Universal Church are in the number of French Papists Thus Cassander yea and Grotius as to Church-Government were for a French Papacy Whether the Dean's Substitute be or be not I 'le leave to the impartial censure of the judicious Râ—â—der who is desired to consider his notion as compared with that of the Parisians 1. The Dean's Substitute doth suggest That the Universal Church is the first Seat of Government 't is a political organiz'd Body in which there is a Pars Imperans Subdita the Bishops in their Colledg being the Governours or Pars Imperans and all others of the Universal Church the subdite part It may be our Author to gratifie the Dean will deny the Universal Church to be a political organiz'd body as indeed he doth but 't is even when he 's resolv'd to assert That the Universal church is the Seat of Government and Discipline as if there could be any Government in any Society without a governing and governed parts But so it is as a National even so the Universal church with him is not a political body that is 't is not such a body unto whose constitution a pars Imperans and subdita is necessary even when its constitution is such that it cannot be but there must be in it some Governours and other Governed Therâ— is not a Regent part in the Catholick Church but there is a Governing part that is there are Governours viz. the Catholick Bishops in their Colledg who are the Governours of the Catholick church Thus our Learned Gentleman in one place endeavouring to fetch the Dean off from that difficulty Mr. Humphreys had driven him unto concerning the constitutive Regent part of the church of England as National doth say The Dean answers in my poor opinion with great judgment and consideration We deny any necessity of such a constitutive Regent part For though a National church be one body yet it is not such a political body as Mr. B. describes i. e. there is no such Government as cannot be without a Pars Regens Subdita p. 562. And yet he grants That Church-Governours united and governing by consent are the pars Imperans and christian peoplo in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour submitting to such government are the pars subdita p. 565. All which is true saith he without a Constitutive Regent Head i. e. There is a Governing part or a pars Regens or to speak English a Constitutive Regent part or Head without a Constitutive Regent Head The like is asserted of the Universal Church namely That it is a Church governed by the Colledge of Bishops which Colledge of Bishops are the Pars Imperans though not the constitutive Regent part For we must allow him to wallow in his contradictions But a Governing part there is in the Universal Church which Governing part is compos'd of Bishops II. The Governours of the Universal Church are Catholick Bishops in Council who though they are equals and as such have no Superiority over one another p. 213. yet the Colledge or these Bishops assembled have Authority and command over any of its collegues that is every single Bishop is under the Authority and command of this Foreign Council III. The Catholick Church is One when it is not rent and divided but united and coupled by the cement of Bishops who stick câ—ose together p. 596. The result of all is That the Catholick Church of Christ being one Visible Political Body it is a compleatly Organiz'd body on Earth hath its Governing and Governed parts The Visible Governing part being a Terrestrial Numerical Head though collective viz. A Colledge of Bishops a General Council A Notion that doth not only subvert the present constitution of the Church of England that thinks not it self accountable to any such Forreign Power but moreover in it self as grosly absurd as 't is suited to the French the Cassandrian or the Grotian Model leading us all to Unite with all the other parts of the Catholick Church by rendring an unwarrantable Obedience unto such a Governing Power as is seldom in being and when so as dangerous and of as destructive a tendency to the Government of Jesus Christ as that of the Italian Papacy But whether our Author had a clear prospect of this Intreague when at first he was put on it I 'll not venture to determine it being sufficient that I have fully proved That the New-Modell'd Episcopacy of this Gentleman is the same with that of the French which is as inconsistent with the old-establish'd Episcopacy of our Church as is the Italian Papacy For if our Author may safely exceed the bounds of those Laws that do with the greatest Severity forbid our Appeal to any Forreign Power by addressing himself unto a Forreign Colledge Why may not another presume to make his Appeal to the Court of Rome What Reason can be given for the One which will not prove cogent for the Other especially to such who living where they have constant experiences of the excellency of a Monarchical Government in the State may be easily induced to conclude Monarchy as admirable in the Church and then farewel Impossibilities viz. General Councils a Roman Monarch in the Church being much more desirable Having thus given a true state of the Controversie whereby we find our Author to agree exactly with the French Papist about Gâ—vernment asserting the Universal Church as such to be a Governed Body in which there is a Governour and the Governed 't will be requisite that as I have shewn what are some of the Absurdities which flow from it that I do moreover evince it to be in it self unsound and false That this may the more clearly and with the greater conviction be performed I will be so just as to do our Author all the right imaginable by taking notice what he seems to assert and what he 's resolv'd to deny