in Ministring to the Bishops and Priests and in doing their duty in the Church Hereby 't is apparent that Deacons as they were not by Office Preachers nor Dispensers of the Sacraments neither were they Governours of the Church The Government of the Church being committed unto the Bishops or Presbyters onely The which being so 't will as I humbly apprehend follow That Church Government according to Christs Institution was seated in those Particular Societies which were under the care and conduct of Bishops or Elders every such society call it Parochial or Congregational being a Compleat Gospel Church i.e. a Church whose Elders or Bishops have as Entire a power for the Exercise of Discipline in their Congregations as for the Dispensing the word or Administring the Sacraments This is not onely to be found in the Necessary Erudition but moreover there are Intimations enough in other Discourses published in Henry the Eights time to incline a Judicious mind to conclude That the Office of a Priest and Bishop is One and the same and consequently that Particular Parochial or Congregational Churches are of Divine Institution I have observed in the Sum of Christianity compos'd by Francis Lambert of Avynyon a Treatise Published An. 1536. That the Notion of the Sameness of the Order of a Bishop or Elder appeared in the world with some kind of boldness For although this Lambert in his Epistle to Sebastian Prince of Lausane doth assert That there be MANY Bishops of ONE City for saith he every City hath so many Bishops as it hath true Evangelists or Preachers For every Preacher of the Truth c. is a true Bishop although he be not call'd so of many Bishops be only Prophets of Truth and there should be so many Bishops as the multitude of People requireth Verily Every Parish ought to have its proper Bishop And in the Treatise it self chap. 5. In every City Town and Village there ought to be many Bishops i. e. Evangelists or Preachers after the quantity of places and multitude of people If many Parishes be so great that one Bishop is not sufficient for them let them be divided and to every part a Bishop assigned This and much more in Lambert Notwithstanding which this Treatise is published by Tristram Rewell and dedicated to Queen Anne wife of Henry the 8th A thing that would not have been done but that this Opinion was very common at that time and within seven years after declar'd to be the sense of the Church of England as I have evinc'd out of the Necessary Erudition But 5. That the Superiority of one Bishop over another or of a Bishop over a Presbyter is of Humane not of Divine Right Diocesan Bishops Metropolitane or Patriarchal are not found in Sacred writings and concerning this the necessary Erudition is most express in these words And whereas we have thus summarily declar'd what is the Office and ministration which in Holy Scripture hath been committed to Bishops and Priests and in what things it consisteth as is before rehearsed lest peradventure it might be thought to some persons That such Authorities Powers and Jurisdictions as Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitanes now have or heretofore at any time have had Justly and Lawfully over other Bishops were given them by God in holy Scripture We think it expedient and necessary That all men should be advertis'd and taught That all such lawful Powers and Authorities of ANY one Bishop over another were and be given to them by the Consent Ordinance and Positive Laws of men ONELY AND NOT BY ANY ORDINANCE OF GOD IN HOLY SCRIPTURE And all other Power and Authority which and Bishop hath used or exercised over another which hath not been given to him by such consent and Ordinance of Men as is aforesaid is in very deed no LAWFULL POWER but PLAIN USURPATION AND TYRANNY So far the Christian Erudition From whence 't is manifest That according unto them Diocesan Episcopacy is of Humane Right onely i. e. Any one Bishops Ruling over another Bishop or Presbyter is what the Scriptures do not direct unto and consequently 't is not of Divine Right neither is it any further Lawful than according unto the Laws of the Land in which 't is Exercis'd Though the Power of Diocesane Bishops as 't is Circa Sacra may be called Ecclesiastical yet if we consider its Origine and Source we shall find it to be but Civil seated primarily in the Civil Magistrate that 't is of an humane make and so far but no farther Lawful than as Sanction'd by the Laws of the Land Diocesane Bishops as such are not immediately owing unto God but unto our Civil Governours for their Being 't is on them their sole dependance is and on them they relie for the Continuance of their Power The King Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament can as they see cause make what Alterations they please in the Episcopal or Diocesan Government Though they cannot alter any Divine Law yet they can change any Law that receives its Being from themselves Though they cannot alter the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop which receives its Being from the Institution or Ordinance of Jesus Christ yet they may correct or amend any thing in the Humane viz. The Diocesane Constitution They can enlarge or narrow any Diocess yea pull down one and Erect another They can add unto or take from the Episcopal Jurisdiction as they judge Expedient That this was the sense of the Church of England in Henry the 8ths time yea and in most ages since an Episcopal Government has been established in this Kingdome and consequently the Antient Constitution of our Government is not only manifest from what hath been already taken out of the Necessary Erudition but from other passages that are in that excellent treatise and some other Considerations that I will insist on As First The Power that hath ever been acknowledged to be seated in the Kings of this Realm concerning the exempting any particular Churches from an Episcopal Jurisdiction evinces it If Episcopal Jurisdiction be of Divine Right it lies not in the power of any Prince to alter it If every Parish Presbyter is according to the Scriptures an Officer inferiour to some Diocesane Bishop the exempting such a Presbyter from Episcopal Jurisdiction is out of the power of any man 'T was a known Rule in our Land even in the days of Popery That no Law of man can alter or disanul any Law of God If then our Princes ever thought themselves to have been invested with a Power of exempting any Presbyter from Episcopal Jurisdiction 't is evident that they look not on that Jurisdiction to be of Divine Right But that our Princes judg'd themselves to have such a Power is notorious from the many Instances that can be given of their exercising it Whosoever consults the Learned Dr. Burnets History of the Refor part 1. lib. 3. will find That Ethelbert exempted a Monastry at Canterbury with some Churches
In contradiction to which the Dean's Substitute's Assertion is p. 226. That Excommunication casts a man out of the visible Society of Christ's Church not of this or that particular Church only but of the Whole Christian Church He that is cast out of one Church is thereby cast out of all and separated from the Body of Christ which is but One. And therefore such are out of a state of Salvation As if it had been said in opposition to Mr. Hooker Such as are Excommunicate are shut out clean from the Visible Church yea and from the Mystical Church A Notion that Mr. Hooker considers as held by none but Papists for he immediatly addresseth himself to the Church of Rome thus With what congruity then saith he doth the Church of Rome deny that her enemies whom she holds always for Hereticks do at all appertain to the Church of Christ How exclude they us from being any part of the Church of Christ under the colour and pretence of Heresie when they cannot but grant it possible even for him i. e. the Pope to be as touching his own personal perswasion Heretical who in their opinion not only is of the Church but holdeth the chief place of Authority over the same The like may be said by way of Answer unto our Author Moreover the Learned and Judicious Dr. Field Son of the Church is as full in contradicting what is asserted by our Author For this Dr. of the Church discoursing about the Schismatick says lib. 1. c. 13. That their departure is not such but that notwithstanding their Schisme they are and remain parts of the Church of God Schismaticks notwithstanding their Separation remain still conjoyn'd with the rest of God's people in respect of the profession of the whole saving Truth of God all outward acts of Religion and Divine Worship Power of Order and Holy Sacraments which they by vertue thereof administer and so still are and remain parts of the Church of God The like is asserted of such as are cast out by Excommunication c. 15. But I 'll not enlarge any further having sufficiently evinc'd that the Opinions of this man who treats the Dissenters with so much scorn and contempt are such as were antiently by Queen Elizabeths Protestants exploded as Popish and at this very time I verily believe rejected by the greatest part of the Episcopal Clergy and that the Contest now is not so much between Dissenters and the Church of England as between a few under the name of the Church of England on the one part and the greater number of the Church of England with the Dissenter on the other The former under the notion of running down Dissenters are preparing materials to meet the Papist The other to the end they may the more effectually prevent the Designs of Rome have sent forth their Plea for the Nonconformist finding themselves concern'd to check the Insolence of those who in this day of common Calamity would ruine the conscientious Protestant Dissenter This being so I must beseech the Reader not to misapprehend me in what follows as if I had been speaking reproachfully of the Church of England because I cannot but discover how agreeable the Sentunents of the Deans Substitute about Church-Government are unto those embrac'd by the French Papist That I may the more clearly shew what are the mischievous Tendencies of