belonging unto it from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop and his Successors King Ina's Charter to the Abbey of Glassenbury exemps them from the Bishops Jurisdiction The like did King Offa concerning the Monastry of St. Albans An. 793. Kenulph King of Mercia that at Abington Anno 821. and Knut that at St. Edmvndbury An. 1020. Yea and there are several places at this very time exempt from Episcopal Jurisdiction Whatever our Princes in after Ages might lose as to the Exercise of their just Power 't is certain that Henry 8th reassumed it as appears by his dismembring some Diocesses and by his removing some Churches from one Jurisdiction to another For this Consult Dr. Burnets History of Reformation part 1. lib. 3. page 301. where you 'l find the Complaint of the Roman party beyond the Sea concerning the Kings encroaching on the Jurisdiction of the Church c. to which 't was answered That the Division of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whether of Patriarchs Primates Metropolitanes or Bishops was according to the Roman Law Regulated by the Emperours Of which the Antient Councils always approv'd And in England when the Bishoprick of Lincoln being judg'd of too great an extent the Bishoprick of Ely was taken out of it it was done only by the King with the consent of his Clergy and Nobles 'T is also evident out of Dr. Burnets Hist of the Ref. part 1. l. 3 p. 267. That this great Prince gave cut such a Commission to Bonner and it may be to others also as makes it most manifest that Diocesan Bishops were not of God's but only of the Magistrate's Institution Hence Bonner in his Commission from the King most gratefully acknowledges that he received it only from the King's bounty and must deliver it up again when it should please his Majesty to call for it even as Justices of the Peace c. whose Commission is ad Pacitum Moreover Lay-men had Ecclesiastical Dignities The E. of Hartford six Prebends promissed him as the Lord Cromwal in H. 8. was made Dean of Wells A thing very ordinary at that time Dr. Burnets Hist of the Refor part 2. Thus a Diocesane Episcopacy at best was judg'd but an humane Creature owing to the Magistrate alone for it's Rise and Conservation Secondly This seems to be the sense of the Reformers in Edward the 6th time who were under the Influence of that great Divine and Blessed Martyr Archbishop Cranmer In Henry 8th days Cranmer did his Utmost for the promoting a Reformation the which he did withal the Speed and Prudence the Ilness of the times would permit further attempt to carry on under King Edward and what he did was so highly approv'd of by all who were hearty for a Reformation that whoever considers how Unanimous the truly Protestans Bishops were in Concurring with this great Prelate Cranmer cannot but encline to think That their Principles in most things about Church Discipline were the same i. e. they were for the Divine Right of Bishops or Presbyters even when they judg'd the Superiority of a Bishop to a Presbyter to be but Humane That this may appear to be the sense of Cranmer I will only beseech my Reader to compare what was done under King Edw. 6th by this great Prelate with his Judgment concerning a Diocesan Episcopacy under Henry the 8th In Henry 8ths time Cranmer in answer to that Question Whether Bishops or Priests were first did assert That the Bishops and Priest were at one time and were no two things but both One Office in the beginning of Christs Religion That in the New Testament he that is appointed to be a BISHOP or PRIEST needeth no Cousecration by the Scripture for ELECTION or APPOINTING thereto is sufficient This was then Cranmers Judgment and I cannot understand that he did at any time in the least vary from it for in the Necessary Erudition which he subscribed there is nothing asserted but what is either Consistent with or an approbation of what was the Archbishops Opinion about these points 'T is true Cranmer was so Zealous an Asserter to the Kings Supremacy that he seem'd to be of that Opinion which doth now appear by the name of Erastianisme for he held That a Bishop or Priest by the Scripture is neither commanded nor forbidden to Excommunicate but where the Laws of any Region give him Authority to Excommunicate there he ought to use the same c. But from this he must be considered to have received because he subscribed the Necessary Erudition where 't is exprest That a part of the Priests or Bishops Office is according to the Scriptures to Excommunicate c. as well as Teach and Administer the Sacraments To all this add the Progress Cranmer made under Edw. 6. in the Reformation how far he went and how much farther he would have gone had not the Iniquity of those times been so exceeding great and the Reign of this worthy Prince so very short 'T is well known that he went so far as to tempt Dr. Heylin to conclude King Edwards death no Infelicity to the Church of England and to provoke Queen Elizabeth to say That they had stript the Church too much of its external Splendour and Magnificence That t was requisite to make some alteration in the Articles to the end a Compliance of the Roman Catholicks might be more easie What I have insisted on in this place about Cranmer is taken out of Dr. Burnets History and a Record in him ex M.SS. D. Stillingfleet 3. Such is the present Prerogative of his Majesty in Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Affairs that the asserting the Divine Right of a Diocesane Episcopacy is inconsistent with it The King is the Supream Head of the Church as well as of the State for which Reason he hath Power to appoint Officers to look after the management of Affairs in the One as in the Other But if the Diocesan Bishops depend not so much on the Prince for their Superiority and Power in making an Authoritative Inspection into Ecclesiasticalal Affairs as the Civil Magistrate who is it that is his Majesties Commissionated Officer about Ecclesiastical affairs T is either the Diocesane or None But if the Diocesane as such receives his Commission from Jesus Christ even as the Apostles did then they are Gods Officers and not the Kings And if so seeing the King doth nothing but by his Officers that is by such as act by a Commission received from him the King hath in this respect lost at least the Ezercise of his Prerogative But if they are the Kings Officers and depend as much on the King as the Civil then their Diocesan Episcopacy is not of Divine 't is but of Humane Right We acknowledge that 't is the sense of the Church of England that Princes are Ordain'd of God to Govern Ecclesiastical as well as other Persons and that therefore if we consider such as are appointed by the King to govern under him Circa Sacra as the
Officers of God Fundamentally and not Formally it may be granted But when we speak of the Officers of Christ in Contradistinction to the Officers of the King we mean such whose Authority is from God and remains good though the Prince should oppose it as in the case of the Primitive Officers of Divine Institution who being forbidden to Preach in Christs name could reply Whether we shall obey God or Man Judge ye The Office of a Presbyter or Congregational Bishop is so much of God that what right soever the Magistrate may have concerning Nomination Election or Presentation or Appointing of any such Ecclesiastical Ministers his Prohibition cannot make void that Commission he hath received from Jesus Christ But such as are Officers of the King whether about the matters of the Lord or about the King i. e. whether Circa sacra or about Civil Affairs 't is in the Power of the Supream Magistrate to give or take his Commission as it pleaseth him yea to direct to the Number of such Officers appointing them their peculiar work and to alter and change as the necessity of Affairs and State of the National Constitution shall require There must be a regard had unto the present temper and state of the Kingdom in which the Church is and a suiting the Ecclesiastical Affairs so far as they may have an influence on the State after such a manner as is most conducive to the more firm establishment of the Fundamental Constitution and consequently Peace of the State to which end the Civil Magistrate must still firmly adhere to that known Rule by which King Henry professed to walk which is expressed in the necessary Erudition viz. The Scripture doth teach That all Christian People as well as Priests and Bishops as all other should be obedient unto Princes and Potestates of the World For the Truth is that God Constituted and Ordained the Authority of Christian Kings and Princes to be the most High and Supream above all other Powers and Officers in this World in the Regiment and Government of their People and committed to them as unto the chief leads of their Commonwealths the Cure and Oversight of all the People which be in their Realms and Dominions without any exception and to them of Right and by Gods Commandment belongeth not only to prohibit Unlawfull Violence to correct Offenders by Corporal Death or other punishment to Censure Moral Honesty among their Subjects according to the Laws of their Realms to defend Justice and to procure the Publick Weal and Common Peace and Tranquility in