Vindiciae Calvinisticae OR SOME IMPARTIAL REFLECTIONS ON THE DEAN of LONDONDEREYS CONSIDERATIONS That Obliged him to come over to the Communion OF THE Church of Rome AND Mr. Chancellor KING's Answer thereto IN WHICH He no less Unjustly than Impertinently Reflects on the Protestant Dissenters In a Letter to a Friend By W.B. D.D. 3 Ep. Joh. 9 10. But Diotrephes who loveth to have the Preeminence among them receives us not Neither doth he himsâ—lf receive the Brethren and forbiddeth them that would and casteth them out of the Church DVBLIN Printed by A. Crook and S. Helsham Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty on Ormond-Key and sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminster 1688. TO THE READER THOV wilt find the worthy Author of this ensuing Tract opposing two persons of a very different Character M M. whose scruâ—les are so mean and so often answered that as they could have little influence in his Change so they deserved no new Consideration The most material of his Questions may be reduced to this Being that the Church of Rome by her usurping shifts propagated her Apostacy to her neighbour Churches how can any of those belong to the Catholick Church if they ceas that Apostacy and regain their former state The answer is easie unl sâ— infection do for ever subject a Church to that Church which infected it Can any man doubt whether the British Churches had equal authority to reform themselves for Christ's sake as they had to admit these corruptions for the Popes sake The other Person is M K who hath needlesly yea to the apparent dammage of his cause bitterly censured the whole body af Nonconformists Whether his novel notions or the unseasonable publication of matters of debates among us be most culpable it 's hard determining The sad consequences were so obvious that great importunity fail'd to encline my undertaking our vindication though the charge against us is great and the proof attempted from mistaken principles But seeing the Author with others judged a reply needful and represented our silence as turned to our reproach I am perswaded to preface the ensuing Book wherin thou wilt find both evidence and candor I shall only hint at what the Book is concerned in and insist on some Criminations the Author overlooks Mr K's excluding us from the Catholick Church can harm us little when he gives us a discription of this Church so entirely Popish and opposite to the joynt testimony of Protestants S. 68 of the Church in a controversy betwixt the Romanists and us The Articles of the Church of Ireland define the Catholick Church in the Creed 4. Bell de Eccl milit lib 3 Cap 2. to be the invisible body of Elected Saints in heaven and earth But all of M K ' s. description is Bellarmines own who strangely confounds a particular Church with the Catholick Church visible out of which particular Churches are formed unless you admit Infidels for Members and into which they are resolved unlâ—ss they cease to be Catholick Members when their Pastors dy or remove Wheras M K. might have known that the Catholick visible Church as entitive is made up of professing Christians and particular Churches are but secondary members of this body as Organical by Aggregation But the Dissenters will deny his charge by further proving that they are subjects to their lawfull Pastors that such are not their Pastors whom he chargeth them with separation from And they can justify their Seperation to be a duty and so no bar to their Catholick priviledg if they had some times been subject to such Yea it 's manifest the Church of England account us within the Pale of the Church by her calling us Brethren departed in the Faith when dead and too oft Excommunicating us when alive His charge of Ecclesiastical Rebellion cannot yet affect us when we think that we justly deny the Convocation to be a fit Representative of all the Pastors in England and not a supreme power over all our Churches yea and suspect a definition of the Catholick Church by such regent Officers as what favours the Vniversal Headship and may well end in the Pope as principium unitatis His positiveness in our duty to be silent when suspended without regard to justice of the ground of it imports he hath forgotten that Casuists generally determin that an unjust sentence bindes not before God or the Church and that Pastors power in the church is not of the same extent as a Kings in the State but under the limits of many more instituted laws But these matters being debated in the book I proceed M K 's Sarcasm against our cant from M M ' s. allusion to a plain scripture p. 13 may call him to suspect what spirit himself is of Luke 9 55. and others of his sort who redicule scripture passages though used in the sence of the spirit that inspired the writers of the scriptures and condemn in us those principles which were the common sence of Protestant Bishops but yet these must be the only Protestant Successors because they keep up the ceremonies tho they despise many important doctrines which they more vallued themselves by Reader