and accordingly proceed to the strictest disquisition after the Truth Our Author asserts That the Universal Church as such is the Seat of Government 't is a Body under Government as much as if it had been said There must be in it a Governing and a Governed part It being impossible that Government should be without Order which Order is secundum sub Supra Wherever there is Government there must be a Superiour part Governing and an Inferiour Governed There must be Dominus Subditus This our Author seems to grant when he doth to this Assertion of the Government of the Universal Church add his thoughts about the Governours thereof which he saies are the Universal Bishops assembled in Council But alrhough this is what our Author doth assert he doth notwithstanding resolutely deny the Universal Church to be a Political Body what he saith of a National that he asserts of the Universal Church both which are Govern'd Societies but neither a Political Body p. 564 565. All which is to fetch off the Dean from Mr. Humphrey's and Mr. B's unanswerable Queries
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
out a Constitutive Head and an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Head by Christs Institution and to say that all this is true without one is to me a perfect contradiction When he goes on then p. 566. to prove that this is all that is or can be required to make a National Church One by two Arguments I answer If there be so much as this indeed required his two Arguments must prove it not onely to be One but one Political proper Church with an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Regent part to it The Bishops he says have equal power by Christs appointment and rule not by Superiority but by Consent that is not by Superiority over one another but they do rule by a Superiority I hope over the people and that is an Aristocratical Government and when the People do consent to Unite in Communion with them this makes them Members he says of that Political body And these are his two reasons p. 566 and 567. which need no other Animadversion but this notice of them The great questions onely are whether this indeed be the will of Christ that the Catholick and so every National Church as he states the matter should be ruled by these Bishops as Colleagues that is by a Government as he calls it by consent and if it be how it should come to pass that we have not in England such a Government where there is for certain no such Rule by consent of the Colledg without a Superiority but by a Superiority or a Supremacy of the King who is the Head of these Bishops themselves as well as the Nation This I make not my Province P. 568. He hath four things for the strengthning the Government of his Mintage and then concludes that if Mr. Baxter can give him one reason why this may not be called one Church or Ecclesiastical Body Politick without a Constitutive Regent part he will think farther of it To which I answer and tell him presently why this cannot be called one Church or Ecclesiastical Body Politick without a Constitutive Regent part the reason is because it is a Body Politick Ecclesiastical with a Constitutive Regent part and so he need think no farther of it And this Answer being of another nature then that which he fancies like to be made him in the next page p. 569. I need say nothing to that nor the next p. 570. but come on to p. 571. for now he hath prepared the way as he says to justify the Doctor Well where there is a Political Church says Mr. Baxter there must be a Constitutive Head The Doctor answers there may be the true notion of a Church without one I Reply This is a coming off but the question indeed at the bottome is whether it be the true notion of the Church of England The Doctor argues If it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick Visible Head to the Church Catholick Visible This Argument the Deans Defender thinks unanswerable But we reply the Argument is such as needs no Answer and it may easily be Answered In the first place it needs no Answer because the thing it would prove is but what we can grant him that is a Visible Head to the Catholick Church Christ is that Head we say and he is Visible When he was on earth he gave Laws for his Church and Commissionated Officers which are Rights of a Head He after appeared to Paul and Commissionated him and is now Visible in Heaven This is plain proof in Reason Sense and Scripture and not to be jeered off and therefore in the first place the Doctors Argument needs no Answer In the next place we say farther it is easily Answered for we deny the Argument If it be necessary for a Church to have a Constitutive Head it follows that the Catholick Church must have a Constitutive one but it follows not that it must have a Catholick Visible Head or that that Constitutive Head must be Visible This in truth is introducing four Terms into the Argument which we know is false Arguing When there is put more into the thing Asserted in the Consequence then there is to prove it in the Antecedent in an Hypothetical Syllogisme it is all one as to argue with four terms in a Syllogism that is Categorical But the Doctor says he puts more strength in it The question is about the Catholick Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being Visible do require the Constitutive Regent part to be Visible I Answer though here be more words here is no more strength put into the Argument I still deny the Consequence For though the Catholick Church consists of Particular Churches which are Visible it consists also of that society in heaven which is not Visible Christs Body is but one Body whereof part is in Heaven and part on