Outward and Earthly things But Especially and Principally to Defend the Faith of Christ and his Religion to conserve and maintain the true Doctrine of Christ and all such as be true Preachers and Setters forth thereof and to abolish all Abuses Heresies and Idolatries and to punish with Corporal Pain such as of malice be the occasion of the same And Finally to Oversee and cause that the said Bishops and Priests do execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully and especially in those points which by Christ and his Apostles were given and committed unto them and in case they shall be negligent in any part thereof or would not diligently execute the same to cause them to redouble and supply their lack And if they obstinately withstand their Princes kind monition and will not mend their Faults then and in such case to put others in their rooms and places And God hath also commanded the said Bishops and Priests to obey with all humbleness and Reverence both Kings and Princes and Governours and all their Laws not being contrary to the Laws of God whatsoever they be and that not only propter iram but also propter Conscientiam that is to say not only for fear of punishment but also for discharge of Conscience Thus the Power of the Magistrate over all Persons to wit Ecclesiastical and Civil is according to the Ordinance of God and that 't is a Part of the Magistrates Office to Defend the Faith of Christ to maintain the true Doctrine and the Preachers thereof and to Abolish all Abuses c. the which must be done not only by keeping to the Rule of the Gospel but in conjunction therewith by taking a special care that no unnecessary thing be suffered that in its Tendency is destructive of the Peace of the State If the present constitution of the Government of the Church as it is National and of humane Right onely be in any Respects Inconsistent with the Publick Weal of the Kingdom t is necessary that it be alter'd especially when an Alteration in some little things may abundantly contribute unto the Lasting Peace both of Church and State But if the Church Government as Diocesane or National be of Divine Right there can be no Alteration of it and consequently seeing the setting up any of the Kings Officers to Inspect Ecclesiastical Affairs is an Altering the Diocesan Constitution the Prince durst not though encouraged by an Act of Parliament enter on it What is of Divine Right is Sacred and must not be touch'd 't is dangerous to come too near that Mount For which Reason how mischeivous soever the Ecclesiastical-National-Government may in Process of time be unto the Civil the Civil not the Ecclesiastical must be Altered That there may be an Adjusting matters in debate between the Diocesane and the State the State must submit unto the Diocesane For the King according to this Hypothesis hath nothing to do with Church Affairs which are wholly by the word of God confined to Churchmen among whose number the King cannot be justly mention'd neither may the King take any Cognizance of what is done among them nor may they hold their Courts in his but only in their own Name or rather in Jesus Christs A Notion so inconsistent with his Majesties just Prerogative and the Powers of Parliaments that as it doth destroy the Former in like manner it doth so very much limit the Latter as to Alter the Fundamental Constitution of our Government By this time I presume it may appear with some Conviction to the Reader 1. That a Parochial or Congregational Church Government is according to the Church of England Jure Divino 2. That the Diocesane or National Government as such is Jure Humano and for its particular Form must be such in all ages as our Civil Governours Judge most meet as a Means for the Preservation of Parochial Discipline and the great Ends of the Civil Constitution These things being so A Declaring this true Church of England Principle to be still according to the Sentiments of our Governours will Relieve tender Consciences among Dissenters and sufficiently gratifie any moderate Conformist to the Ending all our Divisions without an Embasing his Majesties Prerogative 1. The Establishing a Parochial or Congregational-Church-Discipline by Law is the great thing the Dissenters desire and what may be done consistently with the Antient Constitution of the Government of this
within their allotted Precincts discharge their Duty not only in leading Godly Lives but in Preaching the word administring the Sacraments and exercising Discipline according to the Rule of the Gospel We are far from pulling down such Bishops for we rather wish that whereas there is now one there might be five nor are we for the alienating Church Land any more than we are for the taking from his Majesties other Civil Officers those Pensions are allowed them for their great services A thing we esteem as necessary and highly expedient as what doth not only conduce very much to the Encouragement of all sorts of Learning the equal Administration of Justice but as what advanceth the Honour and Grandeur of the State But 3. This doth no way Embase his Majesties Prerogative in matters Ecclesiastical It doth rather make it the more Grand and August His Majesty is hereby acknowledged to be the Supream Head of the Church All Officers Circa Sacra depend as much on his Majesties Pleasure for their Places as any other Civil Officers 'T is in the Kings Name they must act by vertue of a Commission received from him whereby the King is Recognized as the sole Governour of the Kingdom and hath no Competitors with him nor is he in danger of Forreign Usurpations To summe up all Let all such Particular Congregational or Parochial Churches that are of Divine Institution according to the sense of the Old and most true Church of England be by Act of Patliament declar'd to be so and taken under the Protection of the Laws and the Dissenters are satisfied The which as hath been prov'd may be done without any wrong to the consciences of the Conformist This is the utmost I shall propose leaving it to the Wisdom of the Nation to Regulate and Order the Constitution so far as it is National and of Humane Make as they Judge most Expedient The States-men know best how to alter correct or amend any thing in the present Frame for which reason Modesty doth best become Divines whonever succeed in any undertakements beyond their Sphere If no encroachments be made on what is of Divine Institution no wrong can be done us I desire the Dean and his Substitute to consider this Proposal which is but a Revival of what was on our first leaving Rome strenuously asserted as the Onely way to break all the Designs of the Papists about Church Discipline From the corruptions of which did proceed all the Popes Tyranous Usurpations Certainly the Establishing this Notion cannot but be of extraordinary use as it Erects a Partition Wall between the Reformation and the Corruptions of the Roman Church as it is adjusted for the silencing all Differences among our selves the healing our Breaches and the fixing a firm and lasting Union among all sound Protestants whether Episcopal Presbyterian Congregational or meer Anabaptist I humbly apprehend this to be enough to evince That the Dissenters are not such Enemies to Union as some have Asserted nor are they for the destroying a National Church Government They are onely against Unaccountable Innovations even such as tend to the Ruine of the Old Protestant National Church which as such is but of Humane Institution and in all ages must be of such a Peculiar Form as is best suited to those great Ends viz. Gods Glory in the Flourishing of particular Parochial or Congregational Churches and the Peace of the State The Dissenters do know that as One Particular Church is not to depend on another as to be Accountable thereunto when at any time she may abuse her Power yet All are accountable unto the Magistrate of that Land in which they Live and that such is the state of things with us that what person soever is griev'd either by a Presbyter or Bishop or by any Inferiour Officer Circa Sacra he may make his Appeal to the Supream Magistrate with whom all Appeals on Earth are finally Lodg'd Whatever the Deans Substitute may assert 't is most undoubtedly true that no Appeal can be justly made from our King unto the Pope or any Colledge of Catholick Bishops whatsoever That herein as our Author dissents from the Church of England we do heartily agree with her That the sound Protestant Party among the Sons of the Church of England do accord with the Dissenters about this great Point is not only evident from what a Conformist hath written in the following Treatise but from what is asserted by the Judicious Dr. Burnet in the History of the Reformation The which I do the more chearfully insist on that the world may see How the Dissenters have been misrepresented and How clear they are from any Seditious or Factious Principles concerning Church Discipline In Dr. Burnets Preface to the History of the Reformation p. 1. for which the whole Kingdom have given the Dr. thanks 't is asserted That in Henry the 8ths time 't was an Establish'd Principle That every National Church is a compleat Body within it self so that the Church of England with the Authority and