our Author's Notion about Church-Government I will give in short the most distinct and truest state of the Controversie I can shewing what is granted by sound Protestants and what not What are the Doctrines of the Papists How far the French and Italian Papist agree and wherein they differ and in what respects the Dean's Substitute concurs with the French § 1. All are so far agreed as to conclude That God hath had a Church at all times in every Age of the World We might be very particular in considering the divers Denominations under which the Church falls answerable to the divers capacities of the Members thereof and the divers states in which it is and hath been which I shall at this time pass by § 2. That the Church is but One one Body united to one Head § 3. That this One Church must be considered as the Members thereof are scattered up and down the World c. and as they are joyned together in particular Societies The former is call'd the Church Universal the other a Particular Church The Papists themselves do acknowledge That the Church must be considered as Universal and as Particular though they look'd on the Universal to be such whose whole existence was in Particulars as Universale est unum in multis singularibus Whence it follows That such as are not members of a Particular Church they belong not unto the Catholick Visible Church This very Notion hath been embrac'd by some to wit the Old Independents but of late it hath been generally exploded by Divines of that name they leaving it to entertain such as the Dean's Substitute § 4. That the Church of Christ is under Government There is such a thing as Church-Government Jure divino The Papists both French and Italian The Protestants whether Episcopal Presbyterian Congregational or Anabaptist heartily agree in Thesi about this § 5. The great difference is concerning what that Church-Government is which is of Divine Institution Where 't is seated whether in a Particular or in the Universal Church and whether it be Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical or mixt § 6. The Papists with whom the Doctor 's Substitute doth agree assert That the Universal Church is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of church-Church-Government That all Church-Officers belong to the Universal Church and have an Original Right to govern the whole Universal Church Take the notion as found in the Defence We must saith he consider that all the Apostles had relation to the whole Church and therefore though being finite creatures they could not be every where at a time but betook themselves to different places and planted Churches in several Countreys and did more peculiarly apply themselves to the government of those Churches which they themselves had planted and ordained Bishops to succeed them in their care and charge yet their Original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church did still remain which they might re-assume when they saw occasion for it and which did oblige them to take care as far as possibly they could that the Church of Christ suffer'd no injury by the heresie or evil practises of any of their Colleagues P. 212. § 7. The Protestants excepting some obscure Writers assert particular Churches to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church-Government among whom there are these differences 1. The Episcopal and Presbyterian differ from the Congregational and Anabaptistical about the extent of particular Churches e. g. the latter concluding that their number must be no more than are capable of personal communion the former contrarily judg That a company of a greater extent may be
concerning the constitutive Regent part of a National church whose existence must be acknowledged if a National church as such be a Governed church or a Body Politick but yet this cannot be found out For which reason they distinguish between a Governed Society and a Body Politick between a Governing and a Regent part and assert That the National church is a Govern'd Society but not a Body Politick that it hath a Governing but not a Regent part the like of an Universal church This is the true state of our Author's Judgment wherein we have an admirable account of the Gentleman 's acute distinguishing the excellency of which I 'll leave to the entertainment of his Admirers and if he please consider the Notion according to his own stating it that is to gratifie him I won't insist on the word Policy nor Regent nor constitutive Regent part but only on government Governours and Governed and so our Enquiry being about the Government of the Universal Church we must consider what is necessary thereunto and see whether what our Author asserts be agreeable unto such a constitution for if not so 't is far from Truth To consider what it is that is necessary to the constitution of any Governed Body that is what is so necessary that the absence thereof is destructive to the Constitution To this I Answer That a Governing and a Governed part is so necessary unto Goverement that where either one of these be absent there can be no Government A Governed Body cannot be without a Governing part neither can this be without a part Governed Government doth necessarily infer both these remove either one the Government is destroyed Government is a Relation resulting from that mutual respect the Governing and Governed parts have to each other whence as Sublato uno Relatorum tollitur alterum and where there is nor Subject nor Term i. e. nor Relate nor Correlate there can be no Relation Remove the Governing part from the Universal or National Church and the Government ceases Paternity may be where there is no Father assoon as Government without a Governing part Whence I infer That where there is a Fixed Government there must be a fixed Governing part This premised Let us next enquire whether or no what our Author asserts be suitable to this undoubted Rule Doth he shew us such a Governing part The Government is a constant fixed Government but where is the constant fixed Governing part 'T is a General Council saith he i. e. the universal Bishops in their Colledge assembled But is this a fixed Governing part Is it not evident to an ordinary capacity that the assembling such a Council of all the Bishops in the World is a difficulty insuperable and that without such an Assembly 't is impossible they should by joynt consent govern the Universal Church The astembling of the Catholick Bishops is as easie as the gathering together their consent per literas format as and much more conducive to the desired End because when assembled they can debate the matters before 'em and with the greater judgment give their determinations But 't is well known that had such an Assembly been possible yet the Church of God for the first 300 years had no such Assembly excepting that in the Apostles days i. e. it had no such Governing part which is as if it had been said There was no Government in the Universal Church the first 300 years To gratifie our Author Let us suppose that the Universal Church is as such a Governed Society and that it hath its Governours But though this be so yet it must be still acknowedged that a Governour cannot be without Power to Govern I would therefore beseech my Author to shew me What is that Power with which this Colledge of Bishops are invested Is it Legislative only or also Executive Whether the one or the other is it in the Colledge Subjectively and Formally or only in 'em as in fine seu regulante or supplente or How 'T would be necessary that our Author consult the Parisian Doctors if he will speak to the purpose when he espouses their Notion Let our Author assert as it pleaseth him at an adventure it matters not for his Notion is such as necessarily directs us to conclude what he must if he will be consistent with himself assert and that is this All Church-Government is Universal and as such it must be exercised no one being a Governour in the Church but he that is a Catholick Officer That the due course of exercising this Power is when it flows originally from the Head unto all its Members That it flows from the Invisible or rather unseen Head in Heaven immediately unto the visible Head on Earth is granted by all those who assert an Universal Church-Government though there is a Dispute among the Papists whether this Head be the Council or the Pope As it flows immediately from Christ to the visible Head so it proceeds from this visible Head unto the Patriarchs from thence to the Metropolitans from thence to the Diocesans For which Reason if any are injur'd by their Diocesan they may Appeal to their Metropolitan from thence to their Patriarch from thence to the Pope or Council This our Author must hold That there may be no wrong done the Little Ones of Christ if any be grieved by One he may Appeal unto an Higher till he comes unto the Highest Power on Earth from whence if he find not relief he must acquiesce leaving the whole to him who is in Heaven But if there be no constant visible Head actually existing where shall the grieved lodge his last Appeal The Dean's Substitute supposes an equality of Power in Patriarchs Metropolitans and Diocesans whence if his Diocesan doth abuse his Power he is not accountable to any Metropolitan nor Patriarch but only unto the Catholick Colledge The which being so 't will follow That Executive Power must be lodg'd in some Supreme Head Subjectively who can receive Appeals I say Subjectively or Formally and not only Virtually for 't is an Executive Power only that can relieve in this case which cannot Actually be where 't is only Virtually For which Reason 't is evident that according to our Author there must be a fixed Governing part invested with an Executive Power from whom relief is to be expected if at any time the Diocesan doth abuse his Power which Governing part must be either a Colledge of Bishops or one single Person And if the obtaining the former be as indeed 't is impossible the acknowledging the latter is necessary Thus we see how fairly this Gentleman at length leads us to Rome or some other Pope as the only necessary way of governing the Church In doing which he doth but carry on the Project of which Sir Francis Winnington takes notice at the Trial of the Lord Stafford when he assured the Lords That as an encouragement to the POPISH PLOTTERS there did appear in some men too easie