Earth and while the Head is in Heaven it follows not that because part of the Body is Visible therefore the Head must be Visible It is all one as if he should argue thus Particular Churches are on Earth and if Christ be Head of the Catholick Church whereof they are parts he must not be in Heaven And when indeed this is one and the same Argument and we know it to be false we do justly deny the Doctors Argument Suppose a man so high as that his head reached above the clouds will you argue that this person hath no head because his head is not visible I deny the Argument There is really nothing hard in the Doctors Argument but to understand why his Defender whom I value for his Parts should come to think it unanswerable It may be the Doctors confident word at first it undenyably follows drew on this apprehension and he hath fetcht the Argument over so long till he hath put enough in it to make himself believe it We are far says he from asserting that the Universal Head must be Visible if the Subordinate be so he should be as far from asserting the Head to be Visible because Particular Churches or the Members are so but this we assert that if no Church can be a true Visible Church without a Subordinate Visible Head then the Universal Church cannot be a Visible Church without a Subordinate Catholick Visible Head p. 574 575 576. This he takes to be the Doctors Argument and he will make the consequence hold before he has done with it But against whom does the Doctor and this man argue Is it not against Mr. Bexter and did Mr. Baxter ever say this that there can be no true Church without a Subordinate Head under Christ Is not Mr. Baxter a Protestant as well as the Doctor and do they not both maintain the Catholick Church to have one onely Supreme Head and no Subordinate one in Earth If his Defender hath found out one who is not the Pope but the Colledge of Bishops I desire Doctor Stillingfleet
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
on her part If not the schism is on ours To what end he does this unless there be some body else entertaining the task which the Doctor ought I cannot tell but if this be supposed the true case between us then should the business here that Doctor Stillingfleet had to doe have been this To see what things are alledged by the Nonconformists as Unlawful in the point of Conformity whereof there was a tast first in the Peaceable Design and a fuller measure after in Mr. Baxters Plea and then to have answered those Allegations If the Doctor was able sincerely and substantially to have done this then hath he declined his work if indeed he cannot at least on the Ministers part he cannot then hath he yielded the Nonconformist his Cause The Doctors Defender seeing this does endeavour to supply his defect and speaks to many of these things but I must tell him he has done it in such an overly way with such misrepresentation of Mr. Baxter such incidental mistakes such slight and perfunctory answers that I do not apprehend he believes in his heart that what he hath said can give satisfaction I will content my self with one instance to shew him this It is in the matter of Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in and prescribed by the two Books of the Liturgy and Orders 'T is plain by these words that whatsoever is Asserted in these Books we must give our assent to the truth of it as whatsoever is prescribed we must consent to the use of it How vast a Field then have we here for our Objections against this Declaration and yet does this Author come off thus We do not give our assent to every saying in the Common Prayer Book but to every thing contained in and prescribed by it that is what we are bound to use p. 105. And does this man now think indeed this enough to satisfie a Conscientious man in any thing which he scruples upon this account Is this distinction enough to salve the matter We do not assent to the Sayings of the Book but to the Things as if whatsoever is said in the Book were not something that is contained in it Or as if there was nothing to be assented to as true but what is prescribed to be used Good Lord what Healers are we like to have of such men as these be They should set themselves to satisfie us in such Solutions of our Objections as our Consciences being convinced of the Solidity might acquiess in them but their care is only to satisfie themselves and no matter so long as they come off with any Evasion In the last place there remains some passages this Author hath here and there in his Book and more industriously in his Preface on set purpose to expose me in an ill representing some of my expressions without regard to the matter between us whether it be any thing or nothing which though it can hardly be well as to me to asperse a man for the aspersion sake when as to Mr. Baxter it is I Judge even irreligiously ill yet do I readily forgive it him upon this double account The one is because when I wrote these sheets I think I was to blame that having written them foul I could not abide to be at the pains to write them over fair which yet I thought to have done and then I should have castigated such expressions that now in his exposing them again to me do not like me some of them as indeed not cautious enough for my self or respectful enough for the Doctor I am ready to crave the Doctors pardon which is my best satisfaction for that The other is because the Author does it out of respect to so worthy a person as him he vindicates not out of malice to me and one may think it but a friendly Office for him to do so But I do think also that Dr. Stillingfleet himself ought not to pass it so lightly who hath the more cause to be