Concurrence of their Head and King might examine or Reform all Errors or Corruptions whether in Doctrine or Worship Moreover in the Preamble of that Act by which this Principle was fix'd 't is declared That the Crown of England was Imperial and that the Nation was a Compleat Body within it self with a full Power to give Justice in all Cases Spiritual as well as Temporal And that in the Spiritualty as there had been at all times so there were then men of that Sufficiency and Integrity that they might Declare and Determine all Doubts within the Kingdom And that several Kings as Ed. 1. Edw. 3. Ric. 2. and Hen. 4. had by several Laws Preserv'd the Liberties of the Realm both Spiritual and Temporal from the Annoyance of the See of Rome and other Forreign Potentates Hist Ref. p. 1. p. 127. Furthermore the same Judicious Author by an Extract out of the Necessary Erudition and out of the Kings Book de Differentia Regiae Ecclesiasticae Potestatis out of Gardiners de vera Obedientia and Bonners Prefix'd Epistle and out of a Letter written by Stokesly Bishop of London and Tonstall Bishop of Duresm hath made it evident that the Church in Henry 8. did not only assert the Kings Supremacy but as a Truth in Conjunction therewith held That in the Primitive Church the Bishops in their Councels made Rules for Ordering their Diocesses which they only called CANONS or RULES nor had they any Compulsive Authority but what was deriv'd from the Civil Sanction A sufficient evincement that they did not believe General Councils to be by Jesus Christ made the Regent part of the Catholick Church neither did they believe their Determinations or Decrees to lay any Obligation on the Conscience unless Sanction'd by the Magistrates command To this Dr. Burnet speaks excellently well in his Preface to the Second Part of the Hist Refor The Jurisdiction of Synods or Councils is founded either on the Rules
Church of England detected His notion about the Government of the Catholick Church the same with that of the French Papist THAT our Author entertains notions about the nature of the Visible Church and of the Schismatical very different from what the old Queen Elizabeth Protestants did will appear with the greatest conviction to such as will but consult the famous Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field who do most expresly contradict what is asserted in the Dean's Defence The Dean's Defender doth extremely insist on the Unity of the Universal Church as what doth consist in more than in the Unity of the Faith though in combination of those other graces of Love and Charity and Peace to wit in an external communion Take his own words in answer to a supposed objection P. 183. But though Faith alone is not sufficient to Christian Unity yet Faith in combination with those other graces of Love and Charity and Peace make a firm and lasting union This I readily grant saith he but yet must add this one thing That Christian love and charity and peace in the language of the New Testament and of the ancient Fathers when they signifie Christian Unity signifie also one communion that is the unity of a Body and Society which is external and visible and doth not only signifie the union of souls and affections but the union of an external and visible communion P. 184. By the union of an external and visible communion he means the living in Christian communion and fellowship with each other that is a worshipping God together after one and the same external and visible manner P. 248. Moreover he adds That such as separate themselves from the external communion of any particular Church that is part of the Universal do separate themselves from the Universal visible Church All Schismaticks in his opinion cut themselves off from the visible Catholick Church even as all such as are excommunicated are cut off This is the notion of the Deans Substitute which is as agreeable to the sense of the Papist as 't is in it self grosly absurd and different from the doctrine of sound Church of England Protestants That 't is agreeable to the sense of the Papists you 'l find in a Conference between Dr. Peter Gunning and Dr. Pierson with two Disputants of the Romish Profession All Schismaticks say the Romish Disputants are out of the Church and quite separate from it as a part cut off is separate from the body Schismatick is a term contradistinct to Catholick No Schismaticks can be true members of the Catholick church for Schism as they define it is a voluntary separation of one part from the whole true visible church of Christ The correspondency that there is between the Author of the Deans Defence and those Papists about the formal reason of Schism is as much as if the Defender had fetcht his Definitition of Schism out of their Writings which notion as embrac'd by one that professes himself a Protestant is as grosly absurd as 't is contrary unto Protestant principles I say such a notion entertain'd by a professed Protestant is grosly absurd for it exposeth him to the triumph of the Roman-catholicks it being impossible that the Papists notwithstanding their Schismatical Impositions should be esteemed Schismatical by our Author For all such as are Schismatical are saith he cut off from the visible Catholick Church of which the Church of Rome is acknowledged to be a true part although from it these men as they are Protestants separate and so cut themselves off from the Catholick visible Church for such as separate from any true part of the Catholick church according unto him do cut themselves off from the Catholick church and are Schismaticks Take a view then of the admirable abilities of our Auther who must be considered to assert either that the Church of Rome is Schismatical or not If not Schismatical the church of England must be so or otherwise there may be a separation from the external communion of a particular Church that is a part of the Universal without being guilty of Schism or of separating from the Catholick church But if the Church of Rome be Schismatical 't is either cut off from the visible Catholick church or not if not then Schism consists not in a separating from the visible Catholick church that is a man may be a Schismatick and yet a member of the catholick church a thing that our Author denies But if the church of Rome be cut off from the visible Catholick church then the distressed Papist is in as sad a condition as the Dissenter he is cut off from the church of Christ and must be either damn'd or saved by another Name than that of Jesus Christ If the latter then farewell Christian Religion If the former Where shall we find any part of the Universal Church beside the Church of England All the Protestants beyond the Sea are in the same state with the Dissenter at home The Church of Rome and all such as are in Subjection to that See are cut off from the Visible Catholick Church and it may be all the Eastern Churches in the World too that is the Catholick Visible Church is confin'd within the Pale of the Church of England Pure Prelatical Donatism with a witness Where will not Considence when the attendant of Ignorance lead men Moreover This Notion as 't is grosly absurd in like manner 't is most contrary to the old Protestant Principles Consult Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity lib. 3. and you 'll find nothing more fully asserted than That the Visible Church of Jesus Christ is therefore One in outward Profession of those things which supernaturally appertain to the very essence of Christianity and are necessarily required in every particular Christian man But we speak now of the Visible Church whose Children are signed with this mark One Lord one Faith one Baptifm In whomsoever these things are the Church doth acknowledg them for her Children So far Hooker But you will it may be object That such as are Schismatical or Excommunicate may acknowledge One Lord hold One Faith and receive One Baptism And shall such be consider'd as Members of the Visible Church Take Mr. Hooker's own words for an Answer If by external Profession they be Christians then are they of the Visible Church of Christ and Christians by external Profession are they all whose mark of Recognizance hath in it those things which we have mentioned yea although they be impious Idolaters wicked Hereticks Persons Excommunicable yea and cast out for notorious Improbity Thus 't is evident that Mr. Hooker entertain'd apprehensions quite contrary to those of our Author yea and Mr. Hooker doth consider the very Notion asserted by our Author to be Popish which he doth as such most excellently expose As for the Act of Excommunication saith he it neither shuts out from the Mystical nor clean from the Visible but only from the Fellowship with the Visible in holy Duties
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