Prayer or the present Liturgy Ceremonies and Administration of Religious Offices 't is his own Comment and he is not obliged to confute it Yet thus much I will say on his behalf that upon my knowledg he is in his judgment for a Form of Prayer in Publique-Offices and Administrations and hath a very hearty esteem for that of our Church but I cannot say so of the Ceremonies I think he might be easily perswaded to part with them and if some exceptionable passages in the Liturgy and Rubricks were altered I believe he would make no opposition to it But he charges this admirable Conformist as he is pleased to call him with giving away at once the Episcopal Office and instead of it sets up a Bishop in every Parish and either an Antichristian Bishop of Bishops or an Ecclesiastical Minister of State to govern them How little there is of truth in this charge may be collected from what I have said already The Conformist sets up no more Bishops than the necessities of the Church and the duty and work of the Episcopal-Office requires and I understand not that this is giving away the Episcopal Office And if this Author can free Metropolitan Bishops from Antichristianism which he says some do derive from the very days of the Apostles and that not without some good appearance of Reason I hope the Conformist will defend the Episcopi Episcoporum from that appellation As to what he says of an Ecclesiastical Minister of State the Conformist hath no more to reply than this He hopes this Gentleman will not plead an Exemption for the Clergy from under the Civil Magistrates Power and Government and if this be granted I know not what can be matter of Controversie between him and this Author For he supposes him to exercise no Power over the Bishops but what is inherent in the King and in this Minister of State by Delegation that is in few words to see that they do their own Duty carefully reprove their Negligence and Male-administrations and preserve peace among them And what is there in this Doctrine that our Author should take such offence at I am yet to seek He addes And alters the whole frame of our Worship leaves every man to do as he lists and all this without injury to our present Constitution In these Lines to speak plainly there is not one word of truth as any man may easily collect from what I have said already And this Gentleman himself confesses in the next page That the Conformist will not indeed allow of universal Toleration How this can be reconciled with Leaving all men to do as they list I am not able to tell That the Conformist said That those that hinder the Union of Presbyterians with the Church of England by continuing the Impositions are Factors for the Pope I do easily acknowledg and I believe he is still of the same minde and as I remember he gave some Reasons for it too which this Gentleman takes no notice of When he confutes them perhaps he may hear of a Vindication if there be just reason for it Pag. the 8th he proceeds thus He i.e. the Conform pleads for the Indulgence of others particularly the Independents who he says will be content with their own Congregations and is mightily taken with Mr. Humfreys Project That the tolerated Churches such as Independents be declared parts of the National Church whereof the King to be the Head The Countrey-Conformist is so great a Lover of Peace that I do easily suppose he might be pleased with Mr. H's Project as he calls it and I do assure him that I my self am much more pleased with it since I read his Book than I was before though I had always a value for it For I think the Design of uniting the Dissenting Protestants in this Nation is into one National Church whereof the King to be the Head more laudable than the design of uniting Protestants in a General Council or in a Pope Primate or Metropolitan which seems to be the design of our Author though he hath not Courage or Instruction enough as yet to speak it out For he affirms 1. That the Episcopal Office and Power is but one and not resident in the Bishops of the Universal Church p. 212. 2. That the Independency of Bishops is inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity p. 115. And 3. that although equals have no Authority over one the other yet a Collegue hath Authority over any one of his Collegues p. 213. 4. That the Bonds and Combinations of Churches are of Divine Right though the ordering and determination of them be of Humane Prudence p. 258. 5. That the Unity of the Church is as much of Divine Right as any Form of Government in it and that the whole Church may be divided into greater or lesser parts as may best serve the ends of Peace and Unity And that it seems strange to him that a National or Patriarchal Church should not be thought as much a Divine Institution as any particular Church p. 259. And further he adds When Christ and his Apostles have instituted one Form of Government for all particular Churches and commanded them all to live in Unity Peace Communion and amicable Correspondency with each other the Union and Combination of Churches into one according to this Institution to serve the ends of Catholick Communion must be thought as much a Divine Institution as the bounds of particular Churches For if we will not allow those Churches to be of Divine Institution which have Officers of Divine Appointment and are formed according to the general Directions of Christ and his Apostles so as may serve the ends of church-Church-Government I know not where to find a Church of Divine Institution in the world pag. 259 260. These are the words of our Author from whence we may collect many things for our Information 1. That the Bishops of the Catholique Church are the regent part thereof in the same sense that the Bishops of any National Church are the regent part of that Church For although there be no Superiority among Bishops their Power and Office being the same yet Independency among them being inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity both in the National and in the Universal Church they are bound to unite for the Government of both and this by Divine Command Authority and Obligation 2. That whatsoever is determined by the Bishops of the Catholick Church doth oblige all particular Bishops and all Christians all the world over provided they determine nothing contrary to the Word of God 3. That whatever Bishop shall refuse their Canons and Determinations and govern his particular Church by other Laws than they shall appoint is a Schismatick and they may Depose and Excommunicate him yea if a whole combination of Bishops do refuse to govern their National Church by their Laws Appointments and Constitutions they are all Schismaticks and if the Nation refuse to forsake such Bishops they are all Schismaticks
belonging unto it from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop and his Successors King Ina's Charter to the Abbey of Glassenbury exemps them from the Bishops Jurisdiction The like did King Offa concerning the Monastry of St. Albans An. 793. Kenulph King of Mercia that at Abington Anno 821. and Knut that at St. Edmvndbury An. 1020. Yea and there are several places at this very time exempt from Episcopal Jurisdiction Whatever our Princes in after Ages might lose as to the Exercise of their just Power 't is certain that Henry 8th reassumed it as appears by his dismembring some Diocesses and by his removing some Churches from one Jurisdiction to another For this Consult Dr. Burnets History of Reformation part 1. lib. 3. page 301. where you 'l find the Complaint of the Roman party beyond the Sea concerning the Kings encroaching on the Jurisdiction of the Church c. to which 't was answered That the Division of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whether of Patriarchs Primates Metropolitanes or Bishops was according to the Roman Law Regulated by the Emperours Of which the Antient Councils always approv'd And in England when the Bishoprick of Lincoln being judg'd of too great an extent the Bishoprick of Ely was taken out of it it was done only by the King with the consent of his Clergy and Nobles 'T is also evident out of Dr. Burnets Hist of the Ref. part 1. l. 3 p. 267. That this great Prince gave cut such a Commission to Bonner and it may be to others also as makes it most manifest that Diocesan Bishops were not of God's but only of the Magistrate's Institution Hence Bonner in his Commission from the King most gratefully acknowledges that he received it only from the King's bounty and must deliver it up again when it should please his Majesty to call for it even as Justices of the Peace c. whose Commission is ad Pacitum Moreover Lay-men had Ecclesiastical Dignities The E. of Hartford six Prebends promissed him as the Lord Cromwal in H. 8. was made Dean of Wells A thing very ordinary at that time Dr. Burnets Hist of the Refor part 2. Thus a Diocesane Episcopacy at best was judg'd but an humane Creature owing to the Magistrate alone for it's Rise and Conservation Secondly This seems to be the sense of the Reformers in Edward the 6th time who were under the Influence of that great Divine and Blessed Martyr Archbishop Cranmer In Henry 8th days Cranmer did his Utmost for the promoting a Reformation the which he did withal the Speed and Prudence the Ilness of the times would permit further attempt to carry on under King Edward and what he did was so highly approv'd of by all who were hearty for a Reformation that whoever considers how Unanimous the truly Protestans Bishops were in Concurring with this great Prelate Cranmer cannot but encline to think That their Principles in most things about Church Discipline were the same i. e. they were for the Divine Right of Bishops or Presbyters even when they judg'd the Superiority of a Bishop to a Presbyter to be but Humane That this may appear to be the sense