aware of him and to say the rather Get thee behind me Sherlock thou art one that wouldst foment my pride when others I am to believe have more honestly endeavoured to let me see it that I may be humbled to God for it If it was meerly for peace sake and out of tenderness to the Nonconformists seeking their good at his heart as in the sight of God that Dr. Stillingfleet Preached his Sermon and writ his Book the good Lord pardon every man that hath had but one hard thought or spake one hard word of so good and learned a man but if it was really otherwise if it was to appear some body to seek himself and in lifting himself up against his Brethren without regard to the consequence the righteous God is ready to take the least hurt he does them to be all one as done to himself then the good Lord pardon him for he hath sinned much and bring him to see though at last unto whom he is indeed more beholding or from whom he is indeed like to receive most good either him that licketh up his spittle or him that hath rebuked his fault The Author of the Peaceable Design Materials forVnion WHereas there are three Parties of Protestants in the Nation the Episcopalian the Presbyterian and the Independent or Congregational-Men which are of diverse sorts who do and will ever differ in their Opinions about the Church and Discipline of it in the Question which is of Christ's Institution or Whether the One or the Other is most consonant to Scripture it is not our Disputes about the Church as Particular which are rather to be mutually forborn and every Party left herein to their own Perswasion but a Common Agreement in what we Can Agree and that is in the Church as National must Heal our Divisions It is here we must lay the Foundation-Stone of Vnion When the Parliament then shall set about this business to purpose A Bill should be brought in for Declaring the Constitution of Our Church of England A Parliament is the Representative of the whole People of England and I doubt not but by Consent and Agreement they might Make a New Constitution of the CHURCH as it is National and much more may they Declare the Constitution of it The Papists are for one Universal Organical Church throughout the world whereof the Pope is Head by Christ's Appintment and whosoever consequently is not of this Roman catholick-Catholick-Church and Governed by him must be damned There are some of our late Prelatists are for the same Church but under the Diocesan Bishops of the whole Earth who being Convened in a General Council are the Head that must give laws to it and whosoever refuse to be Govern'd by the Laws of these General Counsels are Schismaticks I am much rather therefore in my mind for the Notion which is that in the Embryo the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls seems to me to aim at if it could be once well
as a proof of what he affirmed produces some few passages from a Book written tho' not printed by Mr. H. in the year 1675. and reprinted with some alterations 1680. Mr. Humfrey gives the reasons of those alterations but withal affirms that he altered not his opinion At which our Author makes some exceptions pag. 26. of his Preface and seems to suspect the truth of what Mr. H. had said concerning the alteration of some lines in his Book without altering his judgment in that case These are his words He will not own that he hath altered his judgment in the second Impression of his book from what it was in the first but people know not mens judgments but by their words and the words of his first and second Edition contain a very different and contrary sense which should suppose some alteration What a spiteful malignant insinuation were this if Mr. H. were not known to be one that does not lye He persists upon the words like toleration which after Mr. H. hath explained is nothing but cavil and I need no more than to repeat Mr. H's own words for the reproof of this Gentleman who would not have omitted these when he cites others if he had dealt honestly by him The Dr. thinks or speaks as if the Author in reprinting the Book had changed his opinion wherein I account he is most of all out and most to blame He who drew up the Book is not one of that humour as to turn with the times but rather against them The opinion he offered in the year 75. is the same that he holds now in the year 80. Here is an alteration indeed as to more words or some other words but the same opinion or solution with the difference only of a further explication of it and nothing therein besides avoiding offence intended The Author had been wary in declaring the Toleration he proposed to be a limited one and provided against the Jesuit upon reason of State and shewed his dread of Popery in dominion but had omitted the distinction of a toleration in regard to publick Assemblies and the private exercise of a mans Religion He explains himself therefore by way of supply signifying that what he said at first should be taken in regard to the tolerating the Papist only privately as his meaning really was then and is now but fuller expressed This is the opinion he recedes not from whether peculiar to himself or not that no man should be persecuted meerly for his conscience if there be no other reason Whether he be a Dissenter of one kind or other the common rule of Christianity must be remembred he says still that we do by all men as we would be done by and that with what measure we mete to others it shall be measured to us again These words are in all the Impressions And to this purpose I cannot but note what I find in Mr. B's 2 l Def. p. 16 who after he hath spoken of Mr. H. upon this account as a man of known Latitude and Universal Charity