this Extrinsecal Consideration sufficient to occasion a Difference that is Intrinsecal Moreover to return to his French Monarch Hath not the Experience of many a year assured us That when Monarchs design not the enlarging their own Monarchies they have done all they could to preserve other Monarchies An Aristocracy or a Democracy being things detestable in their eye 7. His answering the Letter of the Council by transcribing part of Sir Francis Walsingham's Letter as recorded in Dr. Burnet bing little to the purpose might have escaped my Consideration had it not been very necessary to suggest How prudently he overlook'd the great Principles on which the Queen grounded her proceedings the one being That Consciences cannot be forced but to be won and reduced by force of Truth with the aid of time and use of all good means of Instruction and Perswasion A Principle unto which if our Clergy would adhere it might have conduced very much to the Peace of the Church This I suppose is a sufficient Reply to the Dean's Substitute The Dissenters oppose Episcopacy and Ceremonies notwithstanding their Antiquity c. The Doctor 's Argument was here set forth to the greatest advantage of his Cause in his own words To which I reply'd That our not embracing Episcopacy c. does not advantage the Papist neither doth our rejecting it even when it pretends to so much Antiquity I having shewn that there was no such strength in their Argument of Antiquity if it fell short of an Absolutely Primitive or an Apostolical Antiquity as theirs really doth they not being able to shew in what part of the Scriptures their Dioâ—san Episcopacy is found it being consider'd as a Creature of Human make by many a Son of the Church yea and once by our great Doctor himself and it hath been prov'd by other hands unanswerably That there is no evidence for such an Episcopacy in the Church the first two hundred years for which reason Mr. Chillingworth's Argument shewing the vanity of such mens pretences about Antiquity that can ascend no higher than the fifth or fourth or third or second Age is it may be as pertinently urg'd as the little intimation of Mr. Ch's sense of the Antiquity of Episcopacy 'T is pleasant then to see with what pertness our Author hopes that our Enquirer will now grow so modest as not to cite Mr. Chil. any more against an Argument from Antiquity The other part of his Reply is as little to the purpose unless a declaiming against Protestant Arguments such as are too strong to receive an Answer be the most effectual way to ruine Popery 'T is true we reject the Popish pretences about Antiquity as futilous many Protestants in the number of which some Nonconformists may be listed having unanswerably proved Popery to be a Novelty However If Popery or Episcopacy be not agreeable to the Scriptures whatever their pretences are to Antiquity they will be found unworthy the consideration of a solid Divine and therefore because he sends me to Bishop Jâ—wel Part 1. p. mihi 539 c. I 'll give the Reader an account of his sense against Harding The Truth of God saith the Bishop is neither further'd by the Face of Antiquity nor hinder'd by the Opinion of Novelty For oftentimes the thing that is New is condemned as Old and the thing that is indeed Old is condemned as New If Newness in Religion in all respects and every way were ill Christ would not have resembled his Doctrine to New Wine c. Arnobius saith The Authority of Religion must be weighed by God and not by Time It behoveth us to consider not upon what day but what things we begin to Worship The thing that is true is never too late Saint Augustine saies The Heathen say The Religion that was First cannot be False as if Antiquity and old Custom could prevail against the Truth The old Learned Father Tertullian saies Whatsoever thing savoureth against the Truth the same is an Heresie yea although it be a Custom never so Old c. This surely is the Protestant Doctrine whence to talk of Antiquity in order to the countenancing that in Religion which finds no favour from the Scriptures is but to advance the Papal Interest who have but little beside the pretence of Antiquity to support their Abominations SECT III. A search for the Schismatick A true state of the Difference between the Church of England and the Protestant Dissenter The Dissenter according to our Author's Notion clear'd from Schisme The Church of England found Guilty Some Remarks on several other passages in the Dean's Defence An Account of some of the Dean's Mistakes The Dissenter no friend to Popery The Conclusion 1. THAT our Divisions advance the Popish Designs is acknowledged But the 2. Enquiry is Who is the Faulty Divider It being the Faulty Divider alone who gives the Papist the advantage The great Enquiry then must be after the Faulty Divider Whether the Conformist or the Nonconformist be the Divider The state of the Case was given in the Enquiry p. 23. where the Principle on which the Dissenters proceed was laid down and improv'd this should have been consider'd by our Author but he was so prudent as to pass it by For which Reason without any Reflections on my Learned Adversary I must mind him of the state of the Controversie and shew wherein he hath exercised his Wisdom in leaping over what he could not handsomly remove out of the way In the Enquiry after the Faulty Divider I shewed wherein the Parties at variance agreed and wherein they differ'd 1. They agreed in those Points commonly called Docirinal or Substantial in contradistinction to lesser things about Worship and Church-Discipline c. They differ'd about what was in the Judgment of the Dissenter Sinful but in the Opinion of the Episcopal only Indifferent 'T is true the Episcopal represent us as a weak People whose Consciences as to those particulars are Erreneous that therefore we must cast off these erring Consciences and submit Our Reply is We seek Heaven for Counsel we study hard for the Truth read with the greatest Impartiality and Freedom the Discourses the Episcopal have written For we can solemnly and with much sincerity declare as in the presence of an Heart-searching God We would with the greatest chearfulness Conform to all the Impositions if we thought we could do it without sin That we are so peevish as to lose the Comforts of a good Benefice merely to gratifie an obstinate Humour if we are in danger of being biass'd one way more than another by carnal considerations 't is towards Conformity For if we conform we are freed from the reproaches and contempt of many from the continued fear of Imprisonment and other uncomfortable severities and in a fair way of abounding with the good things of this life for the supporting our selves and Families But if we conform not we are represented as Factious and Seditious expos'd to the Rage of every vile
Informer in constant danger of Fines c. and of more miseries than I can with delight reherse However though there are considerations enough from the world to byas our minds in a seeking for the Truth to lean towards Conformity yet desiring to approve our selves sincere towards God we find That we cannot without sin conform we cannot without sinning deliberately and knowingly comply with the Episcopal Impositions and if we should notwithstanding conform to live and die Conformists we should knowingly and deliberately sin yea and die under the guilt thereof which is a thing so hazardous to the soul that we durst not touch with Conformity lest we die lest we die eternally We censure not such as do conform because they not lying under the same convictions of Conscience as we do may not by their Conformity run that hazard which we unavoidably must should we against the light of our Consciences comply There is a great difference between those that act according to the directions of their Consciences and such as act contrary thereunto For which reason I wonder that our great Church-men should say that Mr. Baxter represented all Conformists as a company of Perjured Villains meerly because he shew'd that if the Nonconformists should contrary to the Dictates of their Conscience conform they should be guilty of Perjury and several other great sins But though this be the truth yet there are some who will not believe it who say we do we what we can for their satisfaction will count us a pack of Hypocrites For which reason that I might anticipate the censure I laid down the Principle unto which Dissenters do most firmly adhere the discussing which is what they do most sincerely desire The Principle is this That the word of God contained in Scripture is the only Rule of the Whole and of every part of true Religion As for external circumstances as time and place c. being no part of though necessary appendages unto our Religion From this Principle I proceed to this Conclusion That whatever part of the Service of the Church of England is impos'd on us as so necessary a part of our Religion as to be a term of Communion if not agreeable to the word of God in Scripture that Imposition is sinful Our Adversary considers that such as live in England and yet are not of the Church of England do not belong unto the Catholick Church that is they are all in a state of damnation Hence 't is we must according unto him be a member of the Church of England or be damned We are willing with all our hearts to be members of the same Church with them i. e. to be members of the Catholick Church is what we desire But this say they we cannot be but by complying with their imposed terms To which we reply Let their terms be as Catholick as they pretend their Church is and we 'l comply i. e. Let them keep to a few certain and necessary things let them not