that claims no higher Obligation confesses it self to be no Religion for none it is unless Enacted by Divine Authority The second is that of Mr. Selden and his Followers that acknowledges the standing Laws of the Christian Church to have been derived from a Divine Institution but derives all manner of Government and Authority in it from the Civil State The third is the Opinion of some Learned and Moderate Divines both at home and abroad that grant indeed the necessity of some kind of Government in the Church but deny it to have been setled and fixed by our Saviour in any one Form or upon any certain Order of men and leave it wholly at some-bodies disposal though who that somebody is they have not as yet clearly determined to appoint Officers and Governours as shall be thought most prudent and suitable to the present Circumstances of things Now upon any of these Principles it is not at all material whether we assert any such thing as a Church of England or not for they are all but so many Contradictions both to the being of a Church and to themselves at least if we pursue each party to the bottom of their Opinion they only assert the Shadow or Ghost of a Church upon such Principles as are directly inconsistent with the Fundamental Constitution of all Christian Churches and so have as it were stoln away the Church of England from itself setting up the name against the thing the Idea against the Reality and the Notion against the Practice For the first supposes a Church without Religion the second a Society without Government the third a Government without Governours And what can be more absurd and inconsistent For a Church without Religion is no Church a Society without Government is no Society and a Government that is not lodged somwhere is no Government So that though these Opinions are not equally wicked in themselves the first being open and avowed Atheism yet are they equally destructive to the Fundamental Constitution of the Christian Church as it is a Society founded not by any human Authority but Divine Right With Mr. Hobbs and his Church I shall be very brief because his Notions here as indeed they are every where are no better than gross and palpable Contradictions Neither should I spend much pains upon the second opinion because the absurdity of it is so easily demonstrable from the Nature of Society it self but seeing Mr. Selden a very Learned Person has taken infinite pains in the Argument searched all Authors and all Records to heap together every thing that might serve his cause I shall wait upon him through all the material parts of his Discourse But with the third sort I intend to treat more largely because that is the Church at this present in fashion and is become popular and plausible by the Authority of some Learned men that have owned and asserted it And therefore I shall carefully demonstrate its vanity and falsehood from our Saviours express Institution from the certain practice of the Apostles from all the most undoubted Records of the Church and lastly from the great inconveniences that would unavoidably follow upon it And when we have gained these three Fundamental points we may then and not till then proceed to farther proposals for the true settlement of the Church of England for without them whatever men may talk of it all their Discourse of a Church is no more than a Notion and a Phantasm a Platonick Common-Wealth and a World in the Moon First then as for Mr. Hobbs his Opinion it is scarce worth any mans Confutation because it so plainly confutes itself For what can be more absurd and ridiculous than to make as he does the serious Belief of Religion necessary to the security of Government and yet discover to all those that he would have brought under the Power of this persuasion that it is in reality nothing but an useful and necessary Imposture And yet into this preposterous course of Politicks does Mr. Hobbs suffer himself to be driven by his pedantick Pride and Vanity That though it be above all things necessary to the Empire of our Sovereign Lord Leviathan that the common people be abused with the Belief and scared with the dread of invisible Powers yet lest they should be tempted to think the great Philosopher himself so weak as to be betrayed into the same Opinion he Publishes a Book to all the World to no other purpose beside Flattering the Tyrant Cromwel than to declare that neither himself nor any wise man ought to regard the Tales of Religion and that they are only designed to abuse the ignorant and the silly Just as if this great Statesman should go about to fright Birds from his Corn as he speaks with an empty Doublet an Hat and a crooked Stick but yet lest the Jack-Daws should take him for one of their own silly Flock he should take special care to inform them that himself knows it to be only a man of Clouts This alone is sufficient to discover the vanity and the danger of the Hobbian Religion when it is nothing else but an open Declaration of Atheism and Impiety Though indeed this way of trifling is so natural to Mr. Hobbs that as much as he loves his own Opinions he always contradicts them And this is a plain Demonstration of the Ignorance of the pretenders to Wisdom in this Age that so Inconsistent and Unphilosophical a Writer should obtain so much Credit and Authority among them For though he have a very facetious Wit and is the Author of many pleasant sayings yet he was never Master of one Philosophick Notion But for their conviction I shall challenge them to shew me more incoherent and inconsistent reasonings than are his undoubted and Mathematical Demonstrations against the Being of God