of Cranmer I will only beseech my Reader to compare what was done under King Edw. 6th by this great Prelate with his Judgment concerning a Diocesan Episcopacy under Henry the 8th In Henry 8ths time Cranmer in answer to that Question Whether Bishops or Priests were first did assert That the Bishops and Priest were at one time and were no two things but both One Office in the beginning of Christs Religion That in the New Testament he that is appointed to be a BISHOP or PRIEST needeth no Cousecration by the Scripture for ELECTION or APPOINTING thereto is sufficient This was then Cranmers Judgment and I cannot understand that he did at any time in the least vary from it for in the Necessary Erudition which he subscribed there is nothing asserted but what is either Consistent with or an approbation of what was the Archbishops Opinion about these points 'T is true Cranmer was so Zealous an Asserter to the Kings Supremacy that he seem'd to be of that Opinion which doth now appear by the name of Erastianisme for he held That a Bishop or Priest by the Scripture is neither commanded nor forbidden to Excommunicate but where the Laws of any Region give him Authority to Excommunicate there he ought to use the same c. But from this he must be considered to have received because he subscribed the Necessary Erudition where 't is exprest That a part of the Priests or Bishops Office is according to the Scriptures to Excommunicate c. as well as Teach and Administer the Sacraments To all this add the Progress Cranmer made under Edw. 6. in the Reformation how far he went and how much farther he would have gone had not the Iniquity of those times been so exceeding great and the Reign of this worthy Prince so very short 'T is well known that he went so far as to tempt Dr. Heylin to conclude King Edwards death no Infelicity to the Church of England and to provoke Queen Elizabeth to say That they had stript the Church too much of its external Splendour and Magnificence That t was requisite to make some alteration in the Articles to the end a Compliance of the Roman Catholicks might be more easie What I have insisted on in this place about Cranmer is taken out of Dr. Burnets History and a Record in him ex M.SS. D. Stillingfleet 3. Such is the present Prerogative of his Majesty in Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Affairs that the asserting the Divine Right of a Diocesane Episcopacy is inconsistent with it The King is the Supream Head of the Church as well as of the State for which Reason he hath Power to appoint Officers to look after the management of Affairs in the One as in the Other But if the Diocesan Bishops depend not so much on the Prince for their Superiority and Power in making an Authoritative Inspection into Ecclesiasticalal Affairs as the Civil Magistrate who is it that is his Majesties Commissionated Officer about Ecclesiastical affairs T is either the Diocesane or None But if the Diocesane as such receives his Commission from Jesus Christ even as the Apostles did then they are Gods Officers and not the Kings And if so seeing the King doth nothing but by his Officers that is by such as act by a Commission received from him the King hath in this respect lost at least the Ezercise of his Prerogative But if they are the Kings Officers and depend as much on the King as the Civil then their Diocesan Episcopacy is not of Divine 't is but of Humane Right We acknowledge that 't is the sense of the Church of England that Princes are Ordain'd of God to Govern Ecclesiastical as well as other Persons and that therefore if we consider such as are appointed by the King to govern under him Circa Sacra as the
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all Instituted Worship and Discipline as if there could be Church-Members under Government antecedent to the being of Particular Churches even when no one that is not a Member of a Particular Church is a Member of the Universal As if a City that consists of many particular Houses were in order of nature antecedent to every particular House § 3. That the Unity of the Christian Church consists in one Communion Catholique Unity signifies Catholique Communion To have a Right to be a Member of the Christian Church to communicate in all the several Duties and Offices of Religion with all Christians all the World over and to partake in all the Priviledges of Christians and to be admitted to the freedom of their conversation to eat and drink and discourse and trade together So that such as are not Church-Members have no right to trade among Christians A pleasant Insinuation § 4. The Unity of the Christian Sacraments viz. Baptism and the Lords-Supper prove the Unity of Christian Communion This is from p. 193. to p. 208. § 5. Unity of Church-Power and Government doth also prove the Unity of Christian Communion Under this head he maintains 1. That every Bishop Presbyter or Deacon by his Ordination is made a Minister of the Catholique Church though for the better edification of the Church the exercise of his Office is more peculiarly confin'd to some particular place 2. Every Bishop and Presbyter receives into the Catholique Church by Baptism and shuts out of the Catholique Church by Excommunication 3. That the Catholique Church is united and coupled by the cement of Bishops who stick close together for which you produce Cyprian 4. That the Unity and Peace of the Episcopacy is maintained by their governing their Churches by mutual Consent Whence you mention the Collegium Episcopale the Episcopal Colledge which I take to be a Council of Bishops which Bishops have an Original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church i.e. the foreign Bishops as those of Alexandria and Rome c. have an Original Power and Right in relation to the whole Church even a Right and Power in relation to England 5. That every part of the Universal Church is under the Government of the Universal Bishops assembled in their Colledge or in Council and what Bishop soever abuse his Power he shall be accountable to those assembled in Council 6. That there is no such thing as the Independency of Bishops their Independency being almost as inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity as the Indpendency of single Congregations Whence the Church of England called either Archi-Episcopal National or Patriarchal is not Independent but accountable unto Foreign Bishops if at any time they abuse their Power 7. That this Council of Forreign Bishops unto which they are accountable must look on the Bishop of Rome as their Primate the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome being acknowledged it seems by our Author himself as well as by Bramhall The Primacy he saith out of Cyprian being given to Peter that it might appear that the Church of Christ was One and the Chair that is the Apostolical Office and Power is One. Thus Cyprian on whom lay all the care of the Churches dispatches Letters to Rome from whence they were sent through all the Catholique Churches All this is to be found from p. 208 to the end of the Chapter Thus you agree with Bramhall though you express not the Notion so well as he doth and should learn it better Before I proceed therefore I cannot but desire you to consider what is become of your Protestant Episcopacy I beseech you Sir consider Is the French Episcopacy a Protestant Episcopacy If not seeing the English Episcopacy as described by you is the same with the French Why call you the one a Popish and the other a Protestant Episcopacy Whether you agree not in these respects with the Papists let the world judge But you go on to assert § 6. That to be in Commuion with any Church is to be a Member of it every Member having equal Right and equal Obligation to all parts of Christian Communion even that Communion which is External and Visible p. 132 c. § 7. All Christians being bound to communicate with that part of the Catholique Church wherein they live are guilty of Schism if they separate whoever separate from such particular Churches as are members of the Catholick Church do separate from the Universal Catholick Church which is Schism For to divide from any part of the Catholick Church is to break Catholick communion i. e. to be a Schismatick Whence 't is concluded 1. That Schism is a separating from the Catholick Church which notion taken singly will stand the Dissenters and all true Christians who must be acknowledged to be members of the Catholick Church in great stead freeing them from the odious sin of Schism The Dissenters divide not themselves from the communion of the Universal Church Ergo not Schismaticks But the mischief is that as this notion of Schism which our Author adheres unto is the same with that of the Papists as is to be seen in Filiucius Azorius c. but in an especial manner in Charity maintain'd by Catholicks even so he closes with the same Popish Faction in asserting 2. That separating from the Church of England is a separating from the Catholick Church as if the Catholick Church had been as much confin'd within the bounds of the Church of England as the Papists says within the limits of Rome Whence whoever separates from the Church of England cuts himself from the Catholick Church puts himself out of a state of salvation He is extra Ecclesiam extra quam nulla salus they are all while Schismaticks in a state of damnation But surely if these men believed so much methinks they should not be at rest until all their unscriptural impositions were removed unless they have greater kindness for such trifles than they have for such immortal souls for whom Christ dyed By this Doctrine we may understand why 't is that some of our Clergy shew greater tenderness towards Drunkards Swearers Papists than towards poor Dissenters The former may hold communion with the Church of England and consequently with the Catholick Church when the others are undoubtedly in a state of damnation as if we were all in the same state with Hereticks I 'le not as easily I might now enlarge in shewing the weakness which the Dean's Substitute hath discovered in the management of this Grotian or Cassandrian Design but only tell him That if he had consulted that excellent Treatise The Grotian Religion discovered by Mr. Baxter he might have seen an unanswerable confutation of a great part of his Book or if he had rather applied himself unto that great Prelate Bishop Bramhall a man of extraordinary worth for his Learning he might have better digested his Notion For there he would have been furnished with such distinctions about Communion that would