impose as terms of Union any thing but what is according to the Word of God in Scripture we are satisfied the Controversie is at an end But if they will take on 'em to make that a part of true Religion yea so necessary a part as to make it a term of our communion with the Catholick Church 't is a sinful encroachment on the Prerogative of the Lord Jesus Christ with which we dare not complâ— If they expeâ—t our compliance why do they not shew the Scriptures that declare the things they impose to be so necessary a part of true Religion as to be a form of our communion with the Catholick Church They must not only shew that those things are aâ—reeable to true Religion but moreover that they are so necessary a part thereof that whoever conforms not to them when impos'd is â—pso â—â—sact cut off from the Catholick Church This they can never do and therefore can never clear themselves from being the Faulty dividers When we provoke 'em to shew us what Scriptures direct them to their Impositions we are turn'd off with Where is it forbidden as if they had acted exactly to the Rule * Si objiciant in sacris literis non haberi Invocandos esse Sanctos venerandas Imagines abstinendum à Carnibus in t aliquid ejâ—sâ—nodi non ergo ista esse facienda nos contra objiciamus quidem Efficacius Hâ—c Sacris Literis non Prohiberi atque sine piccato fieri posse quia â—â—hi non est Lex ibi nec prâ—evaricatio Cosâ— Irstit Chriâ—t l. 2. c. 1. Costerus the Jesuit gave his young Scholars If any object Where are those points viz. The Invocation of Saints The worshipping of Images The abstaining from flesh and the like found in Scripture and because not found in Scripture therefore to be rejected To which saith the Jesuit answer thus Ask where 't is forbidden in Scripture if not forbidden in Scripture 't is no sin to observe 'em for where there is no Law there is no transgression So far Costerus To whom we rejoyn That the holy Scriptures being the only Rule of the Whole and of Every part of true Religion if these things be not according to the Scripture 't is because there is no truth in ' em There must be an exact correspondency and agreeableness between the Rule and its Regulate The Regulate must be brought to the Rule and if it doth not agree with it 't is because the Regulate is not Right The word of God in Scripture is the Rule what Religion soever varies from the Rule 't is a false Religion Rectum est Index sui obliqui There are some Religions are larger than the Rule There are other Religions that fall short of the Rule They who embrace any Notion as a part of their Religion which is not to be found in Scripture is too large for the Scripture and such as reject what the Scripture injoins have a Religion too short The one puts the Scripture on the Rack to stretch it to their Religion but the other pares off a considerable part of Scripture that the Rule may not exceed their Religion But such as keep exactly to the word of God in Scripture who neither go beyond nor fall short of it are in the right To make that a part of our Religion which is not to be found in Scripture is to take that for a part of our Religion which God hath not made a part thereof which is sinful How much more so is the making it a term of communion That the things in controversie between the Church and the Dissenter are not to be found in Scripture and consequently are no part of true Religion is evident not only because we can't understand where 't is to be found nor because the Church-men cannot direct us where to find it but because they themselves look on 'em as indifferent i. e. as what is not injoin'd us in the word of God
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
and renders sincere Obedience to the known Will of God he shall be saved All which may be even with those who being verily perswaded that their compliances with the present Impositions are sinful durst not Conform that is The Promise of Salvation is made by Christ to many who do not conform to the Impâ—sitions of the Church of England But Salvation by our Author is denied unto such their Non-compliance is enough to make 'em Schismatical to cut them off from Christ and the hopes of Salvation which being no ways justifiable in the Conscience of any sober man the Dissenters are unjustly Excommunicated and he that so Excommunicates is Schismatical 'T is most certain That many good Christians cannot conform to the imposed terms of Communion with the Church and that for this single Reason they are Excommunicable if not actually Excommunicated from the Church that is put out of a state of Salvation The which being so 't will unavoidably follow That either the Excommunication is unjust or That the Church hath greater Power than he that is the Lord of it to open and shut the gates of Heaven If the latter then the Church sets itself up above all that is called God in this world and Christ in the other For whereas Repentance towards God and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient for our Salvation these add somwhat more to wit an Obedience to new Impositions threatning the neglect with Damnation But if the former if the Excommunication is unjust then according to Dr. Gunning with the addition of our Author Our Ecclesiastical Governours are the Schismaticks The Argument here in short is this He that doth unjustly Excommunicate any out of the Catholick Church is a Schismatick This is Dr. Gunning's But the Church of England shutting those out of Salvation to whom Christ hath promised it Excommunicates unjustly This is our Authors Therefore the Church of England according to the Position of our Author is the Schismatick Hereby we may easily perceive what an admirable Defender the Church of England hath in the Defender of the Dean and how little the true Protestant Clergy of the Church are beholding to this man who insists on such Notions as do necessarily lead judicious men to conclude the Church of England Schismatical But to return to our Author who leaping over all the difficulties though but hinted in the Enquiry runs unto another Question viz. From Ceremonies to Circumstances form the Parts of their Religion to the external Appendages thereunto confounding the one with the other and then runs triumphantly assuring his Reader That 't is impossible to worship God or exercise any act of Religion but it must be in some time or in some place it must be done in some circumstances therefore we may make some things a part of our Religion which God has not At this rate he fills up a great part of his Second Chapter Insisting on nothing but what had its answer in that Enquiry he attempted to confute Therefore if I should say no more than what I have in giving the true state of the Controversie it would be sufficient For it lies on him either to prove to our Conviction that We may without sin comply with their Impositions i. e. He must so far effectually enlighten our Conscience as to help us to see that the Impositions are not sinful and that we may lawfully Conform or shew That we must Conform contrary to the Convictions of our Consciences and render a blind Obedience unto their Commands Believing as the Church believes or they ought to remove the Impositions or acknowledge that our Compliances are not sinful One of these must be done Let him do either and the Controversie will be ended and the Dissenters freed from Schisme But if he cannot enlighten us to see the Lawfulness of their Impositions nor perswade us to render a blind Obedience nor remove the Impositions but plead for their continuance 't will appear That they by imposing what in their Judgments is but Indifferent as things necessary to our Salvation are the Schismaticks This might suffice as a full Answer But that nothing may escape consideration that our Author may think deserves it I le reflect a little on his main strength If there be any force in this Argument says he it consists in these two things First That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with And secondly That the Opinion of Dissenters That indifferent things are unlawful in the worship of God is a just reason for parting with them For if it be not lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent those who retain the use of some indifferent things cannot meerly upon that account be called Dividers or Schismaticks and if the opinion of Dissenters that all indifferent things are unlawful be not a sufficient reason for parting with them then there may be no fault in the Episcopals will not nor a sufficient justification or excuse in the Dissenters cannot p. 9. First saith he If there be any force in this Argument it consists in two things First That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with This is his mistake he should have said That if there be any strength in the Enquiry it lyes in this viz. No one indifferent Ceremony must be made so necessary a part of Religion as to be a term of Communion 'T is this he should have considered For you sin by insisting on any one or more indifferent things so zealously as to make 'em terms of Communion with your Church and consequently with the Church Catholick so as to deny us a right to Christ and Salvation for a mere non-compliance You can part with your indifferent Ceremonies without sin and open the door of Salvation to the wretched Dissenter if you will even when they cannot without sin comply with your intolerable Impositions The indifferent things you impose you impose as terms of our Communion with you which you make to be the same with Catholick Communion that is of Salvation 2. You add the second thing viz. That the Opinion of Dissenters That Indifferent things are unlawful is a just reason for parting with them For if it be not say you lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent those who retain the use of Indifferent things cannot merely upon that account be called Dividers or Schismaticks c. You should remember that I distinguished between Ceremonies and Circumstances between what is a part of Religion and Intrinsecal thereunto and what is Extrinsecal only But you run to external Circumstances that are necessary in Thesi which is off from the point in hand You run from what is Indifferent to what is Necessary as if we called you to part with any necessary thing whereas there is never any indifferent Ceremony that is grievous to our Consciences but you may part with or cease to impose 'em and yet