and the Principles of Religion First then would you believe that there is a God or not Mr. Hobbs gives you your choice Choose which you please he will demonstrate either by the same Topick Will you have no Deity It is manifest there can be none because there can be no first Mover because nothing can move itself and therefore when men go about to prove a Deity from the succession of Causes and Effects they prove nothing but the necessity of Eternal motion for as it is true that nothing can move itself so is it true that nothing can move any thing else unless itself be first moved Here then the Demonstration is pregnant that there can be no first Cause because nothing can move it self and because all motion is Eternal But will you have a Deity The Demonstration of it is as undeniable For he that from any effect he seeth come to pass should reason to the next and immediate Cause thereof and from thence to the Cause of that Cause and plunge himself profoundly in the pursuit of Causes shall at last come to this that there must be as even the Heathen Philosophers
confined my self to the discourses of men of sense and learning i. e. no Smectymnuans and have distinctly considered and I hope confuted all their material pretences against the Episcopal superiority in the Premises But as for Grammatical Criticisms and Historical Digressions they concern not us because they concern not our Enquiry And if learned men would but come up roundly and keep ingenuously to the main point of the Controversie they must rub their foreheads pretty hard to out-face the evidence of our cause But alas the custom of them all is to range up and down through the whole field or rather wood of Antiquity and pursue every thing little or great that starts within their view And they seem to make choice of this Subject rather from it to take occasion of shewing the variety of their Reading than with any design to make good the undertaking of their Title Page And it is very observable that among the many thousand Pages that have been of late years wasted in the Anti-episcopal cause it will be very hard to find half an hundred directly to the purpose And that of it self is Argument enough that they have but very little to say against it And what that is I have in the Premises fully represented for I protest that as I will answer it to Almighty God I know no other pretences that are at all pertinent or material besides those that I have considered But in the last place beside the direct and positive Argument that I have thus far pusued from ourSaviours own express Institution the undoubted practice of the Apostles and the most unquestionable Records of the Primitive Church I come to the last Topick propounded those enormous inconveniences that unavoidably result from the contrary Opinion I shall represent only two The first is this that if the Form of Government in the Christian Church be not setled by the Founder of it that then we are at a loss to know by whom it may or ought to be determined For the Society of the Church being founded upon an immediate Divine Right no Person can justly challenge any Authority in it as such unless by vertue of some Grant or Commission from the divine Founder of it If therefore those Commissions that were granted by our Saviour to his Apostles do not descend to some certain Order of men as their Successours in that Authority wherewith they were invested who shall challenge the exercise of it after their decease To this we never received any certain Answer but are only told in the general That the particular Form of Government in the Church is left wholly to the prudence of those in whose power and trust it is to see that the peace of the Church be secured on lasting foundations But then I would fain know who those are that are intrusted with this Power It would have been very well worth their pains to have determined the particular Persons expresly appointed by God to this Office Especially when it is laid down as a fundamental Principle that all things necessary to the Churches peace must be clearly revealed in the Word of God and if so then no one particular Form may be established in it by any Authority whatsoever because no one particular Form as is all along pleaded is prescribed by the Word of God and yet it is plainly necessary to the Churches peace if Government be so that it be governed by some one particular Form But yet however when we come to enquire after these Trustees to whose power it is left to see the peace of the Church secured on lasting foundations the answer is ever ambiguous and unconstant Sometimes it is the Civil Magistrate and sometimes the People But this very uncertainty where this Power is lodged is both in it self and according to the fundamental Notion of the Hypothesis that we oppose a manifest confutation of the whole design For if our Saviour have not determined to whom it appertains that is evidence enough that he never intended by this way to provide for the peace and settlement of his Church For if he had appointed such Feoffees in Trust as is imagined he would at least have left it certain who they were that he intended which not having done that is demonstration enough that it was never his intention to set any such pretended Guardians over his Church But be it where it will it is very strange that these Learned men should be so intent upon the fineness of their Model as never to consider the wild consequences of either way when reduced to practice For be it in the Civil Magistrate they would first have done very well according to their own Rule ro have searched for some Commission in the Word of God whereby