thou maist wonder how M K. that affirmeth no ministers may reform no nor preach against the Establisht Church can publish these thoughts of his so repugnant to the sence of the Church and undertake to reform the very Catholick Church by a definition of it so opposite to that his Church hath published He Reproacheth us with the favours we new recieve from men of M M 's perswasion M K. P 39. Reply We thankfully own the Kings Favours without ungrateful enquiries into the grounds of it nor yet doubting but we shall take care not to forfeit what he thinks meet to grant But why should you that dislike an Inquisition grudg us a little ease I believe you are not for blaming the Magistrate when the Rods and Axes are disused Are not the miseries great enough which we have endured at your hands for refusing to sin in doing things which you had nothing but the bare authority of the imposer to plead for But I heartily wish all our hardships so forgoten by us as that they neither abate charity nor prevent union on Christian Catholick terms I confess it 's no small amazement to hear the Prelatists reflect on the present liberty of Dissenters Are we blameable for meeting now we do it with safty when we suffered so much rather than forbear it Can they that have refused Preferments endured prisons reproach and loss of estates for their principles be suspected apt to renounce or betray them for a smile How can these men that t' other day resolved all law into the Kings meer will now brand our meetings as unlawful But this will convince the world that that party will allways Skrew up the point of Loyalty whose Interest the Government pâ—omotes and yet may challenge their own sentiments when the Throne is
of his Church The Major number of Pastors shou'd depose the Minor for doing their duty or without a just cause their doing so is a bold and wicked usurpation for which they may expect their Lord will call them to an account as he threatens the evil servant who unmindfull of his Lord 's coming begun to smite his fellow servants 24. Matth. 48 49 But for the innocent Pastors thus wrongfully deposed to disobey their usurping deposers is to obey Christ who never warranted them to desert their office and bâ—tray Souls because they are unjustly forbidden to do what his charter has made their duty 'T is therefore the unjust deposers are the Rebells against Christ and their usurpation is as if the Mayor of a County town shou'd without any orders from the King presume to turn out all the Mayors of the particular Corporations in that County at his own pleasure and I imagine the King wou'd in all probability take him for the Rebell who wou'd thus under pretence of his Authority usurp a power never given him and exercise it to the violation of his Charter and the Laws of the Land. This is the true state of the Case and Mr. K's mistakes about it are so palpable that 't is a wonder how a man of his judgment cou'd fall into them And I must needs add here that as the Dissenters were never the Bishops Subjects as they are any officers of Christ and Mr. K will never prove them to be so So they will be more afraid of submitting to their usurpation if they arrogate to themselves such an unlimited power of deposing his undoubted officers particular Church Bishops and claim a blind obedience to their deposing Sentence be it right or wrong And 't is but fidelity to our Lord to disown such palpable and dangerous usurpation The grounds then of Mr. K's principles being false they will not serve him to condemn the Presbyterian Ministers as either Schismaticks or Church-Rebels and the charge is likelier to faâ—l heavy on those that presum'd to suspend them against the known laws of Christ from whom they received their Commission Mr. K. very gravely takes for granted what he will never prove 1. That the Convocation are by the laws of Christ the Supreme Governours of all the Christians in England 2. That either the Convocation did justly according to the laws of Christ suspend the Nonconfâ—rming Ministers or that an absolute obedience was due to their Censure whether just or unjust 1. He takes it for granted That the Convocation are by the Laws of Christ the supreme Governours of all the Christians in England Does not Mr. K. know that the Divines of his own Church are not agrâ—ed about this matter The Reverend Dr. Stilling when posed by Mr. Baxter about this Quest Who was the Ecclesiastiâ—al governing Head of the Church of England as one body politick Uureas of Seper p 127 128. does very fairly deny that the Church of England has any such Head or Regent part nay denies the necessity of such an Head. So that according to him the Church of England can be no Politicall Church made up of a Governing and a governed part And consequently all the noise of it's Government Constitutions and Laws as such a politicall Church is at an end But now Mr. K. comes and tells us without Scruple That the supreme Government of our Church has always been in a National Councel or convocation of our Clergy If so I wou'd gladly know whether Mr. K does