worship God But to divide necessary circumstances of Action from the Action is impossible A thing we no way desire 'T is true as you assert A man who is to remove from London to York is not bound either to go thither on foot or on horseback or in a Coach or in a Waggon each of these ways are in themselves indifferent but yet if he will travel to York he must use one or ether of those ways of Motion not one in particular is necessary yet one or other is But what is this to our purpose What though the Partition-wall between Ceremonies and Circumstances be broken down and they all mingled together and all must be consider'd alike but as Circumstances What will this help you To keep to your pretty Allusion with one necessary Addition viz. One hath not strength to walk on foot from London to York another cannot bear the riding in Coach yet to York they must go If you 'll keep to the point before us you must say to the person that cann't walk to York Some way of Motion is necessary to your going to York if you 'l go thither therefore you shall walk or not go thither And to the other that can't ride in a Coach if you 'll not go thither in a Coach you shall not go at all and yet give him the Strapadâ— for not going thither This is the Case and how easily may they reply unto you on your calling them to hasten to York on these impossible terms or to the Bisliâ—ps Colehouse We would go to York with all our heart on Horseback or in a Waggon but to walk or to ride in a Coach we cannot You can give us leave to go thither on horsback if you will but you will not we would go but go in Coach or walk we cannot Here is a division your will not and our cannot who now is in fault That they cannot is evident because of weakness and Infirmity of body That you can permit 'em to go on Horseback is as unquestionable but yet you will not Thus we have the strength of our Author's Reply You must get into the visible Catholich Church or to prison and you cannot get in but you must either use some external circumstances in some time or in some place c. therefore this time or no time this place or no place Sir by your good favour as you acknowledg this or the other particular circumstance to be indifferent and that other circumstances may be chosen if not this to make either of these indifferent circumstances a necessary tâ—rm of communion is sinful and schismatical To make of a little thing so great a bar to shut thousands out of heaven is what you will never be able to answer when you shall appear before the Tribunal of a righteous God But as to the true state of the Controversie 't is another thing you make that a part of Religion which God hath not made you impose uninstituted ceremonies and in many things recede from the Apostolical Institution and call on us on pain of damnation to comply with you We must comply or be cut off from the Catholick Church even from the body of Christ from all hopes of salvation These things being thus plain I 'le gratisie our Authors desire in considering his Logick If the Dissenters can without sin says he obey their Governours in indifferent that is in lawful things but will not and the Episcopal would be content to part with indifferent things for union but cannot who is the Divider What must be done for Union Must the Dissenters comply in things wherein they can without sin or must the Episcopal sin and lose their peace with God fot Union p. 29. This is called by our Author an Argument but why I cannot imagine however let it be so wherein lies its strength or how comes it to pass that this cannot be answered without a shewing Sophistry to be where 't is not If there be any force in this Argument it must be either in this viz. That the Impositions are in the judgment of the Dissenters Lawful or Indifferent which may be submitted unto without sin Had this suggestion been true we would grant him the whole he desires viz. That the Dissenters refusing to do what is Lawful in their own judgment to be done for Union they are Faulty But 't is notirious That the imposed terms are of such a nature that they cannot be submitted unto by the Dissenter but he must grievously offend the most high God to the wounding his own conscience If its strength lyes not there it must in this That the Episâ—â—pal would be content to part with indifferent things but cannot And why can they not What is the matter that they cannot part with toys and trifles to take many a thousand within the pale of the Church and thereby help 'em to Heaven The things are still supposed indifferent by our Author and therefore a parting with 'em is not contrary to any Law nor sinful Why then can they not without sin part with what they can part with without sin This is surely mysterious They cannot part with that without sin which they can part with without sin and Yet will not part with it though according to their own judgment their not parting with their indifferent things tends to the unavoidable destruction of souls They know the Dissenters unless these indifferent things be past by must be kept out of the Church of England that is out of the Catholick Church say they and remain to the last hour of their life in a state of damnation Whence then did I say What must must be done for Union I may now say What must be done to save the thousands of Souls for whom Christ died Must the Episcopal part with what they can without sin and take the Dissenters into the Catholique Church and thereby save their Souls or must the Dissenters sin that they may be saved What Is there no way to Heaven for English Dissenters but their complying with sinful Impositions T was said in the Apostles days that We must not do evil that good may come thereof Then surely if we will be of the Apostles judgment We must not sin to save our Souls Our Unrighteousness doth not cannot commend the Righteousness of God But Before I dismiss this Point that the Reader may be fully satisfied that I abuse not our Author I must beseech him to consider 1. That our Author hath in a way different from the greatest or rather the better part of the Clergy asserted That our not holding external communion with the Church of England is a cutting our selves off from the Catholick Church a putting our selves out of the Way of Salvation This is the main scope of his discourse A notion concerning which Dr. Stillingfleet's thoughts are desired 2. That notwithstanding the absolute necessity there is of the Dissenters returning to the Church of England that they may become members
afraid this is all that is attainaable in this Nation yea and in the Christian world whatever our Author may say to the contrary and that those that will have more shall have less 'T is with Christian Churches as 't is with some weakly constituted bodies if no violent remedies be used they may drill out for many years but if you will be tampering and nothing will satisfie you but a perfect health you will soon destroy them If Churches that have some defects may be endured God may have some worship and we may see some peace among Christians but if like Ecclesiastical Mountebanks we will be perpetually trying experiments upon sickly and diseased Churches we may disturb the peace of Christians destroy the Churches and leave few to call upon the name of God in the world What I have discoursed I think may with some probability be expected from Mr. H.'s design But can we expect so much from the design of this Gentleman Or is there the least shadow for it For my part I can see no such thing he must have better eyes or worse than I have that can see any advantage like to betide Protestants by uniting in a General Council or in a Patriarch or Pope ruling by the Canons thereof And yet I think this is that our Author would be at For he affirms That it is not enough or sufficient to Christian Unity that the Christians of one Nation or one Congregation be united among themselves unless they be united to the Catholique Church For if there be but one Church a whole Nation may be Schismatical as well as single persons c. Well then I am past all