and discountenancing Cruelty adds concerning himself And I so little fear the noise of the Censorious that even now while tht Plot doth render them most odious I freely say 1. That I would have Papists used like men and no worse than our own Defence requireth 2. That I would have no man put to death for being a Priest 3. I would not have them by any Law compelled to our Communion and Sacraments Nor can a man think but the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls himself had also some Compassion Pity and Kindness for them when he condemns such Heats as transport men beyond the just bounds of Prudence Decency and Humanity towards their greatest Enemies Pref. pag. 34. And whereas this Gentleman objects That the alteration was not made in Mr. H's Book till five years after I hope there is a good reason for it because it was so many years before the second Impression and I know not by what means it could be altered till the Book was Printed a second time I return now to the Countrey Conformist The Doctor had said in his Pref. pag. 78. upon the Principles of some of our Dissenting Brethren Let the Constitution be made never so easie to themselves yet others may make use of their grounds and carry on their differences as high as ever To which the Conformist had said There was no doubt but insufferable Hereticks might pretend Conscience and many other things for Indulgence as well as modest and tolerable Dissenters but that he thought there was no reason that they should have the same Concessions and that he hoped our Governours would be able to distinguish between those that erre in small things and those that subvert the Christian Religion This Answer doth not satisfie our Author who enquires pag. 8. But in the mean time how doth he answer the Deans Argument that it is not the way to Peace and Union and to silence Differences If I should reply to this Gentleman in other words and give him another Answer peradventure he may be unsatisfied and ask the same Question again However I 'll venture this once Many of the Dissenters from the Church of England are sound in their Judgments and agree with us in all the great Essentials of the Christian Religion and in most of the Integrals also these would gladly incorporate with us but that there are some Impositions that they cannot submit unto now certainly if these things which are the reason and cause of the Difference between them and their Brethren were removed the difference were at an end Others there are that are men of sound Judgments in the main Articles of the Christian Religion but cannot incorporate with us in the National Church if these were Legally indulged they would be free from fear their minds would be at rest amidst variety of Judgments and Practices we might live together in Love and Peace And thus I think I have told this Gentleman how many of our differences may be ended and how those that cannot be ended may yet be laid to sleep and persons made amicable and friendly As for intolerable Hereticks I shall not be their Patron only I would have them used like men and that nothing be done to them that is unworthy of the Christian Religion which is made up in great part of Love Kindness and Compassion And if thus much Union and Peace will not satisfie this Author I suppose he may look for it in Heaven but I doubt that he will hardly find it in this world I am of opinion that a cessation of Differences among Christians and Churches and a total cessation of sin will appear at the same instant I do somtimes admire that those that never expect to see the one upon Earth but are very calm and patient without it should so passionately desire the other that they can be content to move Heaven and Earth for the obtaining of it What Seneca
said of particular persons I say of Churches Optimus est qui minimis urgetur vitiis He is the best man that hath least faults and there are none without them Those are the best Churches which have the least of defects and imperfections such as are without fault are not to be found out of Heaven And as among men the strong must bear the Infirmities of the weak so among Churches the strongest and most perfect must bear the Weakness and Infirmities of those that are more defective and imperfect If our Author should say that those that I plead for and call Churches are no Churches but acompany of Schismatical Conventicles I answer I am of opinion that they are as truly Churches and parts of this National Church or may be easily so made as the Churches of France Holland Geneva Switzerland c. are of the Universal But if our Author shall please to cut them off from the Catholique as I think according to his own Doctrine he must do I shall permit him the liberty for I know not how to hinder it to cut off these from the National Church having no mind at this time to debate the Justice of his Sentence Only I will beg leave to tell him that I can by no means believe that what he doth on Earth will be ratified in Heaven or that God will damn all that he gives up to the Devil If what hath been said doth not satisfie our Gentleman give me leave to suppose him a Minister of the Reformed Church in France be it at Charenton Caen Saumur or where you please and let me suppose that some Gentlemen of the Roman Catholick Religion address themselves to him after this manner Sir We pity your state and condition and have a kindness for you for though you be an Heretick you are one of human race the King our Master will have but one Religion in his Kingdom and you must comply with him or else you are undone your Estate your Liberty and peradventure your Life must all be sacrificed to him for he is resolved and