expressly affirms they have none, either against Church-Service, p. 22. or against the Ceremonies, p. 64.) to satisfy themselves in a doubtful matter, which (says he) without doubt is damnable. But he ends this Chapter with a long Speech he puts in our Saviour's mouth, pronouncing, as at the day of Judgement, the very Sentence of Damnation against the Governors of the Church, and Exacters of Obedience to its Laws: Had I mercy on you, and should not you have had mercy on your fellow-Servants? with the same measure you meted, it shall be measured to you again. I tremble to go father. So do I tremble at this bold Harangue. But where are his Reasons? Why, if Rational and Pathetical be all one, we shall have demonstrations enough. But touch any of his flowers of Rhetoric, and 'tis hardly worth the while to stand still, and see them fall in pieces of themselves. Reduce his Declamation into form of Argumentation, and then he will make another Declaration (as we shall find one anon in his Chapter about Preaching) against Syllogisms and Enthymems, and that Logic which discovers fallacies in Ratiocination, as clearly as Arithmetic does cheats in our other accounts.  
First then he flourishes in the Air against the Surplice. What wise and loving Father would put a Winding sheet on his head to fright his weak and simple Child? A Similitude is not bound to run upon four legs (as they say) but this of the Winding-sheet is so lame it has ne'er a good one; for do we wear our Surplices (as the Turks do their Turban) on our heads? I have heard indeed of one that wore his Surplice upon his heel: He was a kind of Halfquarter-conformist, and when he came into the Reading-pew where he must put on his whites, he used to hold up one of his legs behind him (like a Goose) and resting it upon his Matt, he would hang the Surplice upon his foot, that he might be able to swear, he both wore the Surplice, and bowed the knee at the Name of Jesus. This man indeed did not take a course to fright the People with the Surplice. But now to speak really (as this Author uses to speak) is a Minister in a Surplice a sight so terrible, that any one should be really troubled in mind at it? we read indeed in the last of St. Mark, that when the holy Women entering into the Sepulchre, saw a young man clothed in a long white garment, they were affrighted. But St. Matthew informs us, that his countenance was like lightning. No wonder then if they were afraid. 'Twas the habit wherein Angels by the will of God almost constantly appeared: The colour which our Blessed Saviour chose when he entertained his particular Favourites with some gracious manifestations of his Majestatick presence, and was transfigured before them: His raiment was white as Snow, beyond what any Fuller on earth can white it. Such Vests the glorious Saints are described, to our understanding, to put on in heaven, as clothed there in pure white linen. But after all that has been spoken and written heretofore in defence of the Surplice, if any still are troubled in Conscience at it (for that he means by frighting the weak and simple Children) we must tell them, They are afraid where no fear is: and the Psalmist makes that no very good Character; And we must advise them out of the Apostle; Brethren, be not Children in Understanding, but in Malice be ye Children, but in Understanding be men.  
But now he offers at a Reason for laying aside the Ceremonies upon the same prudential consideration that prevailed with the Reformers from Popery to retain some of them: because then the People were for them, but now they are passionate against them.  
To this he first answers for us, and perhaps with more reason than he is ware, that many of our Flock are as zealous for these things, as others against them. It may be so, and I hope they are as zealous as they ought to be, for it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, Gal. 4. 18. And we (says he) had rather gratify the obedient Conformers, than the Disobedient Gainsayers.  
And that the rather because it cannot be gainsaid, but the obedient Conformers are very considerable too for their very Numbers, as well as for their exemplary Piety to God and their eminent Loyalty to the King. A certain importunate Mediator (such an one as our Author makes himself) for the Dissenting Brethren, argued thus with a Reverend great Prelate. My Lord (said he) Why will you give offence to so many of us by imposing several things which yourselves confess not necessary? Why (said the Bishop) and yourselves confess those things are not unlawful; O but (replied the Advocate) some of our Party think those things unlawful, and some of ours (answered the Bishop) think them Necessary (and for order and decency some Ceremonies sure are Necessary.) Well, but cannot you persuade your men (said the Other)? and cannot you (said the Bishop) prevail with yours? So the Dispute ended, nor was it indeed possible for any Solid man (granting that we do not clog our Communion with any thing unlawful) to say more for them, without speaking against them, and confessing their weakness, or their wilfulness, that they could not, or would not be persuaded. And if this be reason enough why they must be gratified and humoured in every thing, than it follows that only Knaves and Fools must govern the world.  
Secondly I answer, if the Surplice with other things were (as he confesses) wisely and piously retained by the Reformers from Popery, when probably many long nourished up in those Ceremonies, would not have come into the Church, had all those been cast out; Then it would be imprudently (not to say impiously) done of us (who ought in pursuance of that most blessed work, the Reformation, to make it still our aim and design to bring the Papists at home and abroad into the Communion of our Church) if we should set them further off by turning out all our Ceremonies; several of which ('tis true) are theirs also; but many Ages before they were either theirs or ours, they were the Primitive Church's: and therefore to think them Popish for being also theirs, is as senseless as to think there was Popery before Noah's Flood. And if the Church of England, which is now the terror of Rome, and the glory of all Protestant Churches, be thus considered as a part (undoubtedly the best and happiest part) of the Catholic Church, whose members are innumerable, ●nd all of them, both in the Greek and Latin Churches, nay in several of the Protestant Churches, especially the Lutheran, are far more addicted to Ceremonies than we in the Church of England, and use almost all the same Ceremonies, and others like them; then certainly we should give offence to almost the whole Christian world (whereas we ought to give them none, though they were Jews or Gentiles) if we should abolish all our Ceremonies. Then how ill does this Author argue in crying, the People, the People are passionately against the Ceremonies, and putting the business on this issue of counting Noses?  
But thirdly I answer, this is Trying the Church of England, as they did its Sacred Desender in the name of the Commons of England, when they had not one in ten of their Party. Nay perhaps Dissenters properly so called, are not in some Dioceses above one in twenty. Many absent themselves from our Churches out of pure Indevotion and Laziness. Many frequent the Meeting-houses out of Curiosity, and many for want of room in their Churches and Tabernacles at London, or because of their distance from their own Parish Churches in the Country. The stiff and irreconcilable Dissenters appear to be a handful of men in comparison.  
And this I hope is enough to answer this old bug-bear-Argument started by those that found out the trick of gathering hands, and mustering up the Broom-men and the Chimney-sweepers to cry no Bishops.  
Then he raises an Objection for us, and answers it after a fashion. But you have no hopes of gaining him: you believe 'tis not Conscience but Faction and wilful perverseness keeps him off. Oh! do not despair, believe better of him, etc. We are very far from Despairing, if good means be used, and the right course be taken. And we can hardly believe worse of the Dissenters, than this Author would make us believe of them; for p 24. this Author styles them blind and wilful Separatists. And is it not apparently wilfulness and faction? I beseech you, my Brethren, take heed of thus dissembling with God and the World, or take heed of giving yourselves up to the Delusions of a mistaken Spirit. And p. 65. 'tis most evident their Spirit savours something of the Pharisee, the proud Pharisee. But whereas he is pleased to reinforce these Objections against the Dissenter in our behalf, But you know it is so with him; (viz. that we have no hopes of gaining him, etc.) Indeed we know no such thing; but the quite contrary, we know very many that have been as highly prejudiced in their Education, and yet have submitted afterward to clear Conviction, and are now very useful men in the Church of England.  
But I take no pleasure in giving this Author the mortification of answering himself by his own contradictory Propositions. That here which bears any colour of Reason, is only this, that we should yield the more to save his soul: and we should cover a multitude of our own sins. I answer if that be true which he says, and which I fear, that they do thus dissemble with God, then to frame a new Law to serve their turn, is to countenance, and as it were establish Hypocrisy by a Law. If they have covered their sin, like Adam, and hid their iniquity in their bosom, this would but make them add sin to sin: and so instead of covering a multitude of our own sins, we shall only follow a Multitude to do evil.  