think that the laws or Canons of a Convocation wou'd obâ—ige the Consciences of all the Christians in England tho they were not enacted and ratified by the civill Authority If they wou'd nor 't is evident that the Church of England has no Ecclesiastical Head of Government because none that can make laws obligatory to all the Christians in England And so the Convocation are but the King 's Ecclesiastical Council which is indeed the true Notion of them to advise him what Laws he shall establish by civil Authority relating to Church Government If he say the Canons of the Coâ—vocation wou'd oblige whether the civil Authority ratified them or no I ask Quo jure All obligation to obey any Church-governors as such must arise from the command of Chrisâ— Now where has he commanded that in every Nation such a small part of the Clergy as our Convocation consists of shall be supreme Governours of all the rest When perhaps they are as unfit to represent the judgment of all the Pastors not to mention the people in England as â—he Council of Trent all the Churches in Euroâ—e I am confident besides the 2000 silenced Ministers the far greater part of the Conforming Clergy would never have consented to all the late excommunicating Canons had thâ—ir Vote been requir'd And the chief members of the Convocation are so far from being Christ's Officers that I despâ—ir thâ—ir ever defending the lawfulness and much more the divine r ghâ— of their Office against Mr. Baxter's Arguments in his forâ—said Treatise of Episcopacy Neither the light of nature nor general laws of Scripture wou d suggest such an Assâ—mbly as the governing Head of the Church of England A duly â—l cted Synod of Pastors in a Nation to endeavour the nearest Unity and Concord of the particular Churches as far as 't is to be expected on earth by their amicable consultations we grant to be most desirable and eligible wherever it may be had and the judgment of such a Synod should be comply'd with in all things not râ—pugnant to the word of God. But we cannot say so of an Assembly compos'd chiefly of men whose Office is not only an Usurpation but such as renders true Church-government impossible and whose interest and grandure inclines them to keep up the divisions and corruptions which they have made And to such a Convocation's being entrusted by Christ with the National Church-government which Mr. K. is pleased to assert I oppose the judgment of the truly learned Archbishop Vsher which he often profest to Mr. Baxter viz. That Church-Councils are not for Government but for Vnity Not as being in order of Government over the several Bishops but that by consultation they may know their duty more clearly and by agreement maintain Vnity and to that end they were anciently celebrated 2. Mr. K. takes it for granted also That either the Convocation did justly according to the laws of Christ suspend the Non-conforming Ministers or that those Ministers were bound however to obey their sentence whether right or wrong For the first If he will indeed prove their silencing to have been just i. e. that the Non-conforming Ministers were guilty of such male-administration as forfeited their office and warranted the Prelates by the laws of Christ to depose them I will assure him they will quit their office rather than rebel against Christ or any just deposing sentence of men But I have already prov'd the sentence to be unjust And
them their Office. Many of them try'd his remedy they represented these things to their Ecclesiastical Superiors as Luther to the Archbishop of Mentz and the Bishop of Brandenburg and the Pope himself But they soon learnt by dear experience how averse the Court of Rome was to any Reformation and how little it was to be expected from the Prelates who either had no will or no courage to attempt a Reformation against the will of the Pope Luther and all his followers in stead of prevailing with those that had the conduct of the Church were excommunicated as Hereticks Now according to Mr. K's principle these Reformers being censured and suspended by the Prelates to whom they were subject were discharged from the execution of their Office and should no more have made a Schism in the Church to regain it than one must make a Rebellion in the State to regain a Civil Office. And since they did not desert their Office but went on to preach against the Constitution of the Romish Church and the will of their Superiors the Popish Prelates they were no better than Schismaticks and Church-Rebels Nay if his Notion of the Catholick Church be true the people that separated from the Popish Prelates and adher'd to their excommunicated Pastors ceast to be members of the body of Christ And how great a part of the Reformed Churches and their Pastors fall under this heavy charge And will Mr. K. own all these unavoidable consequences upon mature deliberation What if we should once more have a Popish Convocation in England and these should restore the Romish Religion and suspend aâ—l the present Parish-Ministers whom Mr. K. thinks now lawful Pastors According