our Saviour entrusted this power with him We find indeed Prophesies and Predictions that Princes should become Patrons and Protectors of his Church but that they should be vested with a Power of instituting and abolishing Church Orders and Offices at pleasure is such a wild conceit as will not find any the least countenance from the Word of God Secondly By what Authority was the Church governed from our Saviour to the Reign of Constantine when if he had appointed the Civil Magistrate Overseer of his Infant Church there was then none that cared to execute his Office Beside thirdly If Church-Officers derive their Authority in the Church from the meer appointment of the Civil Magistrate they are then only of Humane Institution and derive not their Power from any appointment of our Saviour and so are only Ministers of State and not of the Gospel But to put it into the power of any mortal man to alter the whole frame of Government in the Church as he pleases is the most improper way in the world to provide for its peace and settlement For by this means it will be ever in the power of any Common-wealth lawfully to overturn all manner of Ecclesiastical Order at pleasure If to day perhaps the Bishops either by chance or by vertue of some Grant from the Civil Government enjoy the Supreme Power in the Church it may with good Authority to morrow depose them and translate their Power to the Presbyters from the Presbyters to the Deacons from the Deacons to the People and from the People to the Pope and it would be very consistent no doubt with the wisdom of Christ in founding his Church and providing for the peace and settlement of it to leave its whole frame of Government thus at the Mercy of any mans Power or Will We have one example of this project put in practice upon Record in the Long Parliaments Midsummer-Model of Reformation when they vote June 12. 1641. that all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction should be put into the hands of such Commissioners as their Worships should think fit In pursuance of which they vote June 21. that six of the Clergy and six of the Laity should be appointed in every County for the
great conceit that these Epistles appeared not till two hundred Years after Ignatius whereas by his own confession Origen writ within one hundred and forty Years Thirdly It cuts off the great pretence that Eusebius was the Founder of this mistake whereas it hereby appears that if it were one he only followed his Predecessors in it But the main of the Controversie here is the second thing Whether those Books ascribed to Origen in which Ignatius is quoted are really his or not Daillé says No but his learned Adversary has with no less than evidence of Demonstration proved they were though if he had not done it St. Jerom has done it long since who plainly tells us that himself translated them out of Origen's Greek into Latine And now after these I need add nothing of the Testimony of Eusebius and those that follow him for if he be mistaken their Authority is of no use if he be not it is of little necessity but that he is not is demonstrated from these more ancient Testimonies Though if any man desire more Witnesses I shall refer him to my learned Author who has summon'd them out of every Age from that in which the Epistles themselves were writen down to that next our own But to all the Testimonies of the Ancients what do our Adversaries oppose irst Salmasius opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople by which says he the Authentick and spurious Books of the Church were distinguish'd and among many others the Epistles of Ignatius are censured for Apocryphal Books But to this it is replied by the Pious the Reverend and the Learned Dr. Hammond that the opinion of one Author especially of later date for Nicephorus lived not before the ninth Century was not of weight and authority enough to oppose to the consent of so many ancient Writers Secondly That the word Apocryphal which is used by Nicephorus does not always signifie Spurious but it is very often used by Ecclesiastical Writers as opposed to Canonical and so is given to Books whose Authors were never question'd only to seclude them from the Canon of the Scripture To the first it is replied by Daillé and that I must say with impertinency enough that the authority of Nicephorus is at least equal to Dr. Hammonds as if the Dispute were between them two whereas the Dispute was between Walo and the Doctor who when he had produced the Testimonies of the Fathers of all former Ages could not but think it very hard that the opinion of one late Writer should be opposed to all their Authority To the second he replies That it is true that the word Apocryphal is oftentimes opposed to Canonical yet it is very frequently too used by Ecclesiastical Writers as equivalent to Spurious and Counterfeit and that therefore the Doctor in vain takes refuge in the Ambiguity of the word But certainly it is the manifest design of these men to tire out their Adversaries with verbose Trifles For who could have expected this Answer that when Walo had argued from the word Apocryphal as if it only signified Spurious and that when to the Argument the Doctor had answer'd that it no ways follows because it as often signified not Canonical who I say after this would have expected that his Adversary should upbraid him with taking Refuge in the ambiguity of the word when the Ambiguity of the word alone was not only a full answer to but a clear confutation of the Argument But he replies secondly That some of the Books joyn'd with it are confessed by all to be Supposititious and therefore