His next address is to the Bishops, with, Oh! my Fathers, my Fathers. But (oh! the pity of it that twenty such Oh's will not amount to one Reason;) his humble request to them is, that they would vouchsafe to read the fourteenth Chapter to the Romans. Since he is not pleased to draw any Argument thence into any form (and because I shall meet him again pelting of this Text anon) my humble Answer shall be likewise by way of request to him, that he would vouchsafe to read Bishop Sanderson's Excellent Sermon upon the third verse of that Chapter, Let not him that eateth not, despise him that eateth, etc. That Bishop I hope was no Persecutor, and yet he plainly shows, that restraining some men's Extravagancies by good Orders, and requiring Obedience to those orders, is not that which this Author is pleased to call Restraining the Liberty of the Gospel to the rigidity of their Discipline.  
Then he bids us gravely to build our Church on a Rock, and not on the Sand of Ceremonies. And again, this is a very sandy and dirty foundation. Our Church (God be thanked) is not now to be built, but upheld against such as himself, who, like Her in the Proverbs, plucketh it down with his own hands. Who ever before wandered into such an Extravagant Supposition, as if we made our Ceremonies our Foundation? yet, by his favour, as contemptible as these Materials are of Sand and Dirt, if every one may be allowed to pick out all the Mortar that is made up of them, the House must fall. But is not the Body more than Raiment? Substance more than Ceremony? Little did our Saviour intent that saying against the Surplice. But (to follow this Author in his airy race) what if the Body (that is the Substance) be more than Raiment, (that is than the Ceremony)? yet the Ceremony is not nothing. And if he takes away all the Raiment with his Naked Truth, he will leave it such a Naked Church, without either Ornament, or Covering, that it shall never be able to hold out against the storms with which he thunders and threatens us.  
To his next fine mock at our Ceremonies, as if they were Novelties, and saying, that in those great Storms, when the whole World of Jews and Gentiles were Enemies to the Church, there was not one of our Ceremonies to preserve it. First, I demand, Is it Reason the Church should be as Unceremonious now in the times of her Settlement, as then in the days of her Persecution? Now that there is a Church at the end of almost every mile, as then when there was hardly one in twenty miles? Now when the Sovereign Powers of the World spread their wings to cover and protect her, as then when they stretched out their Arms to vex her? Now when Kings and Queens, her Nursing-fathers', and Nursing-mothers', bid her quit her Cave and show her beauteous face in stately Cathedrals, as then when she was fain to hid herself in the Wilderness, and her Members were forced to wander about in Sheep skins?  
But then again he contradicts himself to say there was not one of our Ceremonies in those Primitive Times, for p. 10. he contends the Superstition of the Cross (as he very mannerly terms it) was in use in the second Century. That the Cross was used in Baptism very betimes (which is the only superstitious use we make of it) there are Testimonies enough. St. Cyprian's known words (de laps. in principio) are these, Frons cum signo Dei Pura, Coronam Diaboli ferre non potuit, Coronae se Domini reservavit. Those Foreheads which the Sign of God had purified (viz. in the Baptismal Ablution and Confirmation) abhorred the Garlands of Satan, and reserved themselves to be crowned by God: And the same Father again (Tom. 1. lib. 4. ep. 6. Pamelii) Muniatur Frons, ut Signum Dei incolume servetur. Arm your Foreheads unto all Boldness, that the Sign of God may be kept safe. A parallel place. to which is that of St. Austin (Tom 8. p. 262. E.) upon Psal. 68 Frontosus esto: Quid times fronti tuae, quam Signo Crucis armasti? (i. e.) Be not weak foreheaded (viz. in the Cause of God) why art thou afraid for thy forehead, which thou hast armed with the Sign of the Cross? For the Surplice, the Testimonies of St. chrysostom and St. Hierome, that the Priests in the ancient Church officiated in white Vestments, are well enough known. For kneeling at the Eucharist, and bowing at the Altar, I give an account of their Antiquity, when he leads me to say more of them. If he wonders why I bring but three or four Testimonies for our 99 Ceremonies (as he calls them afterward.) I answer, there are but three or four Ceremonies that I know of; But for a need there are 99 Testimonies for them.  
By this time he has spoken so much against the Surplice, that now he thinks it his part to say something for it: and at the same time to tell us why he appears so great an Enemy to it; (for he confesses he is so) because such dirty nasty Surplices, as most of them wear, and especially the Singers in Cathedrals, where they should be most decent, is rather an intimation of their Dirty lives: and has given his stomach such a surfeit of them, as he has almost an averseness to all. This is a strong Line and a weak Argument: Such another weighty exception to the Surplice, as was made by the merry Country Parson, who called it a Rag of Popery: and when he was cited for it into the Spiritual Court, he made it appear by the Parish-book of Accounts, that their Surplice was bought in Queen Mary 's days, and therefore it was truly a Rag of Popery, being worn all to pieces: But if the Parish would provide him a new one, he was ready to put it on the next Sunday. The honest man was dismissed with his Jest: But alas! our Author is in earnest. Though a Laundress may answer this, as easily as a Sempstress might answer the other Argument. Mean time we can only be sorry that he is so squeamish, and that his sick fancy should be so much too hard for his Judgement; for in the foregoing Sentence, he, in his own Judgement much approves a pure white Robe on the Minister's shoulders, to put him in mind what Purity becomes a Minister of the Gospel. He much approves it, yet within the compass of six lines, he has almost an averseness to all of it. But we must not change whatsoever is Ancient and Decent in our Church, as often as any one (whoever he be) pleases to change his note, and to acquaint us in the same breath with his admirable Sympathies and Antipathies to the same thing. His laying this ugly charge to most of us, that we wear such dirty nasty Surplices, is to fling dirt enough that some might stick. As for the Singing-men in Cathedrals, if they are so much to blame, as he supposes they are, either for their dirty Surplices, or, as he intimates, for their dirty Lives, yet order may be easily taken, that neither of these (to follow his noble Metaphor) shall scape a scouring, without taking quite away either the Surplices or the Singing-men out of our Cathedrals. But if he follow the grain of this old threadbare Fallacy, from the abuses against the use of any thing, whither will it carry him? The Surplices in Cathedrals are commonly foul, therefore let them be taken away for ever: so the Cathedrals themselves sometimes are none of the cleanest, therefore (instead of sweeping them) let them be pulled down and taken away too.  
His next Effort is against bowing towards the Altar; which in his own Judgement he allows and practices in some measure. Then, I hope, the thing itself is not unlawful. No; but truly many of our Church men give great suspicion to the People, that they also believe (as the Papists) Christ corporally present there. If we give this great Suspicion, we give great Scandal, which is a great Crime in us, if it be true. But it is a great Scandal to say this of us, if it be not true. But how do we give this great Suspicion? because (says he) the Minister or the Reader does not only how once at his entering into the Church, but bows again as he has occasion to pass and repass by the Altar; Surely (says he, speaking the Apprehension of the Vulgar) in reverence to the King of Kings he supposes there sitting. What! even at those times when there is no Communion? and yet at those times there's the same bowing. This is demonstration enough against such an odious Supposition of our believing Christ corporally present there. We do not then give them this great Suspicion: 'tis not a Scandal given, but causelessly taken. So, for any thing he has done upon this point, I may conclude it as he does, 'tis done with little or no Reason, and with a great deal of Superstition.  
He proceeds to that grand debated Ceremony (as he calls it, and therefore we must dwell the longer upon it) of kneeling at the Lord's Supper. And first, he honestly grants that we are to perform this act of Devotion with all possible Reverence. I ask no more. But he quickly nulls his grant: Is this (says he) to be expressed altogether in the outward posture of the Body? No certainly: nor altogether in the inward posture and frame of the Soul: but in Soul and Body both together: or else, I trow, there is not all possible Reverence. Well, If outward Humility be the thing we contend for, we ought to show it to our God in the humblest way, and that is by prostrating rather than kneeling. Pray let them voucsafe to kneel with us before they talk of falling lower. Kneeling is a posture of greatest Reverence in these Western parts of the World, where Prostrating is not much in use: and 'tis a Gesture most convenient for the Devout Receiver, who as he knelt may abase himself to the Dust, and again (with the Royal Votary) may lift up his hands to God, and may look up.  
