〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
A REPLY TO THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet BEING A Counter Plot for Vnion between the Protestants in opposition to the Project of others for Conjunction with the Church of Rome By the Authors Of the Modest and Peaceable Inquiry Of the Reflections i.e. the Country Confor Of the Peaceable Designe Then Abner called to Joab and said shall the sword devour for ever Knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end How long shall it be then ere thou bid the people return from following their Brethren LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercers Chappel 1681. To the Right Honourable THE EARL of HALLIFAX May it please your Lordship THE Design of these Papers being for the Glory of the King and the Peace of the Church we cannot think it dishonourable for any person of moderate Inclinations and in a capacity to serve so good an end to favour it Your Lordship therefore being at present at the Helme in the Administration of the greatest Affairs will not as we hope receive with any Disdaine this our humble Dedication Not that we concerne your Lordship in our little Contests as the Book is Controversal for we know Themistocles cannot fiddle but he can govern a State but because the Thing Designed is so momentous and concerns Statesmen such as your Lordship is We do intend no further avocation of your Honour from your other Imployment than to look over onely the Preface and the last Half Sheet of the Book wherein you will find a Foundation laid and Materials made ready There is wanting onely the Perfecting skill of some Master builder and then Hands to work We are sensible of the Meanness of such an Offering to so great and judicious a Person and being conscious that the blame which we deserve upon that account is too much for One there are Two of us to bear it Your Lordships humble Servants John Humfrey Stephen Lob. THE PREFACE IT hath pleased God that the hearts of most men at this present juncture or at least their faces are set upon Union of the Protestants and it is absolutely necessary that somewhat be done in order to a firm and lasting one among us Upon this point on all hands we seem to be agreed We must Unite or we must be undone but as for the means of obtaining this end the differences are many Some among the Conformists seem to propose an Execution of the Poenal Laws as a sure way of Uniting us Others as this Author of Dean Stillingfleets Defence c. insist on a Submission to the Bishops of the Universal Church to be the onely foundation of Unity in the Church The Dissenters differ from such as are of these Opinions and in the general assert That if ever an Union be obtained it must be by an Insisting onely on a Few Certain Necessary things as terms of Communion That the utmost severities of the Magistrate will rather fill the minds of the Sufferers with Prejudices against the Dictates of those men whose most powerful Argument is the Sword than Inlighten their Judgments or Dispose their Souls to any sincere Compliances and that the Notion of our Author to wit the Defender of the Dean of Pauls is Schismatical Upon this account it is not a little time is spent in a Representing the several Notions there are about the methods of Uniting us to be Ineffectual the one Party misliking the Proposals made by the Other But surely this is not the way to heal our breaches or put an end to the Warme and Indecent Contests that have been among us For which Reason though my principal aime is for Union yet will not I presume on any thing proposed by us I will onely acquaint the Reader with the Nature of the Ancient Constitution of our Government in Relation to Ecclesiastical Affairs and thereby shew what will most effectually conduce to Unite us in a way the least novel and most consistent with our Civil Establishment The which I can no sooner compass but I shall be capacitated to demonstrate to the World That the Principles of the Dissenter are very much adapted for concord not onely among themselves but with the moderate Episcoparians and very advantagious to the State in which they live The Ancient Constitution of our Government about Matters Ecclesiastical is very excellently describ'd in the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian man composed by several Bishops and other great Doctors and approved by Authority in the days of Henry the 8th In this Judicious Tractate 't is manifest 1. That Church Government is Jure Divino 2. That to the Constituting such a Church Government those Church Officers onely are necessary who are mention'd in the New Testament 3. That in the New Testament there is mention made of no other Church Officers but Priests and Deacons That no other Government is of Divine Right but what is under the Conduct of Bishops or Priests i. e. Elders is evident in that the New Testament mentioneth no other Governours as Ecclesiastical but the Bishops or Elders whence that Government whose Constitution is such as that it becomes a Government on no other account than that the Governours are of humane make that Government cannot formally considered be of Divine Right 't is but Humane though circa Sacra 4. That Bishops or Priests the sole Governours of the Church are of one and the same Order their Power the same their work the same which is to preach the Word Administer Sacraments and Exercise Discipline All this I collect from what is asserted in the aforesaid Necessary Erudition about the Sacrament of Orders where 't is said That Bishops or Priests and Deacons are the onely Orders mention'd in the New Testament And of these two ORDERS onely that is to say Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention That all others were afterward added by the Church That the Duty and Office of the Bishop Priest or Elder consisteth in true Preaching and Teaching the word of God unto the People in Dispensing and Ministring the Sacraments of Christ in Losing and Assoiling from sin such persons as be sorry and truly Penitent for the same and EXCOMMUNICATING such as BE GUILTY IN MANIFEST CRIMES and WILL NOT BE REFORMED OTHERWISE and finally in Praying for the Whole Church of Christ and specially for the flock committed unto ' em Thus the Order of a Bishop or Priest is one and the same whose Office is not onely to Preach and Administer Sacraments but moreover to exercise Discipline namely in Losing and Assoiling from sin such persons as be sorry and truly Penitent and in Excommunicating the Obstinately Vitious As much as if it had been said that Church Government and the Office of a Bishop or Elder is of Divine Right The Office of the Deacons in the Primitive Church was partly in Ministring Meat and Drink and other Necessaries to the poor people found of the Church partly also
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
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-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
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