<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-08-22</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Mona Logarbo</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch B140613.pdcc.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B09589">
<STC T="W">N783A</STC>
<STC T="C">R180977</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">[ocn]124064230</BIBNO>
<VID>192298</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>A NEW TEST OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND'S LOYALTY.</P>
<P>WITH ALLOWANCE.</P>
<P><HI>LONDON</HI> Printed in the Year M.D.C.LXXXVII.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB REF="2">
<PB N="3" REF="2">
<HEAD>A New <HI>Te&s;t</HI> of the <HI>Church</HI> of <HI>ENGLAND</HI>'s Loyalty.</HEAD>
<P>I Have often con&s;ider'd, but could never yet find a convin|cing Rea&s;on, why that part of the Nation, (which is com|monly call'd the <HI>Church</HI> of <HI>England</HI>) &s;hould dare appropriate to them&s;elves alone the Principles of true Loyalty, and that no other Church or Communion on Earth can be con&s;i&s;tent with <HI>Monarchy,</HI> or indeed with any Government.</P>
<P>This is a Pre&s;umption of &s;o high a nature, that it renders the <HI>Church</HI> of <HI>England</HI> a de&s;picable Enemy to rhe re&s;t of Mankind: For what can be more ridiculous than to &s;ay, that a Congrega|tion of People, calling them&s;elves a <HI>Church,</HI> which cannot pre|tend to an <HI>Infallibility</HI> even in matters of Faith, having &s;ince their fir&s;t In&s;titution, made &s;everal fundamental changes of Re|ligious Wor&s;hip, &s;hould, however a&s;&s;ume to them&s;elves an <HI>In|errability</HI> in point of Civil Obebience to the Temporal Magi|&s;trate? Or what can be more injurious, than to aver, that no other <HI>Sect</HI> or <HI>Community</HI> on Earrh from the ri&s;ing to the &s;etting Sun, can be capable of this &s;ingular Gift of <HI>Loyalty?</HI> So that the <HI>Church</HI> of <HI>England</HI> alone (if you have Faith enough to be|lieve her own Te&s;timony) is that Beautiful Spou&s;e of Chri&s;t, Holy in her <HI>Doctrine,</HI> and <HI>Infallible</HI> in her Duty to the Supream Magi&s;trate, whom (by a Revelation peculiar to her &s;elf) &s;he owns both for her Temporal and Spiritual Head. But I doubt much whether her <HI>ip&s;a dixit</HI> alone will pa&s;s currant with all the Nations of the Univer&s;e, without making further &s;earch into the veracity of this bold A&s;&s;ertion.</P>
<P>We will allow them, however (and that's the onely thing in my Opinion, they can value them&s;elves upon) that mo&s;t of the Members of this <HI>Communion</HI> have been faithful and &s;erviceable to King <HI>Charles</HI> I. during the unhappy Commotions in his Reign: But they mu&s;t allow us on the other hand, that it was the Ambition of that <HI>Church</HI> to force an univer&s;al Uniformity to her <HI>Liturgie</HI> and <HI>Di&s;cipline,</HI> occa&s;ion'd that War; and the good King both lo&s;t his Life and Crown in the Attempt. And
<PB N="4" REF="3"> I pray what Work of Super-errogation is it in them, not to have joyn'd with the <HI>common Enemy</HI> to cut their own Throats? Or to have done that which the Law of Nature dictates to every individual in his own defence? he ca&s;e of the Romani&s;ts in tho&s;e days, was quite different from theirs, for they freely expo|&s;ed theit Lives and Fortunes in the Kings Service, without any regard or pro&s;pect of &s;elf-intere&s;t: For whether his Maje&s;ty lo&s;t or won, they expected no benefit by the change. They were to hope for no quarter from the Rebels (for it was never known that any of their Communion &s;erv'd that Party;) and on the o|ther &s;ide the King him&s;elf &s;eem'd to di&s;own them in all Treaties with the Parliament, and bani&s;h'd them at la&s;t both from his Court and Army, to comply with the importunities of his own Prote&s;tant Party, who would needs have it &s;o. It is much doubted whether tho&s;e of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> had they met with Recompen&s;es of this kind, would have been half &s;o forward to &s;erve a Prince, who in&s;tead of cheri&s;hing and rewar|ding, &s;hould reject and bani&s;h them; though they take never &s;o much pains now to per&s;wade the World, that <HI>Loyalty</HI> is of the E&s;&s;ence of their Religion. Let us but examine the carriage and behaviour of this Church, both in her Infancy, and now in her Old Age, and we &s;hall ea&s;ily perceive the va&s;t difference be|tween the Loyalty of her Members to Catholick Princes, and the Fidelity of Catholicks to Prote&s;tant Kings.</P>