as they were censur'd for that reason so must the Ignatian Epistles But this is manifestly false and though if it were true it follows like all the rest For the Censure has no regard to their Author but whether Spurious or Genuine to their Authority and only designs to shut them out from creeping in among the Canonical Scriptures For that was the only danger it aim'd to prevent least the Books that either were or pretended to be of Apostolical Antiquity should creep into the Canon And it is plain from the Decree it self that Nicephorus intended nothing else than to determine the Canonical Books of Scripture and prevent all others that came nearest to them in Age from obtaining sacred Authority But says Daillé Pope Gelasius when he defines what Books are Apocryphal he does not confine it meerly to the Canonical Scriptures but to all other Ecclesiastical Writers not allowed of and therefore this must be the meaning of Nicephorus That is to say that because Gelasius in his Decree determines what Ecclesiastical Books of what kind soever are to be reputed Orthodox what Heterodox that therefore Nicephorus when he distinguishes the Canonical Books of the New Testament from the Apocryphal does not mean as himself declares but must be understood in the sense of Gelasius And yet when all is done there is no such Testimony but the whole Story is a meer Dream of their own who catch at any shadow that may seem to serve their turn For sirst it is certain That Nicephorus was not the Author of the Stichometria Secondly That the Author of it whoever he was did not pass this censure upon Ignatius his Epistles For we find in it only the name of Ignatius without any mention of his Epistles Which indeed cannot in Daillé's sense be call'd Apocryphal because they were never esteem'd Canonical For that is the true Original of the distinction that whereas there were some Books written by the Followers of the Apostles as Clemens Barnabas and Hermas left these by reason of their nearness to the Canonical Books should in process of time be reckoned with them the Church was careful to range them in a Classis by themselves And whereas there were many other Books that pretended to be dictated by the Apostles and written by their Disciples lest they should gain the Authority they pretended to it concern'd the Church to give them the Apocryphal Mark. Seeing therefore Ignatius Epistles were never upon either of these accounts in any probability of being accounted Canonical it would have been a needless Caution to refer them to the Apocryphal Catalogue And though to Ignatii Daillé after his usual way of making bold with his Quotations adds Omnia It is probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be added as it is in another Index of Apocryphal Books in the Oxford Library It being the custom of some idle men of those times to make Institutions of Divinity and then fasten them upon Apostles and Apostolical men out of which as our learned Author with great probability conjectures was afterward made that Collection which goes under the name of Apostolical Constitutions Now these spurious pieces pretending to Canonical Authority it was very requisite to prevent and discover the Imposture But whatever probability may be in this Conjecture of which we stand in no need I am
an incomparable treasure of Ecclesiastical Antiquity And therefore omitting Daille's beloved Negative and internal Arguments which his Adversary has for ever routed with a prodigious force of reason and dexterity of learning I shall only give an account in short of the main rational point of the Controversie That is what antient Testimonies are to be alledged either for or against their Antiquity On the one side they are frequently owned and quoted by all the first general Councils and therefore must have been enacted in the Interval between the Apostles and the Council of Nice They are cited by many of the most ancient Fathers as Canons of the first and most early Antiquity And they are expresly referred to by the most famous Emperours in their Ecclesiastical Laws All which concurrent Testimony any moderate man would think sufficient to give Authority to any Writing and yet it is all over-ruled by a single Decree of Pope Gelasius supposed to be made Anno Domini 494. in which the Apostolical Canons are reckoned among the Apocryphal Books But first is it reasonable to set up the Opinion of one man against many that were more ancient and so much the more competent witnesses than himself Secondly it is uncertain whether any such Decree as is pretended were ever made by Gelasius in that we never hear any thing of it till at least three hundred years after his time Thirdly if there were any such Decree it is certain that this Passage concerning the Canons of the Apostles was foisted into it it not being found in any of the most ancient Copies and Hincmarus a Person of singular learning in his time that makes mention of this Decree of Gelasius as early as any Writer whatsoever expresly affirms that there was no mention of the Apostolical Canons in the whole Decree De his Apostolorum Canonibus penitus taâ—uit sed nec inter Apocrypha eos misit Where he expresly affirms that in the Decree these Canons were altogether omitted and ranged neither with the Orthodox nor with the Apocryphal Books This Testimony is given in with as peremptory terms as can be expressed and therefore Daillé for no other reason than to serve his cause quite inverts the Proposition and changes misit into omisit that is turns I into No. But men that can deal thus with their Authors need never trouble their heads with Testimonies of