included within the confines of a particular Church who in the management of their discourses concerning it give too great an advantage unto the Papacy 2. The Episcopal and Presbyterian differ from some of the Congregational concerning the nature of Discipline the Congregational being esteemed as espousers of a Democracy or Populacy the other against it 3. The Episcopal differs from the Presbyterian in that the Episcopal are for a Monarchy the Presbyterian for an Aristocracy § 8. All Protestants generally agree in asserting the Independency of particular Churches 'T is notorious that the Church of England established by Law is a particular National Church independent on any Foreign Power whatsoever Such is the constitution of our Church that what Bishop soever is found an abuser of his Power he is not accountable to any Colledg of Bishops but such as are conven'd by his Majesties Authority and that what apprehensions soever he may have of his being griev'd through any undue procedure he cannot make any Appeal to any Foreign Power from the King 'T is the King who is the Supreme Head of the Church of England there is no Power on earth equal unto or above his in Ecclesiastical Affairs To appeal unto any Foreign Power whether unto one Bishop singly or unto many by consent assembled 't is to do what tends to the subverting the present Constitution yea 't is to subvert the very foundation of our Government as 't is opposite unto a French or an Italian Papacy Whoever consults the many Laws made in Henry the 8th's time Edward the 6th's and Queen Elizabeths cannot but be fully satisfied that the Appeal of any Bishop or any other person from the King unto any other Foreign Power is contrary unto the ancient Laws of this Realm and that such as shall venture the doing so run themselves into a Praemunire For 't is most apparent that our National Church of England is a particular Independent Church That neither the Pope of Rome nor the Bishop of Paris nor any other Foreign Bishops have any Original Right or Power in relation to England and that therefore their assuming any such power is a sinful Usurpation All this is undoubtedly true Yet § 9. The Deans Substitute exposeth the Independency of Episcopal particular Churches as what is inconsistent with Catholick Union and asserts That if any Bishops abuse their Power they are accountable unto a General Council that is unto a Foreign Power whereby he doth his utmost to tare up the Church of England by the Roots to subvert his Majesties Supremacy as if all the Laws of the Land concerning it had not been of any force All this by Dr. Stilling fleet 's Defender That this is so I 'le evince from our Authors own words which are as follow And now I cannot but wonder saith he to find some Learned men very zealous assertors of the Independency of Bishops and to alledg St. Cyprians Authority for it for what ever difficulty there may be in giving an account of every particular saying in St. Cyprian certainly he would never be of this opinion who asserts but One Chair One Apostolical Office and Power which now resides in the Bishops of the Universal Church for when the same Power is in ten thousand hands it can be but One only by Unity of consent in the exercise of it and 't is very wild to imagine that any one of these persons who abuse this Power shall not be accountable to the rest for it i. e. to the Colledg of Bishops for saith he soon after if we consider the practise of the ancient Church we shall find that they never thought every Bishop to be Independent but as liable to the censure of their Colleagues as Presbyters and Deacons were to the censure of their Bishops P. 212. So far our Author who doth as it were expresly assert That the Archbishop of Canterbury though Metropolitan and Primate of England if he abuses his Power is accountable unto the General Council when by consent assembled that is the Archbishop who is not in power above any other Bishops as is by the Deans Substitute asserted abusing his Power is accountable to some Court above any in this Realm to a General Council a Colledg of Bishops § 10. Although the Papists generally assert That the Universal Church is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all Church-Government as hath been already intimated yet there 's a difference between the French and Italian Papist about the kind of the Government the one insisting on an Aristocracy the other on a Monarchy i. e. the French holds That the pars Regens of the Universal Church is a General Council the Italian That it is one single person viz. the Bishop of Rome There hath been in the Church of Rome for some hundred years a great contest concerning the Supreme Regent part of the Universal Church Whether it be a General Council or the Pope Whether a General Council be above the Pope or the Pope above a General Council About which the Church of Rome is fallen into three parts as Bellarmine asserts 1. That the Pâ—pe is the Supreme Head of the Church and so much above a General Council that he cannot subject himself thereunto The Government of the Universal Church though mixt being composed of a Democracy Aristocracy and Monarchy yet principally 't is Monarchical The Supreme Power being immediately lodg'd in the Monarch who is the Bishop of Râ—me Christs Vicar and Peter's Successor he is above a General Council and not accountable to any on earth for any abuse he may be guilty of Of this opinion saith Bellarmine are all the Schoolmen generally especially Sanctus Antonius Jeannes de Turrecremata Alvarus Pelagius Dominicus Jacobatius Cajetan Pighius Ferrariensis Augustinus de Aneena Petrus de Monte c. Yea this is the sense of the Jesuits generally and of all such as are engag'd to support the Court of Rome as are the Italian Bishops for which reason I call it Italian Popery 2. There are some among the Canonists who assert That the Pope is above a General Council but yet may subject himself hereunto 3. There are others who assert That a General Council is above the Pope that the Supreme Governing-power over the whole Catholick Church is given them immediately that the Pope as every other Bishop is accountable to the General Council This is what hath been asserted by the Council at Constance Anno 1315. and by that of Basil Anno 1431. and by many Learned Divines in the Church of Rome viz. Cardinal Cameracensis Jeannes Gerson Jacobus Almain Nicolas Cusanus Panormitanus and his Master Cardinal Florentinus as also by Abulensis Gerson being a Chancellor at Paris had many followers among the French who at this very day assert That the Supreme Regent part of the Universal Church is a General Council for which reason I conclude that such as assert That a General Council is the Political Head or Regent part of the
Bishops made them Substitutes under them to help them which they called Priests and kept the name of Bishops to themselves But out of the Deacons sprang all the Mischief For through their hands went all things they ministred unto the Clergy they ministred unto the Poor they were in favour with great and small And when the Bishops Office began to have rest and be Honourable then the Deacons through Favour and Gifts climbed up thereunto as lightly as he that hath the old Abbots Treasure succeedeth with us And by the means of their practice and acquaintance in the world they were more subtle and worldly wise than the old Bishops and less learned in Gods word as our Prelates are when they come from Stewardships in Gentlemens Houses and from surveying of great mens Lands c. Then while they that had the Plow by the tail looked back the Plow went awry Faith waxed feeble and faint Love waxed cold the Scripture waxed dark Christ was no more seen He was in the Mount with Moses and therefore the Bishops would have a God upon the earth whom they might see and thereupon they began to dispute who should be greatest So far Mr. Tyndal in his Practice of Popish Prelates 3. The Malady and Disease of those times with their Causes were no sooner understood but several Worthy Persons applied themselves to a diligent search after the most proper Remedy and found that a Reformation must begin among the Clergy that all things must be reduc'd to the Apostolical Institution Discipline must be strictly exercised the which could not with effect be accomplished but by bringing all things to the first Institution For which reason Mr. Tyndall makes his enquiry after those Officers the Apostles ordain'd in Christs Church and what their Offices were concerning which take Mr. Tyndal's own sense in his discourse of the Practice of Popish Prelates Wherefore the Apostles saith he following and obeying the Rule Doctrine and Commandment of our Saviour Jesus Christ ordained in his Kingdom and Congregation Two Officers One called after the Greek word Bishop in English an Overseer which same was called Priest after the Greek Elder in English because of his Age Discretion and sadness for he was as nigh as could be always an Elderly man And this Overseer hath put his hands unto the Plow of Gods Word and sed Christs Flock and tended them only without looking unto any other business in the world Another Officer they chose and called him Deacon after the Greek a Minister in English to minister the alms of the people unto the poor and needy For in the Congregation of Christ love maketh every mans gifts and goods common unto the necessity of his neighbour Wherefore the love of God being yet hot in the hearts of men the rich that had the substance of this worlds goods brought of their abundance great plenty unto the sustentation of the poor and delivered