<P>She began her Infancy under <HI>Edward</HI> VI. an Infant King, when that famous Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith was compil'd in 39 Arti|cles. No &s;ooner was <HI>Edward</HI> call'd away, but &s;he endeavour'd with all her might and power to &s;et up a Brat of her own to po&s;|&s;es the Crown, and to exclude Queen <HI>Mary</HI> the only Legiti|mate Child of <HI>Henry</HI> VIII. becau&s;e &s;he was a <HI>Catholick.</HI> After Queen <HI>Maries</HI> Death, <HI>Elizabeth,</HI> a known Ba&s;tard, rais'd this Prelatick Ptote&s;tancy call'd the Church of <HI>England,</HI> as a prop to &s;upport the weakne&s;s of her Title: And they, no &s;ooner found them&s;elves re-e&s;tabli&s;h'd, than they enacted the&s;e bloudy <HI>Cani|bal</HI> Laws (a &s;ufficient Te&s;timony of their Moderation and Ten|derne&s;s) <HI>Hang, Draw, and Quarter the Prie&s;ts of the living
<PB N="5" REF="3"> God,</HI> from whom they them&s;elves pretend to derive their imme|diate Succe&s;&s;ion: Laws that have been, and are to to this day, abhorr'd and exclaim'd again&s;t by all <GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter">he Reformed Churches of Chri&s;tendom. <HI>Impri&s;onment, Bani&s;hment,</HI> and <HI>Confi&s;cation</HI> of Goods, were the moderate Church of <HI>England</HI>'s Laws in favour of th<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter"> Laity, but &s;everely executed in tho&s;e days. And to crown the extraordinary Loyal<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter">y of the Members of this Church, they barbarou&s;ly murder'd the undoubted Queen of <HI>Scotland,</HI> the Queen Dowager of <HI>France,</HI> and the lawful Heir of the Crown of <HI>England</HI> inhumanely denying her a Prie&s;t of her own Com|munion to a&s;&s;i&s;t her in the Agony of Death.</P>
<P>The greate&s;t Zealots of the <HI>Church of England</HI> will not I hope have the confidence to alledge that this execrable Fact, and the fir&s;t of the kind, was contriv'd and executed by <HI>Presbterians, Independents, Anabapti&s;ts:</HI> Our Records and Hi&s;tories clearly make out, that the Members of that <HI>Church</HI> were the only Men who then voted in Parliament, who &s;ate in Council, who were the Commi&s;&s;ioners delegated to Try and Condemn <HI>Mary</HI> Queen of <HI>Scots,</HI> and the lawful Queen of <HI>England,</HI> whom they beheaded on a publick <HI>Scaffold,</HI> to the &s;candal and reproach of <HI>Chri&s;tianity:</HI> And this done without the lea&s;t remor&s;e or repen|tance, no Prelate, Peer, Judge, or Senator of that Communion having ever yet declar'd his re&s;entment again&s;t this barbarous Act. <HI>Behold here an incomparable &s;ort of</HI> Loyalty, <HI>to &s;et up the Title of a Ba&s;tard, and Murder the Legitimate Heir. And &s;ome have affirm'd in print that K</HI> Char. I. <HI>came to the &s;ame tragical end, for being too zealou&s;ly devoted to a</HI> Church, <HI>which prov'd &s;o cruel and treacherous to his Grand mother; &amp; gave the fir&s;t pre|&s;edent of cutting off a Crown'd Head by the hands of a hangman.</HI></P>
<P>If therefore a&s;&s;i&s;ting <HI>&V;&s;urpers</HI> to invade the Crown, if <HI>Con|demning and Executing the Lawful Prince, if per&s;ecuting their fellow Subjects with Death and Confi&s;cation of Goods; and if &s;tanding out in oppo&s;ition to their Sovereign, when he is of another Religion;</HI> if the&s;e I &s;ay, be &s;ufficient Te&s;timonies of <HI>Loyalty,</HI> we mu&s;t own the Ch. of <HI>England</HI> to have been hitherto unparallel'd in her Duty. But if this be not the true <HI>Te&s;t</HI> of Loyal Subjects,
