328 Coronation, that therefore he thought it Lawful to be prefent at your Common Prayers in other Occafions. For if he had, he might have kept the Crown upon his Head.

G. My Lord, what is Lawful once, is Lawful always.

L. I beg your Pardon, Sr. For the fame external Action may be Lawful or unlawful as circumstances vary. As for Inftance: A Cafe of Neceffity may oblige a virtuous Perfon to go into very fcandalous Company, where it would be unlawful for him to appear at other Times. And the fame Action may give great Scandal at one Time, and none at all at another. If I should go upon Sundays to hear Prayers at my own Parish Church, where most of the Congregation know me, every Body would conclude I came with a Design to conform becaufe going to Church in that Manner is regarded as a distinctive Mark. But if I went only out of Curiofity to hear the Parfon exercise his Talent in a Place, where I am not known, I should give no Handle to any one to interpret it as a Renouncing of my own Religion. Ti's plain then that the fame Thing may be Lawful in one Circumftance, and unlawful in another. Now the Circumstances of King Jame's being prefent at your Common Prayers were fuch, as render'd it impoffible for any Man to interpret it either a Diflike of his own, or an Approbation of your Liturgy or Communion. Nor can you, by Confequence conclude from it, that he did not think it unlawful to be present at your Commun Prayers in ordinary Occafions; as I am fure no Roman Catholick thinks it Lawful.

Sfa

Pope Pius V. was not the Author of the English Schifm.

» G.

My Lord, formerly they

Y Lord, formerly they thought it Law

ful. For after the Reformation the Roman "Catholicks of England came to our Churches, and »to our Common Prayer without any Scruple. And this » continued till about the 10th Year of the Reign of » Queen Elizabeth, when Pope Pius forbad it by his "Bull. So that he made the Separation. And if he

had not fufficient Power to do it, or that there " was not fufficient Caufe for it, then he made the » Schifm too, and it lies wholly at his Door. Now it " is the undoubted Right of every National Church » to reform, alter, and model their own Liturgy, as » shall be most convenient; provided there be nothing put into it, that is contrary to the Faith: which is not fo much as alledged against our pu» blick Offices. They have a Breviary at Milan, and other Places different from that at Rome. And in England before the Reformation there were diverfe » in feveral Diocefes. As what was ufed in the » Church of Salisbury, of Hereford, of Bangor, of "Tork, of Lincoln, &c. as is mention'd in the Pre» face of our Common Prayer-book concerning the » Service of the Church, But thefe Differences did » not break Communion; nor did the Alteration made at the Reformation, till the Pope by the Plenitude of his Supremacy, and to be revenged upon Queen » Elizabeth took upon him to break the Commu»nion. For which, as there was no fufficient Cause, » our Liturgy being all Orthodox even our Enemies being Judges; fo on the other Hand the Pope's Supre"macy did not extend to break in upon the Rights

រ

325. and Liberties of any National Church, as has been, and is ftill maintain'd by the whole Gallicane Church, « and others the most learned in the Church of Rome. « And, My Lord, I know fome Roman Catholicks of " Figure and good Senfe in England, who meerly « upon this Account have come over to our Church, « and thought themfelves obliged to return to the « Communion of their National Church, and to heal « the Breach made by that Excefs of the Pope's Su ce premacy, which no fober Man on this Side of the « Alps will own. It is ftrange to own it in Fact, and deny it in Words. Whoever owns this Bull of « Pius V. for Breaking Communion in England, e muft alfo own the full Extent of the Bulla Cœna, i which has his Authority in a particular Manner, « as well as of all the Popes fince. And it damns al- « moft all Papifts as well as all who are not Papifts. «