it unto the hands of the Deacons Mr. Tyndall judg'd that according to the Apostolical Institution there were no other Officers in the Church but Elders and Deacons The Elders being of the same Office and Order with the Bishops they being two names belonging to one and the same person There is saith he Presbuteros called an Elder by Birth which same called immediately a Bishop or Overseer to declare what Persons are meant they were called Elders because of their Age Gravity c. and Bishops and Overseers by reason of their Offices And all that were called Elders or Priests if they so will were called Bishops also though they have divided the names now which thing thou mayest evidently see by the first Chap. of Titus and the 20th of the Acts Those Overseers which we now call Bishops after the Greek word were alway biding in one place to Govern the Congregation there Tyndal of the word Elder But Deacons were Overseers of the Poor and crept not into Orders till the Church grew Rich. Tyndal was not alone in this opinion it being also the sense of Famous Lambert and Dr. Barns who strenuously defended and at the last sealed this Truth with their blood One of the Articles for which they were burnt being about the Order of Priesthood I 'le give you in the first place Lambert's own answer to the ninth Article as I find it in Acts and Mon. Vol. 2. As touching Priesthood saith Lambert in the Primitive Church when virtue bare as ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same the most room there were no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishops and Deacons that is to say Ministers as witnesseth beside Scripture full apertly Hierome in his Commentaries upon the Epistles of Paul whereas he saith That those that we call Priests were all one and no other but Bishops and the Bishops none other but Priests men ancient both in Age and Learning so near as they could be chosen Neither were they institute and chosen as they be now-adays with small regard of a Bishop or his Officer only apposing them if they can coâ—â—â—e a Collect but they were chosen not only of the Bishop but also with the consent of the people among whom they should have their living as sheweth Saint Cyprian and the people as he saith ought to have power to chuse their priests that be men of good Learning of good and honest report but alack for pity such Elections are now banished and new fashions brought in which if we should confer with the form of the Election shewed of Christ by his Apostle Paul we should find no small diversity but all turned upside down To conclude I say the Order or state of Priests and Deacons was ordained by God but Subdeacons and Conjurers otherwise called Exorcistae or Acolitae which we call Benet and Collect were instituted by the invention of men and this you may find in the Law Dist 21. and other places where it is written Subdiaconatus tempore Apostâ—lorum non fuit sacer Subdeaconship in the time of the Apostles was no holy Order Dr. Barns in like manner had the same objected against him in the Articles for which he was burned I 'le give you the Article and his own sentiments concerning it as Mr. Fox relates in a Discourse set forth with Mr. Tyndal and John Frith's Works Article 6. I will never believe nor yet I can never believe that one man may be by the Law of Ood a Bishop of two or three Cities yea of an whole Countrey for it is contrary to Saint Paul which saith I have left thee behind to set in every City a Bishop And if you find in one place of Scripture that they be called Episcopi you shall find in many that they be called Presbyteri I was brought before my Lord Cardinal into his Gallery and there he read all my Articles till he came to this and there he stopped and said That this touched him and therefore he asked me if I thought it wrong
that one Bishop should have so many Cities underneath him Unto whom I answered That I could no farther go than to St. Paul's text which set in every City a Bishop Then asked he me If I thought it now unright seeing the Ordinance of the Church that one Bishop should have so many Cities I answered That I knew none Ordinance of the Church as concerning this thing but St. Paul's saying only Nevertheless I did see a contrary custom and practise in the world but I know not the Original thereof Then said he That in the Apostles time there were divers Cities some seven miles some six miles long and over them was there set but one Bishop and of their Suburbs also so likewise now a Bishop hath also but One City to his Cathedral Church and the Countrey about it as Suburbs unto it Methought this was far-fetcht but I durst not deny it because it was so great Authority and of so holy a Father and of so great a Divine But this I dare say that his Holiness could never prove it by Scripture nor yet by any Authority of Doctors nor yet by any practise of the Apostles and yet it must be true because a Pillar of the Church hath spoken it But let us see what the Doctors say to mine Article Athanasius doth declare this Text of the Apostle I have left thee behind c. He would not commit unto one Bishop a whole Ylde but he did injoyn that every City should have his proper Pastor supposing that by this means they should more diligently oversee the people and also that the labour should be more easie to bear c. Also Chrysostome on that same Text He would not that a whole Countrey should be permitted unto one man but he enjoined to every man his Cure by that means he knew that his labour should be more easie and the subjects should be with more diligence govern'd if the Teachers were not distract with the governing of many Churches but had cure and charge of one Church only c. Methinks these be plain words and able to move a man to speak as much as I did But grant that you may have all these Cities yet can you make it none Heresie For my Lord Cardinal granted that it was but against him and against you which be no Gods But I poor man must be an Heretick there is no remedy You will have it so and who is able to say nay Not all Scripture nor yet God himself By this time the Reader cannot but be well satisfied that the great thing aim'd at by the first great Lights England had in Henry the 8ths days as a most effectual way to carry on a Reformation was the reducing the Popish Hierarchy to an Apostolical Presbytery The Presbyterian Discipline that is The Government of Gospel-Churches by Presbyters and Deacons being of Divine Institution is most admirably suited to the designed End of promoting the Glory of God the Power of Religion c. A Discipline the truth of which hath been sealed by the blood of blessed Protestant Martyrs a thing in which our Episcoparians cannot make theâ—r boast Moreover 't is manifest that this was not only the apprehension of Tindall Barnes and Lambert but that all the Clergy in Henry the 8ths time denied a Diocesan Episcopacy to be of Divine Institution asserting that in the New Testament there is no mention made but of Deacons or Ministers and Priests or Bishops This is in a Paper sign'd by Cromwell and many others Yea and in the necessary Erudition of a Christian man as is acknowledged by the Judicious Dr. Burnet who in his Addenda to the first part of the Reformation doth say That both in this Writing and in the necessary Erudition of a Christian man Bishops and Priests are spoken of as one and the same Office Though I must confess that the Dr. doth differ from those Divines and although he gives us not satisfaction in his Reply yet he speaks more ingenuously and more to the purpose than either this Gentleman or Dr. Stillingfleet himself 4. The old Nonconformists in Queen Elizabeths days agreeing with those worthy Martyrs Tyndall Lambert and Barnes concerning the most effectual way of carrying on the Reformation applied themselves seriously to the Work The Viciousness of some of the Clergy in Queen Elizabeths days was as grievous unto the Nonconformist as unto those glorious Martyrs a Reformation in Manners and in order thereunto in Church-Discipline was what they aim'd at 'T is very evident That a further Reformation than was carried on by Queen Elezabeth was very desirable for in some respects she carried it not so far as King Edward himself had done ' For Queen Elizabeth as Dr. Burnet most admirably expresseth it though she had been bred up from her Infancy with a Hatred to the Papacy and a Love to the Reformation yet as her first Impressions in her Fathers Reign were in favour of such old Rites as he had still retained so in her nature she loved State and some Magnificence in Religion as well as in every thing else She thought that in her Brothers Reign they had stript it too much of external Ornaments and had made their Doctrine too narrow in some Points Therefore she intended to have some things explain'd in more general Terms that so all Parties might be comprehended by them She inclin'd to keep up Images in Churches and to have the manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament left in some general words that those who believe a Corporal Presence might not be driven away from the Church by too nice an explanation of it History of Reform part 2. l. 3. As to this last Particular the Rubrick that explain'd the Reason for the kneeling at the Sacrament That thereby no Adoration is intended to any corporal presence of Christs flesh and blood because that is only in Heaven which had been in King Edwards Liturgy is left out and kneeling at the Sacrament to many a Protestant much more offensive than formerly The great Propension in Queen Elizabeth's days to gain over the Popish party to her Communion by those Alterations made in the Liturgy in favour of the Papist the ordering the Sacramental Bread to be made round in the fashion of the Wafers used in the time of Queen Mary the requiring the Table to be placed where the Altar stood c. was attended with the Conformity of many who were cordially affected to the Interest of the Church of Rome at which time there was not a sufficient number of learned men to supply the Cures which filled the Church as Heylin saith with an Ignorant and Illiterate Clergy whose learning went no further than the Liturgy or Book of Homilies though otherwise conformable unto the Rules of the Church The Old Nonconformists still desiring a further Reformation than was carried on in King Edwards days but â—â—â—â—ing rather a turning toward Rome could not but be greatly grieved They in their places