But he runs away with it for certain, that our Lord Christ administered the Sacrament, and that the Disciples received it sitting. And sure he remembers our Saviour best, who doth every thing as he did, both in Substance and Ceremony; and so we find the Primitive Christians did, etc. In answer to this I demand how does it appear that the Apostles received it sitting? because they sat down to supper? But it appears from the Text, the posture they used at Supper was altered before they communicated. St. John's words are express, that Supper was ended, and that Jesus risen from Supper, and then washed the Disciples feet. Now the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where does it ever signify the Lord's Supper? it seems that followed after it. So this Author can never bring the least good proof from Scripture that they sat at the first Eucharist. Now for any one to fasten that upon Divine Revelation, which he has no ground to infer either from the written Rule or the Church's Testimony, what is it but adding to the Word of God? And then let me ask him his own Question, p. 3. How they will avoid that curse in the last of the Revelations, if they add to the words there written?  
Sure I am that in whatever Posture the Apostles were first admitted, which is uncertain, yet it was such as wise and sober men, and the custom of the Country allowed, as a Posture expressing Reverence, because (as this Author himself has set it down) Sure Christ would not have allowed any unfitting posture. In the mean time the Dissenter cannot deny but that the words of Administration, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting Life, are an excellent good Prayer. Now if they will not give us a reason why it is unlawful to kneel, I will give them a reason why it is simply unlawful (except in case of necessity, as for those that lie on their Sick-beds, or the like, etc.) to sit and pray solemnly, (for I speak not of sudden, short, ejaculatory Prayers, but) I say, 'tis simply unlawful to pray thus solemnly to the most high God in a sitting posture; because it is simply unlawful to pray most solemnly in an unpraying posture, (if I may use such a word). Therefore this Author is too liberal of that which is none of his own, in allowing, that a man may receive sitting without any Irreverence.  
But he tells us so we find the Primitive Christians did. What does he mean? (for here he is somewhat obscure) that the primitive Christians received it sitting? or that they did not always receive it kneeling? 'Tis true, the Ancient Church many times receive it standing, as all the fifty days between Easter and Whitsuntide, and on some other Festivals. There's a fair difference sure between sitting and standing. Standing we find is a Posture for Solemn Prayer in the Scripture: so is not sitting. But let him show, if he can, that the primitive Saints, on other days, working or fasting days, (for St. Augustin and St. Basil both agree in witnessing that sometimes there were Communions on Wednesdays and Fridays) let them prove, I say (or else they prove little to the purpose) that on those days, when they kneeled at the other Prayers, they ever risen to receive the Communion standing. For the Fathers tell us plainly, they forbore kneeling then merely out of an Excess of Joy. Most plainly Tertullian renders a general account why they intermitted all their strictness, that is, all that might enfeeble the Knees, or weary the Flesh at this season, Quid impedit, nisi necessitas gaudii? What hinders (says he) but the necessity of Joy or Exultation? But 'tis certain the primitive Christians were very far from sitting at the Holy Eucharist, which this Author rashly concludes they did; for they did not at any of their Prayers or Religious Offices: much less at this the most solemn of all their Services. For Tertullian upon that Supposition which was generally received, that the Holy Angels were invisibly present at the devout Prayers of the Church, or of good Christians in private, to offer them up to God (not that he supposes those Angels had any Prayers offered to themselves, for all they were supposed to be so nigh at hand; as the Prophet Elijah, when he knew God's Army of Angels actually encompassed him round, yet prays to God, and not to the Angels, or any of the Captains of that heavenly Host, that his affrighted Servant might have the Grace to see them, Lord open his eyes; And Abraham's Steward the good Eliazar, though the Prophet his Master had told him that God's Angel should go along with him in his way, yet all the way he prays to none but to the Lord God of his Master Abraham; yet upon this supposition, that an Angel always stood by whilst men were devoutly praying, Tertullian) in his Book de Oratione cap. 12. is highly displeased with those that offer to sit down immediately after their Prayers are done: and how much less is that than to sit at their very Sacramental Prayers? But I do not allege Tertullian for this or that zealous Opinion of his, but as a Reporter of the Church's practice, and there where he is plain and full (as he is here) he may be allowed for a Demonstrator in matter of Fact. And thus he declares himself in this place, which is not so commonly noted, against those that did but sit down at their ease just after their Prayers. Eo apponitur & irreverentiae crimen, etc. To this (says he) may be added, that it is such a criminal irreverence, as may easily be understood even by the Heathens themselves, if they have any sense about them; for sure 'tis irreverend to sit down under the view, and placed as it were over-right the view of that Person for whom you have the highest Reverence and Veneration, how much more is it not most irreligious to do so in view of the Living God, while the Angel that attended at the Prayers is yet standing by; unless we have a mind to upbraid God that our prayers have tired us? But if we pray with Modesty and Humility, we shall so much the more commend our Prayers to God. Now let Heaven and Earth judge, whether the primitive Christians sat at receiving the Sacrament or no? I shall make one Observation more upon this whole matter, that although comprehension be the only thing he pretends, yet there must needs be Toleration at the bottom of it. 'Tis true indeed that p. 23. though he desires such a form of Service, such Ceremonies also to be established, as may give most general satisfaction, yet he desires what is established may be generally observed, and not a liberty left (as some do propose) to add or detract Ceremonies or Prayers according to the various Opinions and Humours of Men: for certainly this would cause great Faction and Division, etc. I suppose he means well here, but quite contrary to his own Principle, p. 19 where he treats about kneeling or sitting at the Eucharist, and concludes that in these things no man ought to obey till we can rectify his judgement. Now suppose the Injunctions for kneeling were taken away, are we sure that all they and we should have such rectified judgements on the sudden, as to agree together about Receiving, either sitting or standing, or all in any one posture? Nay, are we not morally certain of the contrary, that there could be no such agreement? therefore he does well in adjuring us to admit them in any posture, which is Toleration. Now consider, pray, in this one point, what a Confusion would ensue when in the same assembly, One might Receive the Communion decently kneeling: A second (believing that to be Superstition) demands it sitting: A third (because 'tis reported the Pope himself sometimes receives it sitting) judges that (as much better he may) to be Popery, therefore he will have it leaning or lying along, as he thinks the Apostles had it. A fourth would be better pleased with a running Banquet, because the Jews eat the Passover in haste; and because they have it so in some places beyond Sea, every one en Passant. Would not (as St. Paul concludes in another case) any that should come into such a Congregation, think they were all mad? Oh! but if they come in sincerity of heart, etc. He may well make an If of it. But if they are never so sincere, yet alas! what's their, or our heart in comparison of Christ's heart? and yet he kneeled in several places, we read, and lifted up his Eyes, and lifted up his hands towards Heaven. And yet 'tis Superstition in us to kneel at receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. But let us be tender and compassionate to our weak Brethren. If any tender Consciences, that is (as he explains the word) weak Judgements (and I am not so uncharitable as to doubt but there are many such) be seriously troubled at kneeling, we are hearty troubled too at their Discontents. We kneel to God, and pray for their Conversion and Satisfaction. We could even kneel to them that trouble them with vain Scruples, and pray them (with St. Paul) to study to be quiet. We readily offer ourselves either to answer their Reason (would they bring those could speak it, or rather, writ it in strict form of Argument: which yet they would never do, but only make these Orations) or else if we could not answer it, than we would quit our Opinion, and embrace theirs. But if they have nothing to oppose to us but only this, and if this suffices that they are offended at it; at this rate there can be no settlement in the World, either of Church or State. For they may deliver themselves from all its Injunctions, if they please but to take a Caprice against them. This is assuming to themselves a perfect Negative Vote against any Law, without giving any reason against it. If such a Spirit as this be not destructive of Christianity, nay, of all Civil Society, and the ready way to set the Heels above the Head; we understand not any thing.  