pag. 101. 102.103... cr

L. What, Sr Will yo

What, Sr! Will you never leave off Baiting that poor Bull? But we have now a Question of greater Moment before us, to wit, whether Pius V. was the Author of the English Schifm, which you boldly affirm, and endeavour to prove from a Fact, which upon Examination will appear to be a grofs mistake. You say, that after the Reformation the Catholicks of England came to your Churches and Common Prayer without Scruple till the tenth Year of Queen Elizabeth. This, I fay, is a grofs Miftake, because your Meaning (to be any Thing to the Purpose) must be, that either the whole Body of Roman Catholicks; or at leaft the most eminent Part in England came to your Churches and Common Prayer; and that they did it upon a full Perfuafion of the Lawfulnefs of it. For whoever do's a Thing without Scruple, unless he be an Atheist, is convinced in Confcience, that he may lawfully do it. Now it is neither true, that the whole

5.538 Body of Roman Catholicks, or the most eminent Part did conform: nor that they, who conform❜d, without Scruple.

did it

I prove the firft from Dr Heylyn, who writes thus (pag. 286. 3d Edit. London) It was upon the 8th Day of May, that the Parliament ended (viz. 1. of Eliz.) and on the 24 of June that the publick Liturgy was to be offciated in all the Churches of the Kingdom. In the Performance of which Service the Bishops giving no Encouragement, and many of the Clergy being backward, it was thought fit to put them to the final Teft, and either to bring them to Conformity, or to bestow their Places and Preferments upon more Tractable Perfons. "In the fame Page he tells us, that many of the Bishopricks being vacant when Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown, there were no more than fifteen living of that facred Order. And of those fifteen only one conform'd, viz. Kitchin of Landaf; who (as Dr Heylyn remarks) having formerly fubmitted to every Change refolved to shew himself no-Changeling in not Conforming to the Pleasure of higher Powers. So that no less than 14 Bishops of fifteen refused to conform, and were accordingly deprived of their Bishopricks.

In the next Page he tells us, that befides the 14 Bishops, fix Abbots, Priors, and Governours of Religious Houfes (that is, all that were at that Time in England restored by Queen Mary) twelve Deans, and as many Arch.deacons: is Presidents, or Masters of Colleges: so Prebendaries of Cathedral Churches and above 80 Parfons or Vicars were deprived of their Preferments.

But Mr Rishton, who lived in thofe unhappy Times, and could not but know what happen'd, relates that great Numbers of the Layity, and many eminent Perfors of both Univerfities quitted the Kingdom and chofe to undergo a voluntary Banishment ga

327 ther than comply with the Times. Many alfo of the Inns of Court were turn'd out of their Places for Non-compliance. And 'tis notoriously known, that the few Religious Houses, which Queen Mary had reeftablish'd, as the Nuns of Sion, the Carthufians of Richmond, and the Friars of Greenwich entirely refufed to bow their knees to Baall; left the Kingdom, and fought a Refuge in foreign Countries rather than conform contrary to the Dictates of their Conscience.

Now, Sr, give me leave to propofe a Question. Suppofe all the Bishops but one of Great Britain, and many. of the best Character amongst the Inferiour Clergy, and Laity should refufe to take the Oath of Abjuration, I ask, whether in that Cafe it would be true to say, that the Proteftants of the Church of England take the Oath of Abjuration without Scruple? Surely no. Because when we fay abfolutely, and without Restriction, that the Proteftants or Catholicks of England do fuch or fuch a Thing without Scruple, the natural and obvious Meaning of it is, first, that either the whole Body, or at least the most eminent Part do it. And 2dly, that they do it by Principle. And how can it be faid, that either the whole Body, or at least the most eminent Part of a Church do's a Thing, when all the principal Heads and Rulers of that Church refufe to do it? Or how can the conforming Party, tho it be the greater in Number, be faid to do it by Principle, when those, who are their Spiritual Governours by divine Appointment, their Guides of Confcience, and Judges in Matters of Religion, declare against it both by Word and Deed? Since therefore all the Catholick Bishops but One, all the Abbots and Religious that were then in England, and many of the most eminent amongst the inferiour Clergy refufed to conform, it is falfe to say abfolutely,