peremptory in that resolution all must serve God the same way or they must bear the punishment of refusing it Here are the Subscriptions that are made by the Catholick Clergy do but set your hand to them and you 're safe and may share with them in the Preferments of the Church To this our Author answers Gentlemen I bear an honour to our Puissant and Invincible Monarch and am very ready to obey all his just commands but in this particular I pray you have me excused God is a King superiour to our Prince and must be obeyed before him I fear His Majesties Displeasure and Vengeance but I am much more afraid of that of God the one may hang or break me upon the wheel but the other will damn me for evermore I beseech you therefore interpose with his Majesty on the behalf of me and my Brethren that we may have the same liberty of worshipping God as for many years past we have enjoyed under him and his Royal Predecessors We vow all Duty and Allegiance to his Person and Government we will defend them with our Lives and Fortunes and we have nothing so dear to us unless it be our Consciences which we are not willing to sacrifice for his just Honour and Advantage The Subscription you propose I cannot make without the offence of God and my Conscience And I must beg his Majesties Pardon if I chuse to obey the God of Heaven before his Vicegerent here on earth The Catholick Gentlemen replies His Majesty is willing and resolved to put an end to all Differences and Controversies in Religion he is weary of those eternal Squabbles that are managed by Divines of different perswasions The Temple of Janus shall be shut he will have no more Religious Wars among his Subjects To grant you the Liberty of serving God after your own Way is not a method of ending Differences but of perpetuating them For when you are pleased others may succeed to you and under pretence of Conscience carry on Differences as high as ever Let our Author answer the Argument of these Catholick Messieurs and I do humbly conceive I may be able from his own words to answer that of the Doctor if it be not sufficiently done already but let him not misunderstand or pervert my words I do not affirm that the Impositions in the Church of England and those of the Church of Rome are equally wicked burdensome and offensive all that I say is they are both unlawful in the judgment of those that do refuse them and the Arguments against relaxing those Impositions or granting Liberty to those that do refuse them are the same and must receive the same Answers Pag. 9. The Conformist had said That he hoped our Governours would distinguish between those that subvert the Christian Faith and those that err in small things Our Gentleman answers Thus our Governours have distinguished already and yet it hath not put an end to our Controversies nor is he the Conformist sure that once more distinguishing will do it To which I reply That when and where our Governours have made this distinction I confess the Countrey Conformist is as ignorant as our Author will needs have him in the Constitution of our Church p. 10. What particular persons may have done I do not enquire but what the Governours of our Church have done They have determined the conditions of Communion and upon what terms the Clergy may minister at the Altar but where by any publick act they have distinguished between the great essentials of the Christian Religion which must be believed and lesser errors that may be tolerated I do not know and cannot find If this Gentleman thinks that all things imposed as conditions of Communion either upon Laity or Clergy in England are of the essence of Christianity and that all who have other apprehensions concerning them are damnable Hereticks let him enjoy his Faith to himself I am not like to become his proselyte nor I think many others P. 10. Our Author proceeds Will not the excluded parties cry as loud for Liberty of Conscience and complain of persecution as they do now Either these are good arguments or they are not If they be they will hold good in all cases that men must not suffer for their consciences but be allowed the free exercise of their Religion according to their own persuasions If they be not let them leave off the pretences of scruples and tender consciences with that liberty and freedom in exercising their Religion which they challenge as their natural birthright and demand no more of that than what the merit of their Cause requires In this discourse there are more strange things than one 1. He declares that if those arguments that are brought for free exercise of Religion from scruple and tenderness of Conscience be good they must be good in all cases The meaning is this One
Church which he himself takes to be such a Union But he cannot tell he says p. 561. why it is Accidental to the Church of Christ to be National any more then to be Universal or Patriarchal and Metropolitical any more then Universal but when I tell him that the Body of Christ which is his Church may subsist though there were never a Patriarch or Metropolitan in the Earth I hope he can see if he will how the consideration of the Church as Patriarchal or Metropolitical and so National must be Accidental to it And as for Christs command of planting Churches p. 16. in the whole world and so in Nations and Cities and Towns requiring Unity and Communion every where among Christians it may warrant the Combinations of Patriarchal Metropolitical National Diocesan and Parochial Churches to this end if he please provided only that these forms be held Accidental forms according to humane prudence and not the Essential form of the Church of Christ according to divine institution