〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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-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
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
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
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
in foreign parts they should rather accommodate their worship to those among whom they liv'd whence instead of the English Liturgy they used one near the Geneva and French Forms Moreover in Queen Elizabeth's time even long after the Separation the old Nonconformists declar'd that they look'd on Forms of Prayer to be lawful It may be they were griev'd to see Q. Elizabeths Bishops to entertain more favourable thoughts of the Pope than those blessed Martyrs Cranmer and Ridâ—ey did as is to be seen by their expunging out of Q. Elizabeth's Liturgy what was offensive to the Pope in K. Edward's but against Forms they were not or it may be they could not approve of any that would quench the motions of the Spirit they professed to have felt before their Ordination whether in trusting unto it for help in the exercise of Prayer or any other parts of their work But to cry down all Forms in order to the setting up spiritual and free prayer instead of the Liturgy and for this reason to separate from the Church of England is more than can be proved 2. The great and principal reason of the Separation of the old Nonconformists was occasion'd by their pressing towards that Reformation expresly aim'd at by our English Reformers in H. 8. 's time for the which they were burnt in Smithfield and elsewhere Whoever would understand the true Reason of the first Separation in Queen Elizabeth's time must enquire after the first Reformation desir'd in H. 8. ' s. In Henry 8th's days that wickedness that spread it self throughout the Western part of the World sadly prevail'd in these Northern parts This part of the earth was in an especial manner troubled with a vicious and sensual Clergy whose example had a sad influence on the Common people The off-spring of a lewd vicious Clergy was a profane and extremely wicked Laity so that if ever it might now be truly said The whole world lay in wickedness This being the state of the Clergy and Laity the fear of God and all true Religion almost lost it pleased the Father of mercies to open the eyes of some to shew 'em the evil of the times c. Luther Zuinglius Calvin and others beyond the seas and Tindal Frith Barns c. here in England These Worthies being deeply sensible of the Abominations of the times in which they liv'd made diligent search after the causes thereof in order to the carrying on a Reformation c. In which enquiry they found the viciousness of the people to be occasioned by the sensuality and lewdness of the Clergy the lewdness of the Clergy to be the product of an uninstituted Hierarchy which was rather adjusted for Worldly grandure than the glory of God The great cause of all those Mischiefs was the want of strict and Scriptural Discipline which as it had not been in due exercise since the first degeneracy from the Apostolical Institution and Primitive Practice even so could not be faithfully exercised but by being reduced to its antient state For which Reason Tyndall applies himself to the work and so did the famous Lambert and Doctor Barnes All which I will from good Authority evince 1. Mr. Tyndall a blessed Martyr burnt at Brabant for his firm adhering to the Truths of the Gospel doth in those Discourses of his published by Mr. Fox shew that the many Abominations of his Times proceeded from the viciousness of a Proud Covetous Sensual Clergy who having forsaken the Apostolical Rule in process of time through the Bounty of some wealthy persons who had embraced the Christian Religion and divers other ways got an abundance of Riches which occasioned their Pride and Luxury to the ruine of the true Religion Thus in that Treatise of The Obedience of a Christian man There is no Mischiefs or Disorders saith he whether it be in the Temporal Regiment or in the Spiritual whereof they i. e. The Spirituality the Clergy are not the chief Causes and even the very Fountain and Spring and as we say the Well-head So that 't is impossible to Preach against Mischief except thou begin at them or to set any Reformation in the world except thou Reform them first This same Mr. Tyndall in another place shews us how they occasioned so much mischief in these words But after that the Devil was broke loose and the Bishops began to purchase and the Deacons to scratch all to them and the Spirituality to climb on high then because the Labour viz. of examining and confirming the Adult who had been Baptized in their Infancy ' seemed too tedious and painful they neglected it Tyndal of Sacraments and Ceremonies The Clergy growing rich labour'd that their Honour might equalize their Wealth which was followed with Idleness a Neglect of God and their Duty Hence Preaching is let down the Ceremonies being esteem'd as the most effectual means of Instruction This occasions the multiplication of significant Ceremonies which was the great Reason of the dreadful Ignorance into which the whole European world was plundg'd when Popery prevail'd So Mr. Tyndall I impute this our grievous fall into so extream and horrible Blindness wherein we are so deep and so deadly brought asleep unto nothing so much as unto the multitude of Ceremonies for assoon as the Prelats had set up such a rabble of Ceremonies they thought it superfluous to teach the plain Text any longer and the Law of God Faith of Christ c. forasmuch as all such things were play'd before the peoples faces daily in the Ceremonies c. Tyndall of the Ceremonies of the Mass Thus 't is evident that in Henry the 8ths time the great wickedness of that Age was grievous to such as aim'd at Reformation that these wickednesses were occasion'd by the Pride Covetousness and Sensuality of the rich Clergy But 2. 'T is as manifest That the Pride of the Clergy was discovered by their Prelacy their aspiring after a Dominoon over their Brethren Whence the One gets the name of Bishop appropriated unto him and with that name an Unaccountable yea an Unscriptural Power So Mr. Tyndall in his Practice of Prelates The Office of a Bishop was a roume at the beginning that no man coveted and that no man durst take upon him save he that loved Jesus Christ better than his own Life For as Christ saith That no man might be his Disciple except that he were ready to forsake Life and all Even so might that Officer be sure that it might cost him his Life at one time or another for bearing record unto the Truth But after that the multitude of the Christians were encreased and many great men had received the Faith then both Lands and Rents as well as other Goods were given unto the maintenance as well of the Clergy as of the Poor because they gave then no Tythes to the Priests nor yet now do save in certain Countries For it is too much to give Alms Offerings Lands and Tythes also And then the
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