q. d. as what is not according to the word of God All this being most plain and obvious to an ordinary Capacity that is not biassed by Prejudice c. Let the world judge who is in the FAULT They who keep close to Scripture or they who recede therefrom They who will do any thing but Sin for Peace Or they who will exercise their Authority and impose unnecessary things with the greatest Violence imaginable I say with the greatest Violence imaginable for they are impos'd with such a severe Threatning anrex'd that whoever refuses a compliance is cut off from the Catholick Church and given over to the Devil Hence 't is that they imposing Indifferent things as necessary to Salvation do according to Dr. Stillingfleet's own Rule declare themselves to be the Schismatical Dividers I say according to Dr. Stillingfleet's own Rule compar'd with his Substitutes Notion In the Doctor 's Unreasonableness of Separation p. 213. he saith That there are three Cases wheren the Scripture allow of Separation The last of which is When men make things Indifferent Necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account and this was the Case of the false Apostles who urged the Ceremonies of the Law as necessary to Salvation Now although St. Paul himself complied sometimes with the practice of them Yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the Observation of them as necessary to Salvation then he bids the Christians at Philippi to beware of them i. e. To fly their Communion and have nothing to do with chem From this Rule of Dr. Stillingfleet it must follow That if the Church of England make things Indifferent Necessary to Salvation our Separation from the Church is allowed by the Scriptures yea commanded and enjoyned We must beware of 'em i. e. to fly their Communnion and have nothing to do with them But that things Indifferent are made necessary by the Church of England according to his Doctrine doth appear irrefragably That which is Necessary to our Communion with the Catholick Church is according to his Doctrine necessary to Salvation But Indifferent things are Necessary to our Communion with the Church of England which is One with the Communion with the Catholick Church in that according to him they are made necessary to our Communion with the Church of England which is One with the Communion with the Catholique Church according to his constant Judgment Ergo. Or in other Terms Whatever is made necessary to our being Members of the Catholique Church is made necessary to Savation for to be Members of the Catholick Church and to be in a state of Salvation is the same and to be Members of the particular Church of England and Members of the Catholick Church is one and the same with our Author p. 248. As if it had been said To be Members of the Church of England is to be in a state of Salvation but not to be Members of the Church of England is to be out of a state of Salvation Whence what is made necessary to our being Members of the Church of England is made necessary to our Salvation that is The many indifferent Ceremonies impos'd as terms of our Communion with the Church of England are made necessary for Salvation according to our Author For which reason the Scripture allows our Separation yea the Scripture bids us beware of her that is to fly her Communion and have nothing to do with her Thus the Doctor in conjunction with his Substitute furnishes us with an unanswerable Argument to clear the Dissenter from the odious Sin of Schism which in short is this From such as make Indifferent things Necessary to Salvation we must Separate This is Dr. Stillingfleet's But the Church of England makes Indifferent things necessary to Salvation This is the Dr's Substitutes Notion Ergo We may yea we must Separate that is 'T is the Will of God we should Separate or 't is our Duty and therefore not our Sin to separate i. e. We are not the Schismaticks This is Argumentum ad Hominem and either this Author must quit his Doctrine or acquit us of Schisme But to treat our Author with the greater Civility we 'll suppose him to be so tenacious of his own Doctrine that he 'll rather discharge us of Schisme than abandon his beloved Notions for which reason seeing 't is on all sides acknowledged that there is a Faulty Division among us and consequently a Faulty Divider who is the Schismatick He must be either the Dissenter or the Conformist but not the Dissenter as we have already prov'd from our Author 's own Topicks Ergo the Conformist Here we might have put an end to this Discourse and would do so had not our Author 's fertil Brain furnish'd us with another Argument that doth as fully evince the Conformist to be the Schismatick as the former clear'd the Dissenter In the management of this Argument we 'll consider the Netion of Dr. Peter Gunning and Peirson as compared with our Author The I earned G. and P. in a Conference with the Papists assert That a Superiours unjust casting any out of the Church is Schismatical If the Governours of the Church do by sinful Impositions or unjust Excommunications cast any out of the Church they are Schismatical This our Author won't deny But according to his Notion The Church of England are guilty of such Impositions and do unjustly Excommunicate Dissenters 1. That the Impositions are sinful is evident in that Indifferent things as has been prov'd are made necessary to Salvation The making any indifferent thing Necessary to Salvation is sinful But the imposing indifferent things as terms of Catholique Communion is the making such things Necessary to Salvation Ergo Sinful Ergo The Imposer is Schismatical But 2. Whoever doth unjustly Excommunicate any are Schismatical This is Dr. Gunning's sense But the Church of England if they agree with our Author Excommunicates the Dissenter unjustly Ergo c. That the Church of England Excommunicates unjustly according to the Doctrine of our Author is demonstrable even in that the Church doth as he would have it by Excommunication cast thousands out of a state of Salvation for not complying with little uncommanded things Whence I argue thus To Excommunicate or cast us out of a state of Salvation merely because we cannot comply with what God never commanded us is to Excommunicate unjustly But so doth the Church of England if we may pass a censure on her as our Author provokes us to do for the Church according unto him doth Excommunicate that is shut Heaven-gates against such to whom our Lord Jesus Christ hath promised the opening them To illustrate this with the greater clearness I beseech the Reader to consider That Salvation is promised by Jesus Christ unto all such as do sincerely Believe truly Repent and lead an Holy Life in all Godliness and Honesty Though a man may be daily guilty of lesser Evils yet if he believe in Christ
Christian world Let us have but such Churches and such Bishops with Presbyters and Deacons as were in the Churches of Corinth Jâ—râ—â—lem and Antioch in the days of Clemens James and Ignatius and the Countrey Conformist is satisfied and so would Mr. B. and most Nonconformists in England besides Whether this kind of Episcopacy be a new name for Presbytery and whether this Author have proved it I leave to such Readers to judg as can consider as well as read his Book But how comes this Gentleman to know that the Countrey Conformist is such a one as those that raised a Civil War some years ago and pulled down Church and State to set up a Presbytery Can a man oppose nothing that is defended by some Church-men but he must immediately be reported a secret Traytor or Rebel Is this becoming Christianity or the Preachers of it Do these men believe the Gospel that dare slander and traduce their brethren in such a villanous manner 'T is a word I received from him I hope he will take it agen Tho' it should be granted the Miter supports the Crown yet surely the Errors and Vices of Church-men give no support unto it and I am of opinion that a man may speak for peace and against the opinions and corruption of Churches and Church-men and yet be a very good subject to his Prince notwithstanding that perpetual buz of Rebellion that is suggested by some Huffs in the prejudice of such men and their discourses But why did I enquire how this Monsieur came to know that the Countrey Conformist was such another as those that raised the Rebellion in forty three The nature of the assertion betrays the Author of the Information and there needs no great skill in Magick to find him yet lest he should be ignorant of him I will be so kind as to tell his name he is called Beclzebub the Father of lyes and I hope when he writes agen he will beware of him and hold better correspondencies for his information Pag. 7. he adds Our Conformist doth plainly deride the Dean for thinking he can justifie our present Episcopacy and then quotes his words as followeth But the Dr. makes no question but he shall confute this fanciful man and make it appear that our present Episcopacy which Mr. B. opposes is agreeable to the institution of Christ and the best and most flourishing Churches And easily he may if Mr. B. be such a pitiful Antagonist But what is there in these words that savour of derision I have read and considered them agen and agen and I cannot find it by all the search that I can make The Learned Dr. had pitied Mr. B. and given sufficient evidence of the mean opinion he had of his performances in his late Books and particularly in his Treatise of Episcopacy and is it to deride the Dean to say he may easily confute so contemptible an Adversary This I confess I cannot understand And yet after all I am not satisfied that the Learned Dr. or his Defender hath confuted what Mr. B. hath said in prejudice to our present Diocesan Episcopacy he