<PB N="6" REF="4"> I doubt our Rock of <HI>Loyalty,</HI> will &s;oon degenerate into a Rock of Scandal, of Di&s;obedience and Rebellion: whereof we need no further Evidence than her pre&s;ent behaviour now in her Old Age, towards our Gracious Sovereign King JAMES II.</P>
<P>His Sacred Maje&s;ty no &s;ooner took Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of the Throne, than He was Graciou&s;ly plea&s;ed to make a mo&s;t favourable <HI>De|claration</HI> in behalf of the Members of the <HI>Church of England,</HI> promi&s;ing to maintain that Church as it was by Law E&s;tabli&s;h|ed: And this early Promi&s;e from a Prince, who was known to be always true to his Word, &s;eem'd to elevate their drooping Spirits, and di&s;&s;ipate tho&s;e di&s;mal Clouds of fearful Apprehen|&s;ions, which their ill jealou&s;ie was apt enough to conceive of a Prince of the <HI>Roman Communion.</HI> So that it might be rationally expected from a People &s;o Prudent and Loyal as the&s;e of the <HI>Church of England</HI> would pa&s;s for in the world, to do &s;omething on their part, that might expre&s;s a grateful acknowledgement; which could be no le&s;s than the <HI>Repeal</HI> of the <HI>Sanguinary Penal Laws,</HI> and the late Impious <HI>Te&s;ts.</HI> The fir&s;t being purpo&s;ely Enacted to maintain the <HI>&V;&s;urpation</HI> of Queen <HI>Eliz.</HI> and the la&s;t being contriv'd de&s;ignedly to Exclude the pre&s;ent <HI>King.</HI> But my <HI>Loyal Gentlemen</HI> have been hither to &s;o far out of the right bya&s;s, that in lieu of taking off the <HI>Te&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Penal Laws,</HI> (which all People expected from them in point of Gratitude, and good Manners) they made a &s;olemn <HI>Addre&s;s</HI> to his <HI>Maje&s;ty,</HI> that none &s;hould be imploy'd who were not capacitated by the &s;aid <HI>Laws</HI> and <HI>Tests</HI> to bear Office Civil and Military. That is to &s;ay in &s;hort, <HI>Your Maje&s;ty mu&s;t have none either in your Army, or at Court about your per&s;on, but &s;uch as really believe, &amp; will &s;wear to it that you are an Idolater:</HI> for that's the plain <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> of the <HI>Te&s;t.</HI> Now let me ask any indifferent Man, what &s;ecurity can a Prince have who mu&s;t keep none about him, but &s;uch <HI>Chri&s;ti|ans,</HI> that are fully convinc'd in their own Judgment that He is a <HI>Pagan?</HI> If the &s;ame People made it Penal heretofore in the Reign of K. <HI>Charles</HI> II. to call the King a <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> or a <HI>Heretick,</HI> upon a &s;uppo&s;ition that that <HI>True Prote&s;tant Subject</HI> could not be Faithful to the King, if he were &s;u&s;pected to be any way in|clin'd
<PB N="7" REF="4"> to <HI>Popery</HI> or <HI>Here&s;ie;</HI> what &s;ecurity can they now give, that the &s;ame <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> will de true to a Prince who is a decla|red <HI>Papist,</HI> and an <HI>Heathen</HI> to boot, by a new <HI>Article of Faith,</HI> which is of greater force and value than the 39 that went before.</P>
<P>But (&s;ays the <HI>zealous Protestant</HI> of the <HI>Mother-Church) if you repeal the</HI> Te&s;t, <HI>you take away the Bulwark that defends the</HI> Ch. <HI>for if that were once demoli&s;h'd, the Enemy would ru&s;h in, and po&s;|&s;e&s;s all: And it is a delicate innocent</HI> Church, <HI>that cannot he &s;afe but in a fortify'd place.</HI> I mu&s;t confe&s;s it is a great Argument of her Mode&s;ty, to own her &s;elf weak and unable to &s;ub&s;i&s;t without the &s;upport of <HI>Parliamentary Laws,</HI> to <HI>Hang, Draw,</HI> and <HI>Quar|ter</HI> her <HI>Oppo&s;ers,</HI> and without a co-ercive Power too in her &s;elf to <HI>Fine</HI> and <HI>Excommunicate</HI> all <HI>Recu&s;ants</HI> and <HI>Nonconformi&s;ts. Prayers, Fa&s;ting, Mortification of the Fle&s;h,</HI> and other Au&s;teri|ties, are not, it &s;eems, &s;o proper means to remove the Fears and Jealou&s;ies of her render Con&s;cience; &s;he mu&s;t make u&s;e of more powerful Engines for her own &s;ecurity. The <HI>Primitive Chri&s;ti|ans</HI> flouri&s;hed under Per&s;ecution for the &s;pace of 300 years; and the <HI>Catholicks</HI> of the&s;e Kingdoms, have been almo&s;t continually &s;uffering the&s;e 150 years pa&s;t: If this new <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> Church be from God, why &s;hould they de&s;pair of the &s;ame Providence, with|out being guarded by &s;o many Acts of <HI>Parliament?