Antiquity for after this rate it is in their power to make any Author affirm or deny what they please But fourthly suppose Gelasius had made any such Decree how does that destroy the Antiquity of these Canons when he has condemned the Books of Tertullian Arnobius Lactantius and Eusebius for Apocryphal And yet Tertullian lived three hundred years before the Decree and therefore why may not the Apostolical Canons be allowed their reputed Antiquity too notwithstanding that Sentence which only relates to the Authority his Holiness is pleased to allow them in the Roman Church and not at all to their Antiquity unless perhaps he designed to declare that they were not framed by the Apostles themselves as he might fancy from their Title not knowing that whatever was of prime Antiquity in the Church was by the first Writers of it stiled Apostolical as being supposed to descend from the Tradition of the Apostles themselves Fifthly will Monsieur Daillè allow this Decree of Gelasius sufficient to give any Book the Apocryphal stamp If he will then he must reject many of the best Fathers and in their stead admit the Acts of St. Sylvester the Invention of the Cross and the invention of St. John Baptists head for whilst the History of Eusebius together with the other Fathers is rejected such Fables as these are warranted by that barbarous and Gothish Decree And that is enough though there were nothing else to destroy the Authority of this mans censure his meer want of Judgment Now comparing this one pretended Testimony of Gelasius under all the disadvantages that I have represented with the express counter-testimony of so many Councils Fathers and Emperours if any man be resolved notwithstanding all to stick to it I will say no more than this that his Cause is much more beholden to him than he to his Cause And now having given this account of these Apostolical men that conversed with the Apostles themselves or immediately succeeded them in the Government of the Church if we descend to their Successours from Age to Age we are there overwhelmed with the croud of Witnesses But because they have been so often alledged and urged by learned men I should have wholly waved their citation had not our Adversaries made use of several shifts and artifices to evade their Authority And therefore though I shall not trouble the Reader with their direct Testimonies yet to shew the vanity of all our Adversaries pretences I shall endeavour to vindicate the credit of the Ancients against all their Exceptions And here the first pretence is the ambiguity of their Testimony which is endeavoured to be made out by these three things First That personal succession might be without such superiority of order Secondly That the names of Bishop and Presbyters were common after the distinction between them was introduced Thirdly That the Church did not own Episcopacy as a divine Institution but Ecclesiastical and those who seem to speak most of it do mean no more First then a succession there might be as to a different Degree and not as to a different Order Before we distinguished between Order and Power now between Order and Degree and by and by between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction But these distinctions are only the triflings of the Schoolmen whose proper faculty it is to divide every thing till they have reduced it to nothing For what does the degree of a Church-Officer signifie but such an order in the Church and what order is there without a power of Office according to its degree and therefore it is plain prevaricating with the evidence of things to impose these little subtilties upon the sense of Antiquity they good men meant plainly and honestly and when they give us an account of Apostolical Successions they were not aware of these scholastick distinctions and intended nothing else than a succession in the government of their several Churches Thus when Irenaeus gives us a Catalogue of twelve Bishops of Rome Successours to the Apostles in that See what did he mean but the supreme Governours of that Church when that was the only signification of the word Bishop in his time He never dream'd of their being stript of the Apostolical power and so only succeeding them in an empty Title in the meer name or the metaphysical notion of Bishops and they were no more if they had no more power than the rest of the Clergy But secondly This new distinction spoils the former evasion viz. That the Apostles were superiour in order not in power over the LXX but now a
began the breach the lopping off of that infinite power and by consequence the stopping of those vast treasures that continually flowed from all parts of Christendom into the Popes Coffers Though many other corruptions that were crept into the Church partly by the negligence of the Popes while they alone governed in it partly by the Incursions of barbarous Nationâ— they as justly complained of and might probably have had them all reformed if they would have yielded to him his two fundamental points Wealth and Empire And as that was then their just complaint so is it still of all the Bishops that are by force kept in his Communion Not only all their Revenues but which is much more dishonourable all their Power being taken from them they being every where unless such as retain to the Court of Rome little better than the Popes Curates nay not so much being stript of all Authority and the Government of their Diocesse wholly put into other hands And here comes in the great Mystery of Jesuitism for this complaint was so Universal that it was impossible for the Pope alone to withstand it and therefore this project