He huddles up the rest concerning other Ceremonies, Cross in Baptism, Ring in Marriage, etc. slighting them all, and giving them up, without the least shadow of an Argument: Except this be one, Wherefore I conclude (says he) this point of Ceremonies, with St. Paul, He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it, etc. So he that kneeleth, kneeleth unto the Lord, and he that kneeleth not, to the Lord he kneeleth not. Now do but examine this Conclusion, and whence he draws it. Consider (pray) that regarding or not regarding these days, that is the old Jewish holidays (as presently I shall make it appear) was neither commanded, nor forbidden by the Christian Church, but left indifferent: Is kneeling at the Blessed Sacrament left as indifferent? is it not commanded by the Church? do not they that refuse to kneel disobey the Church? So then his Argument in the Parallel runs thus, He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it, etc. So he that kneeleth, kneeleth to the Lord, and he that kneeleth not, to the Lord he kneeleth not; that is, to the Lord he disobeys the Church, and refuses to kneel.  
But I must needs take notice of his next passage, because 'tis a pleasant one, and because he desires us to observe it, how St. Paul in this place, Rom. 14. calls the zealous Observer of Ceremonial matters, the weak Brother, and commands the strong not to despise him. So that now the Tables are turned, and we of the Church of England (our poor weak Mother, as this Author would make her) are the weak Brethren. But what (I pray) were those Ceremonies which the Apostle thought it a weakness in some to Opiniator? Is it not evident they were the Jewish, out-dated Ceremonies? which the Apostle allowed them to Bury honourably, and therefore was con●ented they should fall gently, and sink by degrees. Yet he was discontented at their untimely Zeal, that urged them still as necessary, and obligatory upon the Christians. He permitted them to have some regard to a day (viz. an old Jewish Holiday) and if they were overfond of it, he charged those that better understood their Christianity, to bear with their weakness. But if they obstinately persisted to Judaize, as if they were still obliged to it, than he tells them, Galat. 4. 10. (a place undoubtedly parallel to that urged here, Rom. 14.) Ye observe Days, and Months, and Times, and Years, I am afraid of you. And to assure us he strikes at those who maintained the old Mosaic Rites, contrary to the new Christian Ordinances, he, following the same thread of Discourse, enters his Protestation, Chap. 5. v. 2. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. Tertullian, one of the most Learned Fathers, (whose authority is great, where he reports) descants upon these passages of St. Paul smartly, and fully to my purpose. Then (says he) we do Galaticari, that is, act like the Galatians indeed, when we observe the Jewish Ceremonies and Legal Solemnities, for if the Apostle intended in this place to take away all devout observance of Days and Months, why (says he) do we celebrate Easter every year in the first Month? (that is, in March) why do we go about and carry with us Joy and Exultation, wherever we come for fifty days after? 'Tis apparent then, St. Paul calls them, and only them, weak Brethren, who having embraced Christianity, yet hankered after the Jewish Festivals and their other Ceremonials. Now to say that all Christians, who contend for the keeping of the Festivals, and observing the Ceremonies of the Christian Church, are guilty of Judaizing; and that all such Ceremonies are to be abolished (all which if it be not said, there can nothing be drawn from St. Paul to this Author's purpose) would be spoken almost as senslesly, as was that saying of a certain weak Brother indeed, that Christmas was a Jewish Ceremony abolished at the coming of Christ. Or to infer (as this Author is pleased to imply) because the Zealous observer of some Ceremonial matters is styled by St. Paul a weak Brother, therefore all Zealous observers of any Ceremonies are weak Brethren? 'tis argued much at the same Rate, as another inferred, from some other words of St. Paul, Acts 17. 22. Ye men of Athens, I perceive that ye are in all things too superstitious. But Athens, (said he) was an University: whence I conclude (said he) that all Universities are much given to Superstition.  
What follows to the end of this Chapter, is so thin spread, that I cannot bring it all to make up any thing like one solid Reason; and it seems he is not studying Reason, but Every man in his humour, for (he tells us) Man has a Will as well as a Reason, and will have his own Will in many things: Even the Godly. So then the Godly will have the Ceremonies down, because they are our Will-worship (as they use to call it;) But they will have their own will, that is, they will set up a certain Idol, called Propria voluntas, or Self-will-worship.  
For the overture he makes us at last of a New Sett of better Ceremonies one day, if we will part with these; though we believe his Interest may do much with the Anticeremonian Party; yet we dare not trust to that in this affair, because he would have the New Ceremonies to be such as shall be Edifying, but he does not consider that such would be Significant Ceremonies: which has been the great Objection against ours, ever since Bishop Morton undertook their defence. So that if any be introduced in lieu of these, they must be Insignificant, that is, Impertinent Ceremonies: Therefore without trying his Experiments, we desire to retain those we have already.  
But with what Forehead does he charge us, in Christ's name, with proceeding so severely against them in our Courts of Judicature, p. 20. and with our violent pressing of Ceremonies, p. 21. which he humbly conceives hath been a great hindrance from embracing them; Men fearing our Intentions herein to be far worse (that is, more Popish) then really they are? Whereas every body may see with half an eye, what patience and gentleness has been exercised towards this Party: and how that has emboldened them to stand upon such terms, and at such a distance as amazes the Protestants abroad, those at Geneva, and those in France: as the Reverend and worthy Dr. durel has made it sufficiently appear from the Letters and Expresses of his Learned Correspondents in those parts. In short, if there be no such fears of Popery coming in, then has this Author written a dangerous Pamphlet to instill into the People such dreadful apprehensions of it, as of a thing almost unavoidable, unless this project of his can prevent it; and then there is not that danger which he supposes, of pressing the Ceremonies, and standing our ground: and if there be just fears of Popery coming in, then those he Patronizes' against any severe Proceed, are men of exceeding honesty and prudence to stand out all this while, and venture all, themselves and all, by not coming into the Church of England; and if they have a reserve to themselves, that they will run into it one day; then is it well or wisely done of them, to weaken the Fort, by pulling down as much as they can of it, when they mean to enter at last, and trust themselves in it?  
But as he is blaming us for being so hardhearted, and preaching to us not only Comprehension but Toleration, as I showed before, he has one expression towards the end of this Chapter, p. 20. so extremely pleasant, that I confess it inclines me after a great deal of dulness to no unpleasant thoughts: That expression of his is this; that We may break the heartstrings of many in winding them up so high, and thus crack all their Religion: and perhaps we should find it so ourselves, had the Non-conformists the screwing Us up, as we Them. Why, this of the Screw is neater Rhetoric than that of his nasty Surplices, or the Winding-sheet, or the Nuts to an Ape, or that of knocking Faith into the head with a hammer, or that of a King leading on a Morris dance, capering and frisking most featly, when his Country was invaded. But although this Author declares himself not much a friend to any thing that is Mathematical, yet his cho●ce Metaphor of Screwing up the Non-conformists as an Instrument of Music (as if we meant to make Organs of them) puts me in mind of a rare Engine, an extraordinary kind of Organ, which I have seen described in words at length, and in a Figure too a Brass-cut, in Gaspar Schottus the Jesuite's Mathematics, or 
Mag. Univers. To● 2. l. 6. p. 2.  rather Mechanical Tricks. He describes (or rather borrows from Kircher, his brother Mountebank, the description of) a Musical Instrument found out (he tells us) by an Ingenious fellow, to divert a certain great Prince from a fit of Melancholy. So he took a company of Cats all of a different size, and consequently (says he) of a different Tone or Note: all these he put together into a kind of Chest that was framed for the purpose, and placed them so, that their Tails should be gently screwed up through certain holes in a board; and so they should be fastened all along in a row, and Needles under their Tails so disposed or placed, that as the Musician struck the Keys, the Needles pricked their Tails, which so nicked the Cats, when the Organist came to play a lesson upon them, that still as they were touched they set up their Notes, some high, some low, according to their several Capacities: which made such harmony (says he) as made the Rat's dance, and the men ready to burst with laughing.  
Just such a Machine of a Church would this Author make us, as this Musical Instrument, if instead of our Screwing up the Non-conformists (which we do not) or their Screwing us up (which once they did sufficiently) he could screw them into the Church, without more ado, by this Project of his for Universal Toleration (at least of all, or very many Sects, except the Papists;) for by what he delivers, not only concerning the Ceremonies, but also concerning Articles of Faith, we may well conclude, that he would not only have the Presbyterians (who seem to stand out only upon Punctilios of Ceremonies) but also Independents, Anabaptists, and I know not how many more Sects (if they call themselves Protestant's) taken into the Church: or rather into the Drag-net (as Bishop Laney calls it in his Sermon about Comprehension) large and capacious enough to hold the Leviathan himself: whom this Author follows a great way in his Notions of Sufficient or Insufficient Means for People's Conviction. And when all such are received into the Church, what will they do but set up their Cries, and make their rude Noises in it, if any thing in it afterward happens to pinch them? Then instead of any Harmony or Concord, I doubt there would be nothing in the Church but such a Discord, as would make us only ridiculous to all that come near us.   