doubt that Protestants will never agree to the Canons of a General Council nor to the Government of a Patriarch or Pope according to those Canons and then they are all Schismaticks and if the Princes in whose Dominions they live can be prevailed withal to do it they are to be Proscribed Banished sent to the Galleys and Mines or be chastised at home by Axes and Halters And I think this is a very pious and charitable Design and becoming a Protestant Doctor and Son of the Church of England But by the way give me leave to add that whereas this Gentleman hath undertaken to vindicate the Learned Dean of St. Pauls from what Mr. Humfrey hath said against him concerning the Constitutive Head of this National Church I am shrewdly afraid that he has given up the Doctor 's Cause and left it to shift for it self as well as it can or rather asserted that of his Adversary The Doctor had said That we deny any need of a Constitutive Regent part or one Formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church This Mr. H. confutes and this Author affirms and defends but grants a pars imperans subdita or a ruling and ruled part p. 567. Church-Governours united and governing by consent says he are the governing part Christian people in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour submitting to such Government are the ruled part and all this is true without a Constitutive Regent Head pag. ibid. This methinks looks strange That the Bishops by consent which consent they are obliged to by the Laws of Christ should be the pars imperans and yet not the Constitutive Regent Head is in my opinion a Paradox For I would fain learn what it is that makes a Constitutive Regent Head to any Body Is it not Right and Obligation to Rule Doth not this make Kings and Princes Constitutive Heads of their Principalities and Kingdoms And doth not this make Aristocracies and Democracies the essential Regent part of those Commonwealths over which they do preside Have the Bishops of this Nation Right and Obligation to rule all the Christian People in it This I think our Author will grant And how he will deny them to be the Constitutive Head of the National Church with any consistency of Reason I do not yet understand This Gentleman indeed says That though a National Church be one body yet ' t is not such a body as he Mr. B. describes nor can be according to its Original Constitution which differs from Secular Forms of Government by that ancient Church-Canon of our Saviour It shall not be so among you And then adds A National Church as governed by consent may be one body in an Ecclesiastical though not in a Civil Political sense That it cannot be a Body consisting of Head and Members in a Political sense according to Mr. B's description I do not find proved by that Church-Canon of our Saviour That the Ecclesiastical and Civil Forms of Government do differ I readily grant but are there no other Differences but such as are essential A Regent formal Head and Members is of the essence of political bodies and that is no body that is without them whatever ever this Gentleman says to the contrary Many other defects are consistent with the being of Political bodies but if they want a Head they are no Body The Church differs in many things from Civil Political bodies and particularly in this that it is not armed with civil power and jurisdiction p. 566. by which I suppose this Author means Coercive power But what then Hath the Church no Constitutive Head because it hath no Coercive power or because it cannot imprison fine and destroy its members Masters and Parents and Tutors can't do these things and yet most men think they are the Regent formal Heads of their Families children and pupils Well then against that marvellous Oracle of our Author That a National Church governed by consent may be a body in an Ecclesiastical tho' not in a civil political sense i. e. tho' it may be a Church yet it cannot be a Commonwealth or Kingdom I will advance this proposition That a National Church is a body in a political sense as well as in an Ecclesiastical or else it is no body at all and that according to his own doctrine And if he will defend the Deans cause he must write a book in his own confutation which I think he ought to do in revenge on himself that he hath hitherunto betrayed it as the Dr. has the Church of England's Our Author I remember somewhere calls Mr. Humfrey Mr. Baxter's Eccho when yet Mr. Humfrey's Answer to the Drs. Book came out before Mr. Baxter's When the Eccho now can be proved to go before the Voice or the Voice to follow the Eccho then shall the Deans determination of the question between him and them concerning the Constitutive Head of the National Church be held as unanswerable as this Gentleman affirms it in one place and as admirable as he cryes it up in another Having said thus much on the behalf of Mr. H. I shall add a few lines more before I return to the vindication of the Countrey Conformist The learned D. of St. Pauls had charged the Nonconformists with joining with the Papists for a general Toleration and
to appear above board and to let us know whether he will set up also for that notion and defend his Defender Mr. Baxter is a man who understood Politicks and stated what he understood but the Doctor was at the present raw and put into his arguing he did not know well what that is the truth on 't and forasmuch as this man hath undertaken to interpose between shame and the Doctor I will tell them both plainly the Doctor may be ashamed to put in a fourth Term into his Argument and this man truly takes the shame on him by bringing in a fifth also That which Mr. Baxter said was this That every proper Political Church must have a Constitutive Head and the Doctor both leaves out the words Proper Political and brings in the term Visible Therefore the Catholick Church says he must have a Constitutive Visible Head The Interposer now to take off this shame from the Doctor hath taken the right course I say for he comes and does worse and that is puts in a fifth term also into the Argument If every Church when he should say every Proper Political Church only if he speaks to Mr. Baxter must have a Visible Subordinate Constitutive Head then must the Catholick Church have such a one But that having no such a one a National Church as well as the Catholick may be without a Constitutive Head This is the Reasoning in the summ I say in the sum for it is no matter for more of his words that puts me and Mr. Baxter as he says at such a loss as is irrecoverable And does he not indeed take off the shame from the Doctor by taking it thus upon himself Suppose another should put a sixth term into the Argument and argue If no Church can be a true Visible Church without a Visible Subordinate Monarchical Constitutive Head then cannot the Catholick Church visible be a true Church without a Visible Subordinate Monarchical Constitutive Head Who could doubt now any longer but Mr. Baxter must yield to a plain Confutation or bring in the Pope presently without remedy But did Mr. Baxter I pray lay down the Proposition from which this Consequence by this means is indeed made unavoidable No you will say this were to wrong Mr. Baxter to put in the term Monarchical and would spoil this mans Goverment by Consent quite I say likewise that this Author wrongs him to put in this term Subordinate and the Doctor by putting in the term Visible Mr. Baxter hath neither of these terms in his Assertion and if you cannot argue from what he hath said that the Pope is Head of the Catholick Church Visible you cnanot argue from him that it hath any Subordinate Head or Visible but a Constitutive Head only whether Visible or Invisible It is nothing else but the Fallacy whereby the Opponent puts in more into the Argument then is granted by the Respondent which I think we called at the University Fallacia plurium interrogationum vel dictionum for whether the diverse things are interrogated or argued the Paralogism is the same that hath made all this pother as this man phrases it which seeing it is on their side I will give over any farther persuit of this Chapter There is one thing only and that is the main thing not to be omitted The Dean in his Determination of this point does hold that Consent is sufficient to the making a National Church understanding by that Consent a Consent to be of it The Deans Defender holds the Church to be a Government by Consent meaning by it the Consent of the Bishops These are two contrary things the one making the Church not Political and the other makes it an Aristocracy and yet intends to justifie the former But neither of them are in the right The Church of England is not a Church by Consent onely without a Head nor a Government by Consent by the Colledge of Bishops but it is a Political Church with a Constitutive Regent part which is the King according to my Papers That the King is the Head of it appears by the Statute that declares him Head of the Church as it is called the Church of England It appears by other Acts that give him the same Supremacy the Pope usurped It appears by the First Fruits and Tenths of all Benefices given him as the Supream Head of the Church It appears by Cromwell who was made Henry the Eigths