says that the enlargement of Diocesses hath varied the species of Episcopacy and gives many arguments for the proof of it which neither the Dr. nor this Gentleman hath attempted to answer I know the latter of them says that the enlargement of Diocesses doth not vary the species of Bishops and that a great and a little King are specifically the same Governours But I can by no means believe this to be true of Bishops whatever it be of Kings For the Diocess of the Pope is only bigger than that of the Bishop of London or Worcester or Lincoln and yet I think they are Governours specifically distinct and I hope this Gentleman thinks so too Yea give me leave to suppose that there were but two Bishops in England there would be only a gradual difference in their Diocess and yet I suspect some men would think that the Government were specifically altered but let not our Author infer that this supposition is my desire for he is apt to pervert mens words for I will assure him that I do not desire it but would have many more Bishops not less In fine 't is my opinion that the needs of the Church and the abilities of Bishops to perform the work of the Episcopal Office ought to determine the extent of their Diocess Let their Diocesses be as big as they can manage and no bugger and if so I am sure they must be reduced to smaller limits than now they are No Bishop can discharge the proper work of his Office in a thousand or five hundred Parishes nay I will say That there are many single Parishes in England that will employ the most industrious Bishops on earth If it be said that they do perform the proper work of their Office in many Parishes I utterly deny it that the work is not done and thence proceeds the prophaness and wickedness of particular Churches and thence follows the Schisms and Separations that have and do vex this Church at this day Pag. ib. Our Author proceeds He pleads i. e. the Countrey Conformist for taking off the Impositions in general without any limitation to receive the Presbyterians again into our Church which before he told us were Subscriptions Declarations c. and some few Alterations besides That is faith our Commentator either a form of Prayer or at least our present Liturgy Ceremonies and Administration of religious Offices Now he is an admirable Conformist indeed who at once grants away the Episcopal Office and instead of it setteth up a Bishop in every Parish or either an Anti-Christian Bishop of Bishops or an Ecclesiastical Minister of State to head and govern them and alters the whole frame of our Worship and into the bargain leaves every man to do as he saith and all this without injuring our present Constitution Nay he concludes That all those that hinder the Union of Presbyterians with this Church by continuing the Impositions are Factors for the Pope In this paragraph are a great many falshoods He charges the Countrey Conformist with pleading for the Admission of the Presbyterians into the Church without any Impositions Subscriptions or Declarations This was very ill done of him if it be true which I do a little suspect because this Gentleman is so apt to misunderstand and misrepresent the words and meaning of his Adversaries The Country Conformist hath declared in several places of his Books That he pleads the Cause of none but tolerable Dissenters and for the Admission of none into the Church but such as can Officiate in our Parochial Assemblies but how this difference can be made without Impositions or Subscriptions is not imaginable And therefore to say no more I think this Author hath injur'd and wronged him in this report of his judgment And wheras by those few Alterations besides that the Country-Conformist speaks of he understands either a Form of
summe or substance of the Apostle in his Epistles altogether I say also that this is manifestly here destitute of reason The Apostle requires that all Christians should walk by the same rule in things whereto they have attained Therefore they must walk by the same rule in things whereto they have not attained Such is his force This walking by the same rule I am perswaded is a phrase or expression onely signifying the doing as others doe Now because they that had the knowledg of their liberty might doe as others did and were to use it must those that had not that knowledg do so likewise The contrary is apparent for they shall sin against their consciences if they doe The like case is here The Conformist among us looks upon all and every of those things that are injoyned about Uniformity in the Church to be lawfull and he values himself for perfect in this discerning indifferent things but the Nonconformist thinks these things unlawfull and that he shall sin if he yields to them and what if herein he be weak must the weak and perfect must both these here now walk by the same rule or do as one another do Nay must there be a Rule made on purpose by Authority about these very things wherein the difference lies to force them to act both alike when one of them if they do cannot possibly act in faith and so must needs sin Nothing more contrary to what I have laid down Nothing more contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostle I will add if by this Rule there be more meant then a Phrase and some Rule he will account there must be I would fain know why this Rule should be any other then that of the same Apostle otherwhere As many as walk according to this rule peace be upon them and the Israel of God And what is that Rule but Christianity it self the great Rule of the Christian Religion or Doctrine of the Gospel And what then will follow from thence The Doctor I remember reflects upon my Peaceable Design for being called an Answer to his Sermon I will undertake now upon this Supposition that that Title was as fit for my Book as this Text was for his Sermon Because we must walk according to the general rule of the Christian Religion in all things that are required of us as we attain to the knowledg thereof Therefore we must Conform to the Canons and Liturgy of the Church of England This is the Doctors Sermon upon that Text and I will tell you the Inference now of his Defender upon that Sermon Therefore must all that Conform not in the excluding themselves from Communion with the Church of England be excluded also out of the Catholick Church and consequently out of the Kingdome of Heaven By the way since I wrote this I was reading Doctor Owen and I find that he falls in with the last Interpretation of the Rule and he hath these words upon it Let the Apostles rule be produced says he with any probability of proof to be his and we are ready to subscribe and conform to it To which Doctor Stillingfleet Replies This is the Apostles rule to go as far as they can and if they can go no farther to sit down and not to break the peace of the Church Unto this Dr. Owen Answers The Apostles rule is not that we should go as far as we can but that so far as we have attained we must walk by the same rule I interpose here and say to the Doctor This is this must be the rule of the Apostle supposing that rule be meant as he understands it that is of the great rule of faith and love or law of the Gospel For this is part of that Rule It is part of that love we owe the Magistrate and our Conforming Brethren to go as far as we can or to come as near as we can to them But I answer then to the Dean It is part also of the same Rule to go no farther then we can Our duty of love requires the one Our duty of faith requires the other We may not doe any thing which we cannot doe in faith but we break the rule as it is the rule of faith as well as if we do not doe what we can we shall break the rule as it is the rule of love Whatsoever is not of faith is sin Now when the Dean hereupon goes on and teaches us that we must sit down and not break the peace of the Church when we can go no farther I Reply there is a breaking the peace of the Church in his sense or in òurs If we understand breaking the peace of the Church in his sense which is going from the Church to our Meetings I say he is out and that we must break the peace of the Church if this be the breaking it for this is that which is required of us in that branch of the Rule that we must go no farther then we can But when we go to private Meetings and leave the Church in this case where we suppose a man cannot act in faith or with perswasion in his conscience that it is lawful for him to go thither it is no breaking the peace of the Church in our sense but a part of our duty wee say of going no farther then we can We go as far as we can with them in holding the same Doctrine and Sacraments in acknowledging them as true Churches maintaining a Communion in love with them and doing all the good offices we can to them and when we can go no farther in this lyes our duty of going no farther then we can that we meet for worship otherwhere To assemble I say for worship is one part of the rule Not to assemble but to forbear any thing when we cannot act in faith is another part of the rule Put them both together and it comes to this that To go to other meetings when we cannot go to Church must be walking by the rule if this rule be the great rule of faith and of love out of question This I speak in the person of Doctor Owen who can and do go to Church my self but there is one eminent thing said by that eminent great man and very much accomplished Doctor We do and shall abide by this Principle p. 250. that Communion in faith and love with the administration of the same Sacraments is sufficient to preserve all Christians from the guilt of Schism though they cannot communicate together in some rites and rules of Worship and Order If the Doctor makes good this he does our work and till the Dean debates this he says nothing To return I observe in the fourth place for the Digression it self does but lead me hither that this Authour does industriously endeavour to bring the Controversie between Conformist and Nonconformist to this issue If the Church requires of us any things as necessary to her Communion which are sinful the schism is