Animadversions upon his Chapter concerning Church-Service.  
HIS next discourse concerning Church-Service is all of a piece with the foregoing one about Ceremonies; but one comfort is, 'tis not of so great length, and every whit as remarkable for shortness of Reason. Yet here, as he makes his entrance, he is a pretender to Reason; for he slights and passes by some, with whom he has no Reason to expect that reasonable Arguments should prevail. Is he then for Reasonable Arguments? But he should have added this Caution, Provided they be not deduced from Scripture, for you have seen he thinks it unsafe to make Deductions, that is to Reason, from thence. Well, he Supposes there is nothing in our Common-Prayer-book that is directly contrary to the Word of God (and I may justly suppose, till the contrary be proved, that there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God, either directly or indirectly;) and p. 29. He also Conceives it absolutely necessary to have some Form prescribed to be used by all, etc. But now, In Christ he humbly beseeches the Governors of the Church calmly to consider, Were it not better to have such a form of Service as would satisfy most?  
It is to be doubted, or rather 'tis out of doubt, that most who are so unsatisfied with this, are disgusted with all Set Forms, or would not be satisfied with any other. Therefore we must be excused from trying his trick, till he or some other Undertaker have corrected Magnisicat, and the People, the People (whom he would have so caressed) have declared themselves satisfied with it, or else have subscribed a Blank, to be satisfied with whatever the New Projectors shall introduce.  
His next Pique is at our saying the Second Service at the Altar, which (he says) was retained by the Fathers, and first Reformers from Popery, as carrying some resemblance with the Mass, the People's delight, which being now become the People's hate, should for the same Resemblance by the same Reason be taken away.  
For our Reading the Second Service at the Altar, any one that can but read, and is not a mere stranger in the Old Liturgicks, knows that the Prayers were at the Altar, many whole Ages before Popery, either Name or Thing was heard of. Therefore, unless this Author knew the Reformers thoughts, he can have no reason to put it upon them (not at all for their honour, though he would fain have it so) that they prescribed this as carrying some resemblance to the Mass, the people's delight. Why should he dream they did it to follow the Multitude in the Novelties of Popery, and not rather to follow the Primitive Church? I suppose the Reformers meaning in prescribing the Priest's going up to the Altar still, was to declare and testify to the Christian World, that the Church of England highly approves Communion upon all High Days, as the Christian Sacrifice of Commemoration, and the most Sacred Office in our Public Worship: and as it was constantly used in the Ancient Church upon every Lord's Day, and every Solemn Festival. They would no longer allow the Priest to receive the Sacrament alone, because there was no ground either in the Scripture or the Fathers for such a Solitary Communion. The very terms sound like a Contradiction: But for all that, the Refor●ers from Popery kept up the Communion Service at the Communion Table, and so the Rubric order it still, where the Place will bear it (for it must be confessed, many of our Parish Churches are so built, that the Second Service cannot be audibly read from the East end: But where it can, there it ought to be) for a very sufficient reason, that the memory at least of Weekly (if not Daily) Sacraments might not be lost: and that, if the People's Devotion could be raised again, which the Monkery of those times had turned into the Formality of Communicating once a year (as the Roman Church requires no more of Lay persons) than the Priest should be in his station to show himself ready to Administer, not only thrice a year (which is all our Church has thought fit to exact hitherto) but every Sunday and Holiday. It were better than that we fell to our prayers and endeavours, that the People may be so well fitted and prepared to Receive, as the Primitive frequency of Sacraments may be restored, than to sit and make wishes, that Reading the Second Service at the Altar may be taken away.  
How consistent he is with himself in that which follows in the same page, requiring Uniformity and Conformity after such and such Amendments, I have already discoursed, and showed it unpracticable even upon his own Principles. As for his varying the Phrase, and saying that again p. 24. which he had said over and over, that Certainly his Religion is vain, that would abandon the substance for want of the Ceremonies; which he acknowledges to be no way necessary; I answer, that certainly his Religion is as vain, if not vainer, that would abandon the Substance (as they do that are guilty of Schism) for the Ceremonies, which he must acknowledge to be no way Unlawful.  
But his next Figure is a rare one. Surely a very uncharitable mind that would not leave ninety and nine unnecessary Ceremonies, to bring one sinful strayed Sheep into the Congregation. An admirable Metamorphosis! Ninety Sheep in the Text, turned into Ceremonies by this Commentator. And would the Author of Naked Truth have all these poor Innocent Lambs, otherwise called Ceremonies to be left naked and shivering in the Wilderness? But (as one replied upon the like Exposition of another Text, Nun sunt decem Mundi? Englished by one, Are there not ten Worlds?) Sed ubi sunt Novem? Where are the Nine? much less Ninety nine Ceremonies. Sure he must take in all the Ceremonies at Court, and the Inns of Court, the Sergeants Coifs, and their men's particoloured Coats, and all our University Ceremonies; (for we shall see anon, he is no great admirer of Universities;) all these put together will hardly make up Ninety nine Ceremonies, though we take in the Batchelor's Hoods and Lambskins: and why must these be exposed to be devoured by Wolves? And yet we will go as far as he to bring one sinful strayed Sheep into the Congregation, and convert him from the error of his Nonconforming ways; and therefore he does ill to reflect upon us thus, Yet these men will most passionately (and pardon me if I say, most uncharitably and irreligiously) cry, Away with these Idiot-Sectaries and fanatics: let them wander and perish in their own wild Imagination: We will not leave one Ceremony, nor any one line of our Common prayer-book to gain Thousands of them. No, if you altar that, we will rather leave the Church and go the Papists Mass. Whose words are these, but his own? Which of us ever said so? therefore to retort him part of his own Censure, this is said Passionately, I will not say, as he speaks, Uncharitably and Irreligiously.  
After he has Complemented both Parties, calling us, too zealous Ceremonists; Them, blind and wilful Separatists; He takes his leave: assuring us, that after our charitable Condescension, their Populous (I suppose he means Popular) pretences will be so confuted, their mouths so stopped (or opened to ask the more, but that's all one;) as for mere Shame, if not for Reason or Religion, they must come into the Church: and their Pastors coming in, the Sheep will follow. (Alas! it is rather the custom of these Shepherds to follow the Sheep, whatever Toy they take.) So the Shop-prating Weavers will soon be deserted, seeing their own Naked Folly; (somewhat akin to this Author's NAKED TRUTH).   

Animadversions upon his Chapters concerning Preaching, Confirmation, and Church-Government.  
I Knew a Scholar, a man of Wit, but no very hard Student, that quickly after the Church was restored, would needs become an Author upon this Subject, How necessary all the parts of University Learning are for a Divine. One of his Books he presented to an Eminent Person, who told him pleasantly, that he was extreme happy in the choice of his Subject, for he could not fail to demonstrate effectually, whether he writ upon it Learnedly or Unlearnedly, what need a Divine had of University Learning. Our Author in his Chapter upon Preaching has very sufficiently proved the same thing, even where he makes it his business to prove the contrary. Little did we think at this time of day to hear of a Second part of Mr. del against Universities. The two Authors have many Expressions in them so exactly parallel (if it were worth our while to set them in two Columns, over-right one another) one would suspect the Junior of the two for a Plagiary.  