was at last fixed upon being at first started by a fanatique Souldier to set up a new Order of Ecclesiasticks exempt from all other Jurisdiction and immediately dependent upon and absolutely subject to the Pope and by them chiefly to manage all the Affairs of Christendom And there lies all the strength of the Jesuits in their Vow of absolute Obedience to their Superiour and of their Superiour to the Pope so that whatever they are commanded be it never so unaccountable to their own Consciences they are implicitely bound to execute upon pain of damnation And this device has taken so successfully that notwithstanding all that opposition that has been made to the Order they have for many years exercised an absolute Tyranny not only over all the People but almost all the Governours of that Church And to justifie these irregular proceedings the Bishops are by little tricks and senseless distinctions of the School-men degraded into the same Order with the Presbyters and then the Priests of the Jesuits Order are as well qualified to exercise Jurisdiction as themselves especially if licensed thereto by the Popes Dispensation according to the Decree of Innocent the IV. Ex delegatione Domini Papae quilibet Clericus potest quicquid habet ipse conferre So that by this device they may be enabled to give Priests Orders as well as exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction This design was all along aimed at in the Institutions of their Regular Priests but never effectually compassed till the foundation of this Society So that you see that the whole mystery of Jesuitism at last resolves it self into Presbytery and the fundamental Principle of both consists in slighting and opposing the Episcopal Order And therefore it is a little observable that they were both born into the World at the same time it being the year 1541. when Calvin made himself Pope of his Lay-Cardinals at Geneva and Ignatius obtained to be made Superiour of his Order at Rome Since which time between them both Christendom has enjoyed very little peace or quiet and particularly by their joynt-malice was wrought just that time an hundred years viz. 1641. the overthrow and destruction of the Church of England And if the Church of Rome could but get rid of the Church of England by the help and zeal of the other Factions she would quickly scorn and defie all their little Pretences For when they have run into all their sub-divisions there can be no more than two other Forms of Government either the Genevian of Presbytery or the Racovian of Independency but both being so palpable Innovations in the Christian Church and withall of so very late a date it will be no difficult matter for the Church of Rome to defend her own Title how bad soever against such upstart and absurd Competitors But when they have to do with the Church of England they are then apparently bafled with the undeniable practice and constitution of the Primitive Church And this is so observable that I do not remember any learned Writer of the Church of Rome that has undertaken to charge any fault or defect upon the Constitution of our Church it self Here their only Topick is to upbraid her with those abuses that have been put upon her by other by-designs in which indeed she is very much concerned as a Sufferer but no way guilty as an Actor For what is that to me if when I see gross and scandalous abuses in the Church I endeavour to remove or reform them other men that pretend to come in to my assistance shall under that pretence design nothing but Plunder and Sacriledge That lies wholly upon their Conscience but I am innocent and it is very disingenuous and foolish too to load me with their wickedness Let them prove that there were no corruptions in their Church that needed Reformation and then I must confess I am convicted but if they cannot then the baffle lies plainly at their own doors and it is in vain to charge me with the miscarriage of other men This I say is the state of the Controversie between the Church of England and the Church of Rome as to this point and whilst we keep to this Station nothing is more easie than to maintain our ground but if once we quit it we fall under all the disadvantages of Innovators And however we may afterwards annoy the Enemy we can never defend our selves And that I say is the case of all other parties in their opposition to the Church of Rome excepting the Church of England and those that stick to the same Primitive Constitution As therefore we are concerned to fortifie our selves against the Romans let us secure this Bulwark that they can never force but if we once forsake it we have nothing left but to encounter Innovation with Innovation and then when both Parties are in the wrong it is not much material who overcomes This is all I think good at this present to propound in the behalf of the Church of England and when these Principles are laid at the foundation of the building it will then and not till then be seasonable to proceed to more practicable Propositions and therefore I shall say no more at present than only to summon in all good and honest men to the maintenance of this just Cause as they will one day answer it to Almighty God against all the present open and wicked attempts of Atheism and Superstition and as they have any fear of God or man as they love their Country or their Posterity as they have any sense of Interest or Honour or Conscience neither by their carelesness nor their cowardise to betray the best Church in the world to the fury and the folly of the worst of men And in this case let no man make excuses or raise difficulties from the badness or