Vicar General and Vicegerent and sate in the Convocation as Personating the Head of it It appears by this Reason of my Book Where the Rights of Majesty are there must the Headship be placed Legislation and the Last appeal belong to him It is the King gives Authority to the Canons in so much as when a Law cannot pass without a Parliament the Canons becomes valid by the Kings own Ratification And there can be no Appeal in any Ecclesiastical cause from the King Again it appears most unanimously by the Ministers Prayers every Sunday giving him the Title of Supream Head and by the Oaths of Supremacy and Alleigance If the King be not the Head accordingly then must the Clergy generally be both Lyars and Perjured Persons From this truth then which is beyond opposition it follows that a National Church is of Humane appointment and not of Divine right that is indispensible It follows that it belongs not to the Essence of the Church of Christ to be National but that this is a consideration accidental to it It follows that such a Church may receive its Constitution at first and a new form or mould at any time as is most convenient to the State and most conducive to the glory of God in the good of the People It follows that a Reformation of the Government of our Church by the introducing some such new form into it as shall be more conducive to the ends of Holiness and Peace than the present Form does were a most desireable thing and fit to be tendred to the Wisdom of Parliament It follows finally that seeing the model that is hammering by this Author is proposed as strictly of Divine Right which is therefore the most direfull Schismatical Scheme that can be proposed in regard to Dissenters excluding them thereby out of the body of Christ and consequently from salvation besides dangerous to the Supremacy of the Magistrate and unanswerably faulty in many respects so that it cannot be received or indured it is fit that a model more agreeable to the power which is proper to Kings and less exceptionable in regard to the Conscience of the Subject were exhibited in the room of it and if it be such as would make the Prelates onely the Kings Officers to execute under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings as this Author so well expresses it p. 275. so as the Nonconformist and Conformist may share I shall not for the dislike of any one or two men or party who are designing an Antipodes
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
of Rome's Authority Upon which Submission of the Clergy the King gave unto the said Bishops the same ample Rule that before they had under the Pope over their Inferior Brethren saving that the same Rule was abridg'd by Statute by this Parenthesis following that is to say without offending the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England and the Laws and Customs of the Realm in the latter end of the Statute it was added That whosoever offendeth in any one part of that Statute and their Aiders Counsellers and Abetters they did all fall into the penalty of the Praemunire And after I had recited this Statute in the Parliament-House I declared that in King Henry the 8th's days after this there was no Bishop that did practise Superiority over the Inferior Brethren And in King Edward's days the said Bishops obtained a Statute whereby they were Authorized to keep their Courts in the Kings Name the which Statute was repealed in Queen Maries days and was not revived in her Majesties time that now is whereupon it was doubtful to me by what Authority the Bishops do keep their Courts now in their own Names because it is against the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England that any should keep a Court without sufficient Warrant from the Crown Whereupon I was answered that the Bishops do keep their Courts now by Prescriptions and it is true that the Bishops may Prescribe that King Henry the 8th gave them Authority by the Statute of the 25th of his Reign to have Authority and Rule over their Inferior Brethren as ample as they had in the Popes time For this was no special Warrant for them to keep their Courts by and that in their own Names And yet they have none other Warrant to keep their Courts as they do now in their own Names to my knowledg And this was the Cause that made them obtain a Statute in King Edward's days to keep their Courts by in the Kings Name Now it is a strange Allegation that the Bishops should claim Authority at this present to keep their Courts in their own Names as they do by Prescription because the Statute of 25. doth restrain them generally from offending of the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England and the Laws and Customs of the Realm And no man may justly keep a Court without out a special Warrant from the Crown of England as is aforesaid And the general Liberty given by King Henry the 8th to the Bishops to Rule and Govern as they did in the Popes time is no sufficient Warrant to the Bishops to keep their own Courts in their own Names by Prescription as I take it And therefore the Bishops had done wisely if they had sought a Warrant by Statute to keep their Courts in the Queens Name as the Bishops did in King Edward's days in which time Archbishop Cranmer did cause Peter Martyr and Bucer to come over into this Realm to be placed in the Two Universities for the better Instruction of the Universities in the Word of God And Bishop Cranmer did humbly prefer these Learned men without any challenge to himself of any Superior Rule in this behalf over his Inferior Brethren And the time hath been that no man could carry away any Grant from the Crown of England by general words but that he must have special words to carry the same by Therefore now the Bishops are Warranted to carry away the keeping of their Courts in their own Names by Prescription it passeth my understanding Moreover whereas your Lordship said unto me that the Bishops have forsaken their claim of Superiority over their inferior Brethren lately to be by Gods Ordinance and that now they do only claim Superiority from her Majesties Supreme Government If this be true then 't is requisite and necessary that my Lord of Canterbury that now is do recant and retract his saying in his Book of the great Volume against Cartwright where he saith in plain words by the name of Dr. Whitgift that the Superiority of Bishops is Gods own Institution which saying doth impugn her Majesties Supreme Government directly and therefore it is to be retracted plainly and truly For Christ truly and plainly confesses John 18.36 That his Kingdom was not of this world and therefore he gave no worldy Rule or Preheminence to his Apostles but the Heavenly Rule which was to Preach the Gospel saying Ite praedicate in omnem mundum Quicunque crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvus erit qui non crediderit condemnabitur Go and Preach in all the world whosoever shall believe and be baptized shall be saved but he that will not believe shall be condemned Mar. 16.16 But the Bishops do cry out saying That Cartwright and his Fellows would have no Government c. So belike the Bishops care for no Government but for worldly and forcible Government over their Brethren the which Christ never gave to his Disciples nor Apostles but made them subject to the Rule of Princes who ought not to be resisted saving that they might answer unto Princes that they must rather obey God than men Act. 5.29 And yet in no wise to resist the Prince but to take up the Cross and follow Christ So far Sir Francis Knolles Discourse in Parliament concerning the Episcopacy c. But to return I would fain know why we may not think honourably of good beginnings even when we cannot approve of such as put a stop thereunto Is the Episcopacy of King Edward so much the same in all respects with the present that whoever dissents from this must thereby cast a reproach on that Surely the Dean won't say so after so many Months consideration 6. There is an admirable distinction insisted on which will bring off the Dean without all doubt viz. There is a Popish and a Protestant Episcopacy But where lies the Difference What Difference is there between our present Episcopacy and that in Henry the 8ths time Is not the Episcopacy so far as 't is an Episcopacy the same What is there Intrinsecal to this Episcopal Constitution that differs from that Whence if that be Popish why may not this seeing 't is the same with that be in like manner so That Henry the 8ths Episcopacy was Popish Bishop Bramhall hath evinced in proving that the Papists begun the Separation from Rome In fine Let our Author tell me the Difference between Queen Maries Episcopacy and Queen Elizabeths Episcopacy on her first entring the Throne Is not the Episcopacy now the same with that at the Reforming the Liturgy by Act of Parliament and was not that Episcopacy the same with Queen Maries The only specifying Difference that can be suggested is that though the Episcopacy as such is the same and the Persons in both may be the same yea and their Principles for so it hath been in King Henry the 8th King Edward the 6th Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth yet the outward profession of the Bishops is not the same But is