Yet have I no quarrel to him for his blaming that way of Preaching, upon this or that nice Speculation, or that way of keeping always in Universals, and never coming to Particulars, the Duty between Man and Wife, Parents and Children, etc. or that way of Dividing and Subdividing into Generals and Particulars, the Quid, the Quale, the Quantum; though he will find, if he looks abroad, that this is at a very low ebb, and the Tide runs now another and a better way. We care as little as he for a witty Rhetorical Harangue, or a cunning Syllogistical discourse in the Pulpit: and 'tis almost as ill a Character as can be given of a Sermon, or a Catechising, to be ridiculously Learned: yet to talk, as this Author does, as if University-Learning were unnecessary to a Preacher, is to be ridiculously Ignorant of the use, or rather the necessity of it as matters stand. He beseeches us to tell him, Did not Christ and his Apostles preach the best way? and are not we to follow their example? And I beseech him to tell me, Do not many good Divines preach the same way, as far as it ought to be followed by those that only sit at the Apostles feet? that is, Do they not with all plainness prove from Scripture all that they deliver as God's Word? This is our Unapostolic way of Preaching (as he calls it) the vain unedisying practice we now are in. Indeed we have no Miracles at command to prove what we say (as the Apostles had) and therefore must do it by Reason, which serves us to prove the Apostles did such Miracles: and that again rationally demonstrates the Scriptures to be God's Word: and then by the Testimony of the Church in several Ages (besides the understanding we must have of all the Internal Arguments for it;) we must be able to show that these are the Books of Scripture: and after all this, the same Reason must be employed to establish the true sense and meaning of them. In order to these great Ends, Reason must be improved by the studying of Arts, Sciences, and Languages; unless we had all these infused as we needed them, we must acquire them. Therefore his Argument is so far from holding good, God thought the gift of Tongues needless after the Gospel was once spread over the World: I pray let us be no wiser than God and his Christ; that is, Let us think the study of the Languages needless: (for that he means, or nothing:) Yea, ra●her the study of Tongues is therefore necessary because the Gift is ceased, and they cannot be had without study: For the certainty of the Christian Religion, and the verity of the Original Scriptures cannot be defended without a go●d measure of skill in the Languages, Arts and Sciences, which every one that is not unworthy to wear the Name of a Divine, should be competently able to do. Thus much the Apostle St. Peter (1 Pet. 3. 15.) requires, even of the Laity in their degree, that they be ready always to give an Answer to every man that asketh them a reason of the Hope that is in them. Now (to sum up the Argument) where is it almost possible for these Acquisitions to be made, except in Universities? Therefore we are still in that vulgar Error which he taxes as the General Opinion, p. 27. that (except some very few extraordinary Instances to the contrary) none are fit to be admitted into Holy Orders, but such as have studied in the University.  
But I beseech you (says he in the same page) what have these Sciences (falsely so called) to do with the Gospel? and he instances presently in the Mathematics as a Science (it seems) falsely so called. His quarrel at the Jesuits in China, I must needs say, is an idle one, for recommending themselves to the King and his Courtiers by the Skill some of the Society, whom they sent for, had in the Mathematics: Whereas their Errand thither was to preach the Gospel. What of all that? are these so Heathen-Studies, that they are not to be tolerated even then, when they help to introduce Christianity? But he seems to have the same compass of understanding in these Arts and Sciences) (falsely so called you must think) that a certain old Head of a House had, who coming one day by chance into the Colledge-Library, and finding there an ingenious young man reading Christoph. Clavius (the Jesuit) upon Euclid, Now a shame take thee (said he) why dost thou not get thee some Protestant Mathematics?  
But sincence his greatest Pique is at Logic, and he can never leave inveighing against Syllogisms and Human Deductions, and still he is rating off his Preachers from Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Scotus, Aquinas (so he puts them together, p. 28. very Chronologically) and then very Logically contradistinguishes Mathematics, Logic, Physic (whether Medicine or Natural Philosophy) to Gravity, Sobriety, Meekness, Diligence, and the like. I should not sufficiently acquit myself in the Defence of Universities (which I have undertaken, for the Church of England no where looks more hopefully than in the Universities) where the faculty of disputing is so well taught, as it can hardly be learned any where else, if I should not vindicate this Faculty from being that, with which (he says p. 15.) God will not endure to be fettered, as with Philosophical Sophisms and Human Consequences, but beyond his promise (I suppose the very words of any Promise, as he explains himself, ipsissimis verbis) he is not sure of any thing, though it seems ever so rational. It were in vain to produce St. Augustine's Testimony (l. de Ordine c. 17.) where he praises Logic, for he was one of the Fathers who by this very means defaced and spoiled Christianity. And I know not whether Bishop Davenant have any better Credit with him, who in his Learned Commentary on the Colossians, Chap. 2. falls into the same Heresy, and bestows great Commendations on that Noble Art or Science. Perhaps it will be to no purpose to put him in mind that our Blessed Saviour was pleased to be a kind of Quaestionist (as our University Statutes call young Logicians) when he disputed with the Doctors, being himself but twelve years of age. And if I should tell him of St. Stephen's disputing with certain of the Synagogue of the Libertines, who were not able to resist the Wisdom, as well as the Spirit by which he spoke. Or if I should urge the Example of Apollo's an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, as well as fervent in spirit, who mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ: that is (no doubt) by deductions from Scripture; Perhaps he would fancy still that they used some other Logic than what we study at Universities, for which we are so much beholding to some Heathen Philosophers, as if it were for the Honour of Christian Religion, to have a Logic made on purpose to justify its Doctrines, and as if it were not much more for its Honour to be able to maintain those Doctrines by the same standing Rules which all the World, even the Heathen World, found out and established, as immediately founded upon Natural Reason. I will therefore show him that Christ and his Apostles did many times Argue explicitly in Mood and Figure: and sometimes only so implicitly, that Men may be damned for not making such Deductions as they ought to make from Scripture. As in St. John 8. 47. our Saviour tells the Multitude, He that is of God, heareth God's words; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 'Tis a Syllogism in the fourth Mood of the Second Figure, and runs thus:  


Whosoever is of God hears God's words:  
But ye do not hear God's words;  
Therefore ye are not of God.    
St. Paul, Heb. 12. 7, 8. Argues in the same Mood and Figure.  


Every Son is chastened by the Father:  
But ye are not chastened by the Father; (on supposition that they would not endure to be so)  
Therefore ye are not Sons: that is, ye are Bastards.    
In the 22th of St. Matthew, Christ in his Dispute with the Sadduces calls that Siripture, which was only a Rational deduction from Scripture: and they are pronounced by our Saviour to err and not to know the Scriptures, which did not know how to collect a true Inference from Scripture, though they knew the Words well enough. And yet our Saviour's Argument cannot be explicated without two or three Syllogisms, which may be these.  
1. 

God is the God of the Living:  
God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;  
Therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob live.    
2. 

They that live not now in their Persons, but live unto God, must be raised from the Dead:  
But they (viz. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) that live unto God, live not now in their Persons;  
Therefore they (viz. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) must be raised from the Dead.    
3. 

They that now live only in their Souls, live not now in their Persons:  
But they (viz. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) now live only in their Souls;  
Therefore they (viz. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) live not now in their Persons.    
Now what if the propositions of such a Syllogism happen to be disjoined in the Scripture being about the same matter? is it not lawful and safe to put them both together, and make the Deduction? For Example, a great Divine (who is now a Reverend Prelate, the present Lord Bishop of Ely) was arguing with a Person of Honour and Learning of the Romish Persuasion, against Transubstantiation; and in that Discourse the Doctor asked him, If the Substance of the Bread and Wine remained no longer, but was done away, than what did the wicked eat and drink, that eat and drank unworthily? nothing but Accidents? The Nobleman answered, That they eat the Body, and drank the Blood of Christ. Whereupon the Doctor urged him with this Syllogism:  


Whosoever eats the Flesh of Christ and drinks his Blood hath eternal life, abiding in him, Joh. 6. 54. & 56.  
But no Murderer hath eternal life abiding in him, 1 Joh. 3. 15.  
Therefore no murderer eats the Flesh of Christ, and drinks his Blood.    