to his Principle they being but Presbyters and the Bishops Subjects must not preach against the Constitution of the Church of England declaring her judgment by a Convocation in whom the supreme Government of the Church is lodg'd they must therefore cease their Ministry and no more make a Schism by the exercise of it than they must make a Rebellion in the State to regain a Civil Office. Nay to separate from such Governors of the Church of England will prove those that do it no Catholick members of the Church The same principles may be apply'd to the Arrians who got Imperial Councils and consequently the Government of the Imperial Church into their hands and for such Pastors as Athanasius to preach against Arrianism which was then the Doctrine of the Church was Schism and Church-Rebellion In a word According to these Principles 'T is in the power of a Convocation to damn many thousand souls by suspending an Orthodox and substituting a corrupt Ministry and for those Orthodox Pastors when suspended to endeavour their salvation by the exercise of their Ministry is to be Schismaticks and Church-Rebels And what is this less than to set up the will of such Church-Governors above the will and laws of Christ above the Salvation of Souls and above the Interest of Truth and Holiness Therefore 3. Let us examine the Grounds of this strange Assertion viz. Because there is a regular way for reforming abuses And for particular Presbyters to do it against the will of the Bishops whose Subjects they are is like reforming abuses in the state in spight of the King a remedy generally worse then the disease c. Answ 1. All that these reasons prove is that Reformation shou'd be first sought by humble addressing to our Superiors But Mr. K. plainly leaves it impossible if they refuse 2. They are founded on this wretched mistake that the Authority of Bishops in the Church does resemble that of a King in the State and so to reform abuses in the Church against their will is like reforming abuses in the State in spight of the King. Whereas t is Christ's Authority in the Church that does resemble the King 's in the State. And therefore if he wou'd rightly state the comparison it runs thus Christ the King of his Church requires all his Officers to preach the pure Doctrine and administer the pure institutions deliver'd in his Gospel which is his universal law Let us suppose there are in this or that particular part of the Church dangerous corruptions crept in The law of Christ obliges these his officers to disown them and reform them but the Major part of these will not but presume to silence those that do it according to his command Now the Quest is whether those that obey the command of Christ be the Rebells against him or those that neither will obey his commands themselves nor allow others to do so One wou'd think that such as refuse to reform and silence all that in their own place attempt it according to the tenour of their Commission are like to prove the Church Rebells But no doubt the Pastors of a Church may disown and excommunicate one that abuses his office to the perverting the Church and for him to continue to p rvert the Church by such male-administration is to Rebell against Christ and his laws The charge of Rebellion therefore must arise from the vioâ—ation of Christ's Authority not mens which the Major part of Pastors may be guilty of in a Nation as well as the lesser 3 He seems to confound a private and a publick Reformation 4. The Reason given why a Bishop or Presbyter when censur'd is discharg'd from his Office viz. Because to regain it is like making a Rebellion to regain a Civil Office does suppose two great mistakes 1. That the Ordainers give a Spiritual office in the Church as the King gives a Civil office in the State And this is no less a mistake then to set the Ordainers in the place of Christ T is his Charter gives the sacred office as the King 's does the Civil and the Ordainers do but for orders sake approve and ceremonially invest the person as the Recorder does the Mayor of a Town whom the Burghesses choose And herein Mr. K. seems to own that very error which is the ground of all Mr. M's impertinent Questions 2. He supposes that the Bishops who ordain Presbyters have equal power to depose them from their Ministerial office as the King has to take away a Civill Commission And thus p 27. he teâ—ls us That the present Dissenters were the Bishops subject accountable to them as their Superiors and liable to be discharg'd from their office and the benefits of the Communion of the Church by their Censure Whereas T is plain that it is the Charter of Christ gives the sacred office as the King 's does the Civil And as none can take a Civil Commission given by the King to any Subject but by the King's orders and Command So none can take away that spiritual Commission Christ has given any officer in his Church but by his orders But now he has given none leave or Authority to depose his officers but for evident Male-administration as preaching Heresie gross scandal c. And if in any part