</HI> Where is the a&s;&s;urance that the <HI>Apo&s;tolical</HI> Church (as they call <GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter">hem&s;elves) &s;hould have in the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the <HI>Holy Ghost, who is to continue with the true</HI> Church <HI>till the con&s;ummation of the World?</HI> And what is now become of this celebrated Loyalty to the Temporal Prince, which no People could have in &s;o eminent a degree as tho&s;e of the Church of <HI>England?</HI> It is very remarkable that the <HI>Roman</HI> Catholicks con&s;tantly adhered to King <HI>Charles</HI> I. when he di&s;own'd and rejected them; and that the Church of <HI>England</HI> Prote&s;tants, do not now tru&s;t King <HI>James</HI> II. when he gives them &s;o many fre&s;h a&s;&s;urances of his Royal Protection: Whereby the va&s;t difference between the Loyalty of the one, and that of the o|ther is clearly di&s;cern'd.</P>
<P>As for the <HI>Te&s;ts</HI> them&s;elves, it is not my province to &s;hew the Ab&s;urdities of them in point of <HI>Doctrine.</HI> For my bu&s;ine&s;s is,
<PB N="8" REF="5"> to &s;et forth in its own Colours the extraordinary Loyalty of The&s;e Men, who ob&s;tinately maintain a <HI>Te&s;t,</HI> contriv'd by the <HI>Faction</HI> to u&s;her in the <HI>Bill of Exclu&s;ion:</HI> Though by the by, I mu&s;t hold it a great folly, to &s;ay that <HI>Tran&s;ubstantiation</HI> is not a probable Opinion at lea&s;t con&s;idering the Number and Learning of tho&s;e who maintain it, which is the be&s;t part of <HI>Christendom:</HI> And if it be a probable opinion, it mu&s;t be a great temerity in any Man to &s;wear there is no &s;uch thing. And &s;ee|ing the <HI>Real pre&s;ence of</HI> Chri&s;t's <HI>Body</HI> in the <HI>Eucharist,</HI> is con|fe&s;s'd by the mo&s;t Eminent Divines of the <HI>Reformation</HI> and by the greate&s;t Prelates and mo&s;t Famous Doctors of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> I &s;hould think that this new <HI>Tenet,</HI> which makes it <HI>Idolatry</HI> to adore the <HI>Divine Body of Chri&s;t</HI> (whether there be a <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation</HI> or not) mu&s;t certainly &s;avour more of a <HI>Ma|hometan</HI> than of <HI>Christian</HI> Doctrine. And it is much admir'd (even by &s;ome of her own Children,) that the Grave and Ma|tron like Church of <HI>England,</HI> which values her &s;elf &s;o much for her Antiquity, &s;hould be over-fond of a new point of Faith lately broach'd by a famous <HI>Act of Infallibile</HI> Engli&s;h <HI>Parlia|ment</HI> conven'd at <HI>Westminster,</HI> and Guided by the Holy Spi|rit of <HI>Shaftsbury.</HI> But I doubt there are &s;ome <HI>Parliaments</HI> in the World, which will not &s;o ea&s;ily admit this new <HI>Article</HI> into their <HI>Creed.</HI> Tho' the Church of <HI>England</HI> labours &s;o much to maintain it, as a &s;pecial Evidence of her &s;ingular <HI>Loyalty.</HI></P>
<P>So that upon the whole matter the <HI>Loyal Church</HI> of <HI>England</HI> mu&s;t either change her old Principles of <HI>Loyalty,</HI> and take example by her <HI>Catholick</HI> Neighbours how to behave her &s;elf to|wards a Prince who is not of her per&s;wa&s;ion; or &s;he mu&s;t give his Maje&s;ty leave not to nouri&s;h a Snake in his own Bo&s;om, but rather to withhraw his Royal protection, which was promis'd upon the account of her con&s;tant Fidelity: for it is an approv'd Axiom in <HI>Philo&s;ophy Ce&s;&s;ante cau&s;a tollitur effectus;</HI> and we have a com|mon &s;aying of our own, <HI>No longer Pipe no longer Dance</HI> And now let us leave the <HI>holy Mother Church</HI> at liberty to con&s;ult <HI>what</HI> new Mea&s;ures of <HI>Loyalty</HI> &s;he ought to take for her own dear Intere&s;t, and for ought I know it may be worth her &s;erious con&s;ideration.</P>
</DIV1>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