The Major Proposition is Christ's own words; the Minor is the Apostle St. John's words; the Syllogism is true in the form, as well as in the matter; therefore the Conclusion is firm and certain. But that Honourable Person smiled, and asked the Doctor (in this Author's way) Whether he would have him build his Faith upon Syllogisms? As if a true Syllogism, both for matter and form, were any thing else but true Reason: And as if any part of our Faith were (not only above our Reason, but) unanswerably contradictory to Reason, and to the rules of Reasoning. Sure if the Apostle prays for a Deliverance from unreasonable men, for some men have not Faith; implying that such men as have not Faith are unreasonable in that, (however rational they be in other affairs); Then we may safely and truly convert the sense of that Proposition, and conclude, this or that (as Transubstantiation in the Case before us) is indeed unreasonable, therefore it ought to be no part of ●ny man's Faith.  
A thousand more such Instances may be raised out of other Texts, but these may suffice. This is that which St. Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to convince Gainsayers, the very word of Aristotle, which is honour enough for that Philosopher.  
If he had his wish (which is ours as well as his) that only grave, discreet, and conscientious Persons we●e put into the Ministry: then he foresees, and foretells that many Persons of good rank and estate, would think it no dishonour, but rather an high honour to enter into it, as they did in the Primitive Times. Though we cannot show so many Heroic Examples of this kind as were in those blessed times, yet, thanks be to God, many persons of good rank and estate do think it no dishonour to be Clergymen: and perhaps there were never so many wellborn men in the Church since the Reformation, though he takes no notice of it, but rather implies the contrary, that men of Quality count it a disparagement to be in Holy Orders. He might consider that two of our greatest Prelates are Sons to Peers of the Realm, and that my Lord's Grace of Canterbury my L. Bishop of Winchester, and my L. Bishop of Hereford (besides several other Bishops) are Gentlemen of ancient Families, and Honourable Names in this Kingdom: and always must be. Of such as these, the Prefacer to Mr. Herbert's Country Parson speaks thus, with holy and lofty Eloquence; These Noble Persons so excellently qualified with Virtues, Learning, and Piety, by bringing along with them into the Church, the Eminency of their Birth also, have cast a lustre upon the Clergy, as greater Stars help to brighten up their less shining Neighbours: and have advanced their Christian Priesthood to the height it was at, under the Law of Nature, when it was the hereditary Honour and Prerogative of the Firstborn, or chief of the Family, to be the Priest of the most High God.  
But whether University men or not it matters not, so as fully instructed in the Doctrine of the Gospel by sound Commentators. And, why matters it not? Where are they like to be so fully instructed in the Doctrine of the Gospel? or even in sound Commentators (if they are all in all with him) as in Universities? But, I suppose, he means some English Commentators, such as the Assemblies Notes: for Dr. Hammonds will misled them concerning Episcopacy. For such as were never Academians, the Latin they bring from School, together with some Hebrew, and little or no Greek, will hardly carry them farther, except into some renowned Postillers. Yet these are the men whom he would set up to Preach, with that which he calls the Demonstration of the Spirit. By which I cannot gather what he means from all that he speaks, unless it be to speak (as he does) Magisterialy: But that that is not to speak with Demonstration of the Spirit, I refer him to the first part of the Friendly Debate, where that is cleared sufficiently.  
But, to return to the point we were upon, the Interest of Universities, Would he have Men of Quality come into the Church, and not be capable of its highest Dignities? And would not this be a rare Breeding for such as should be designed for our greatest Dignitaries and Praelates, never to come near either of the Universities, but to live in the Country poring upon his Commentators? A good way indeed to make them Gentle-Readers; as he tells us, Julian the Emperor's Kinsman, and afterwards Emperor himself, was admitted a Reader in the Church: or for a need, to make them such Lecturers as he is forming in this Chapter: or such, as one verily thought King Henry the Eighth had been, when reading his Life as it is written by my Lord Herbert of Cherbury; instead of the words of the Noble Historian, which are these (p. 2.) His Education was accurate, being destined (as a Credible Author affirms 
† Concil. ●r●d. l. 1. ) to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, during the life of his elder Brother Prince Arthur, he mistook and read it, His Education was a Curate, being destined to the Arch bishopric of Canterbury.  
For Confirmation, he is in the right where he urges the Necessity of it: And perhaps not much in the wrong, where he proposes an Expedient for the Bishop to appoint some discreet Conscientious Ministers (as our Deans Rural should be) in several Circuits to examine. Though 'tis a little hard that he will not trust every Parish-Priest with Examining, praeparatory to Confirmation, when he makes them one and the same Order with the Bishops themselves. But whereas he adds, to Examine and Licence to the Lord's Table; (for I pass it as granted, that Confirmation is no Sacrament;) so do I take it for granted, that 'tis not only a Licence to the Lord's Table, and to think it is only so, is to run into one extreme of speaking too meanly of it to avoid the other of such as call it a proper Sacrament. For by his favour, our Youth may receive the Sacrament before they are Confirmed. To what purpose then does he put the case so tragically against the Bishops? It may often happen (says he) that a pious Child, well fitted for the Holy Sacracrament, and perchance being weak, earnestly desires it before his death, yet must stay some years till next Visitation, or take a long journey to the Bishop, for which he may want strength or means to support him. No, his pious Child need not stay some years, nor yet some hours for the Sacrament, nor travel any farther than the Rubric (which one would think this Author never saw;) the words of which are these, And there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he be Confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be Confirmed.  
It is indeed not possible for a Bishop in a large Diocese and Triennial Visitation to perform this Necessary work as it ought, if there have not been good Catechising and praevious Examinations: but (supposing those) Why may not Priests, nor Bishops, perform it? And why must Confirmation be taken out of the Bishop's hands upon this wild account? When St. Philip had converted Samaria, Acts 8. 15. whilst the Apostles were at Jerusalem, can we think, when some of them came thither, that they Personally examined all the People in that place, who with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spoke? And yet they laid their hands on them, being I presume well satisfied with Philip's account of them, and they received the Holy Ghost. For Philip's Examination of them was in order to Baptism, and after that it was usual to administer Confirmation, and the Eucharist also to Adults at the same time.  
For his Exception at Baptising, tolerated in Necessity to Midwives; and he would gladly see any such thing in Antiquity. Tolerated by whom? by the Church? Pray let him look upon the Rubric concerning Private Baptism before he writes again, where the words are these, First let the Minister of the Parish, or in his absence, any other lawful Minister that can be procured, with them that are present call upon God. Yet were Tertullian now alive, who knew the Customs of the Ancient Church as well, I suppose, as this Author; he would not have censured our Church for Tolerating so much in that point: For sure he goes much farther, and will show him somewhat more than this in Antiquity, in case of Necessity (such a Necessity they did believe of Baptism) his known words are these, that in such a case, Quilibet Laicus thing it. And I know not in this case, and according to this Author's Principles, what a Layman can do more than a Woman.  
For the great things he speaks of the Power of the Keys in his Chapter of Church-Government, they are well and truly spoken: but so is not that which follows, Yet this is in a manner quite relinquished to Chancellors, Laymen, etc. The Church perhaps was never happier since the Reformation in men of this Profession, that fill up those places with great Ability and Integrity, and I add, with great deference to their Superiors the Bishops. No doubt they are most capable to examine and declare upon matter of Fact, whether or no this or that person have done the fact, to which the Canon has decreed Excommunication: but they understand too well to think they have the Power of the Keys, wherefore the Sentence (where things are regularly done) is pronounced by a Priest, not by a Lay-Chancellour. And his Similitude of the Parish-Clark jingling the Keys when the Rector has locked any one out of the Church, to which he likens those proceed in the Spiritual Court, is a Jingle itself and no better. You will answer me (says he) The Bishops themselves pass it over, etc. Truly in this you have reason, and the blame must wholly light on them. No, I will not answer him so, but I will ask him one plain Question: Are the Bishops wholly to blame, that the Canons of 1640 are not observed, which make abundant provision against such Abuses? or rather, Are not those to blame who explode these Canons?  