To the question whether a National Church be Political he offers something p. 562. and says the Dean in his Opinion hath answered with great Judgment in his denying any necessity of a Constitutive Regent part to be Essential to a National Church But I will make it appear that either the Dean or his Defender do speak here with little Judgment It is the Notion this Author hath proposed to publick consideration that the Bishops in every Nation are to Govern the Church by consent that is as Colleagues per litteras formatas when they convene not and when they do by their Canons in a Convocation This he makes throughout his Book to be of Christs appointment holding Episcopacy to be Jure Divino with others of his party If this then be true this Author hath found out a Constitutive Regent part yea an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Regent part of the Church in every Nation where there are Christians and Bishops And when he hath found out a Head for the Doctor how can he thus applaud the Doctors answer that denies the Church to have one or sayes there is no necessity of any When he does prove it to be a Church Political and the Doctors answer includes a denyal of it to be so how comes this man to be so full of reverence here with these words in his mouth To this the Dean answers in my poor Opinion with great Judgment and Consideration It is with great Judgment indeed is it not that the Dean hath given up the Cause of the Bishops And with great Judgment is it not that this man hath assumed the Prerogative of the King to their Colledge Let him take heed least he bring himself into question Many Churches Associated for mutual help and concord are a Church only in a loose sense but those that are constituted of one Regent and subdite part are Churches in a Political proper sense It is no body Political without one common Governour Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical Thus says Mr. Baxter p. 563. Unto which says this Author Herein does his strength p. 564. consist Answ I acknowledge it does and what hath he to weaken it I will Transcribe what he says If we deny this that though a National Church be one body yet it is not such a Political body as he describes which differs from secular forms of Government by that ancient Canon of our Saviour It shall not be so among you the controversie may be at an end and a National Church may be one body in an Ecclesiastical though not in a Civil Political sense This is the help the Dean must expect from his Defender and if the Doctor be not ashamed of his own answer for this desense sake I know not what should put any man to shame This man tells me in his Preface he will interpose between the Dean and shame in this Controversie Upon this account therefore I will take leave to tell him that he does here manifestly betray a raw ignorance which ought to shame him He understands the term Political to be Commensurate with Civil as if a Government Ecclesiastical could not be Political as well as a Government Civil that is as if a Church could not be Political as well as other Societies He does yet discover the same more then by words for he hath found out a Head for the Church which is Aristocratical and yet thinks the Church cannot be Political unless it have some Head that is Personal or as if a Head Collective were not One Head as vvell as one that is Monarchical This man vvho hath interposed betvveen shame and the Doctor must take shame upon him seeing he calls upon me to do my part honestly in the same place I say this man hath found an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Head of the Church and that of Christs own Institution if he understands what he drives at and yet he and the Doctor will not allow the Church of England to be Political I will advise him to consult with Bishop Gunning and the excellently learned and yet humble Mr. Dodwell who are living seeing he hath not taken his Notions from Bramhal or any other who are dead as I conjecture that he may be instructed better before we hear any more from him Mr. Baxter indeed understands himself throughly and tells us Association of Churches for Concord gratia Unitatis are no proper Churches But an United Colledg of Bishops for government gratia Regiminis is a formal Ecclesiastical Head about which was the Original Question And this this bold and herein but half informed Author who will interpose between shame and the Doctor doth not understand neither and as soon as he hath read this will he own the shame he hath taken upon him Above all is there any man unless so forward a one would ever have produced that saying of our Saviour If shall not be so among you for the proving a National Church to have no Head or that the Churches of Christ must not therefore be Political I shall not be blamed I hope therefore if I say now again what I said to the Doctor That if this man be not ashamed for himself and the Doctor I must be ashamed for them both If we deny this says he the Controversie were at an end Well but when it cannot be denyed we must look farther P. 565. We grant says he a National Church is a Political Society for Government by consent without Superiority is Government I grant too Church Governours united and governing by consent are the Pars Imperans and the people submitting to such Government in obedience to the Commands of our Saviour are the Pars Subdita and all this is true without a constitutive Kegent Head I Answer if he grants or rather asserts thus much a Government by consent understanding by it the Episcopal Colledg or Cyprians One Episcopacy as the Governing part and the People by the Law of Christ subdite to it then hath he found