He tells us, that in the times of Popery, when Spiritual and Temporal affairs were all intermingled and horribly confounded, the Bishops were frequently Lordkeepers, Treasurers, Chief-Justices, Vice-Roys: and what not? which is strangely Unapostolical and unlawful. No men were greater Blessings to their times, even in those times of Popery when they sat at the Helm, than the Bishops. 'Twas Bishop Morton's Industrious brain that made up the Fatal breach, and United the two Houses of York and Lancaster, in the happy marriage between King Henry the Seventh and the Lady Elizabeth; and it was under the Ministry of Bishop Fox, who was Lord Privy-Seal, and by his reaching Parts, that the grounds were laid for a more happy Union between the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland in that Marriage, which was designed with a deep and long train of memorable Policies, that the eldest Daughter of Henry should marry James of Scotland, and the younger should ma●ch into France, that so if ever they should come to inherit, Scotland might be the Annexe to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, and that England might never be in the nature of a Province to France. In the Old Testament there are Examples enough of Priests that were Ministers of State; those I confess were Unapostolical, that is, long before the Apostles, but he will have much ado to prove them unlawful. He might have omitted Lordkeepers and Treasurers for Bishop Williams and Bishop Juxon's sake: one of them as able in the Chancery as the other in the Treasury. And whereas the King is graciously pleased at this time to bestow the great Seal of Ireland upon a Reverend Praelate there, I hope this Author will not deny, but his Majesty has put him into a lawful Calling.  
But whereas in the end of this Chapter he justly complains of exempt Jurisdictions as merely Papal, and a thing altogether unknown to Antiquity (wherein he is much in the right) I wonder he does not discern his own Scheme concerning Bishops and Priests to be Papal too, and that Presbyterianism has no pretence to Antiquity, but what it has from Popery. It was Pope Innocent the 4th. (whom for such pranks as these his Party celebrate for a most wise Pope) who decreed, that ex dispensatione & deputatione solius Pontificis Romani, one Priest might ordain another: whosoever then writes the History of Presbytery should make it begin from Rome, and not take its rise from Geneva; who does not know that the Popish Schoolmen and Canonists have made it their business to degrade their Bishops, and confound them into one and the same order with the Presbyters? to exempt the Regular Clergy from Episcopal Jurisdiction, and as many of the Secular as they please? who made the Cardinals, that were but mere parish-Priests, and many of them no Bishops to this day, superiors to all the Bishops, nay, Governors and Judges over all Prelates in the vacancy of the Popedom? The Consistory of Cardinals is then their only head of the Catholic Church upon earth, which is all one as if it were headed with a Geneva-Consistory; both Papists and Presbyterians take down the Superior order and advance the middle, only Mr. Calvin and his Followers will have all this depend immediately on Christ himself, whereas the Romish Party makes it depend immediately on one they call Christ's Vicar: For how vehemently did the Papalins, even in their Council of Trent, urge and press it, That the Power and Jurisdiction was wholly given to the Bishop of Rome? and that every particular Bishop being only de Jure Canonico, may be removed by the Pope's Authority? he that would see more to the same purpose, let him consult the Cardinal Pallavicino (if he will not trust Padre Paolo) where he may read the long Speech of Father Laynez, all to this effect. But though I had prepared some Animadversions upon this Chapter too concerning Bishops and Priests, yet it has been so learnedly confuted in a Sermon preached at Whitehall, which I hear is to be published by His Majesty's special Command, that I shall not need, nor presume to touch that Chapter.   

Animadversions on his Charitable Admonition to all Non-conformists.  
I Find little to complain of in his Charitable Admonition, but that it is no longer: O si sic omnia dixisset! In the Close he bespeaks them at this rate; and I will do him the courtesy to transcribe a great deal in his own words, that so they may be reprinted with a Licence, though they were printed without one.  
I beseech you (says he) to consider the great mischief you bring upon this Church and Nation by your Separation from the Church; you pretend to be the great Zealots against Popery, and yet give me leave to say, your indiscreet disobedient Zeal mainly brings it in; your separation, and many following divisions, have caused many to abhor our Church and turn to Popery, and doubtless you are to give an account to God for the ruin of those Souls; for I can never yield that you have any reasonable and true conscientious cause of Separation, but merely mistaken-Reason and Conscience which I much pity, but no way approve; and therefore I must lay the advance of Popery to your charge, to your Separation, for I am sure 'tis the main Snare wherewith they catch unstable Souls, persuading them our Church is not guided by the Spirit of Truth, seeing it is so confounded by the Spirit of Division, it cannot be of God, who is both Verity and Unity. Now, though it be well known to the Learned, that their Church hath neither Verity nor Unity, yet this is not so discernible to weak Souls, etc.  
'Tis true indeed, after great Search of heart occasioned by our Divisions, many set up their rest upon Popery: though the Principles upon which the Church of Rome pretends to judge o● Controversies do clash and fight even with one another, and therefore are most unfit to quiet other men's thoughts, yet because that Church is a Great Promiser, they take Sanctuary there, resolving as Joab did, that if they Perish, it shall be at the Horns of the Altar. But I would fain know of this Author, if our Divisions fright so many from our Church, then would not straightening the Terms of our Belief, as in his Chapter concerning Articles of Faith, and abolishing all our Ceremonies, and blending our Orders, be the cause of more Divisions, and consequently of more Separations from the Church of England? Would not this give the highest advantage to the Romish Party? And would not they be sure to urge it upon their coming Proselytes, that we had abandoned our former Principles? That we had receded from our own Articles, by which we gave so good an account of ourselves to the whole Christian World at the Reformation? That we had banished not only all exterior Beauty, but Order and Decency out of our Public Worship? That we had been false to God, and to the Church of God, in breaking so many Protestations as we had made heretofore against such proceed as these, and consequently false (as all Cowards are) to ourselves? Therefore whilst he has so much Charity for some that will have their own will (as he tells us) he must be entreated to have a little Charity too for our Understanding; and not to expect we should give away our Religion in a fit of Complaisance, and throw our Church out at window in a frolic. His greatest Argument why all this aught to be yielded, is grounded only upon Policy. And perhaps he is as much mistaken in his Policy, as in his Divinity. They are not born to be any Repairers of our breaches, that are the Authors of such rash Counsels as these, which are worse than those Dolabella gave Cicero his Father-in-law, when the Commonwealth was in a manner lost, Reliquum est, ubi nunc est Respublica ibi simus, potius quàm dum illam veterem sequimur, simus in nullâ: But this Author would not have us take things as we find them, but make them worse, because they are no better. Thus, What the Romans scorned to do after the battle of Cannae, What the Venetians never did, when they had lost all their Terra firma; That Men are Now taught to think a Virtue, and the sign of a Wise and good man, Desperare de Republicâ. They are the words of the Christian Cicero (as I presume to style him) the present Lord Chancellor in his Speech to both Houses of Parliament, April 13th. 1675. And since I am fallen by chance into the Roman History, I will conclude with a remarkable passage out of Livy (lib. 5.) When the Gauls a Barbarous People had sacked the City of Rome, and cut the Senators Throats as they sat in the Streets, and when afterwards Camillus a Banished man, had driven them away, and restored the Commonwealth; yet the People seeing the City so defaced and spoiled, were importunate to remove the Imperial Seat from Rome and settle at Veii; whilst the Senate were debating it very warmly, and rather inclining to remove; as the Regiment that had the Guard that day passed through the Forum, the Centurion that Commanded gave Orders aloud, so that the Senate overheard him into the Senate-House, Signifer statue Signum: Sta miles: hic optimè manebimus. Ensign set down the Colours; Soldiers stand; this is the best place for us to make our Station. Whereupon the Senate took the Omen, risen immediately from their Consultation; and all the People approved their Generous Resolution. There is a Thundering Legion of those that are at their prayers and tears, and who keep as it were God-Almighty's Watch for the preservation of the most Apostolical Church in the World: And as a Holy Bishop bid Monica the Mother of St. Augustine, before he was any Saint, go away and be comforted, for it was impossible the Son of so many tears as He had cost her should perish; (And this, says that good Father, was received as a Voice from heaven.) So I hope the Mother, over whom so many of her own Sons are weeping, and as it were, wrestling with God in secret, can never miscarry. But if the Question be now, whither we shall remove the Ancient Landmarks, and carry our Church either toward Rome, or Geneva; the miraculous Providence of God in restoring it together with his Majesty, after so many years' Banishment, and ever since preserving it, may, as a voice from Heaven, animate us to resolve, that this is the best place where we are fixed, and here may we keep our station.   
FINIS.