Presbyters are equally sharers but besides this the Church claimeth a power of jurisdiction of making Rules for Discipline and applying and executing the same all which indeed is suitable to the common Laws of Socleties and the General Rules of Scripture but hath no positive warrant from any Scripture Precept Therefore as to the management of this Jurisdiction it is in the Churches power to cast it into what mould she will c. I believe I shall rather be censured for having said too much than not enough upon this Subject yet I will venture so much farther upon the Readers Patience who cannot be wearier of reading than I am of transcribing as to conclude this Chapter with the suffrages of three Famous Divines of the Gallican Churches that have all writ in our Day Let the learned le Blanc Thes Sedan de Grad distinc Minist p. 501. be first heard thus Quod spectat vero Discrimen Presbyteri Episcopi c. But as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter for as much as the Church of England is Governed by Bishops it is the more general opinion of the English that Episcopacy and Presbytery are distinct offices instituted by Christ with distinct powers but the rest of the Reformed as also they of the Augustane Confession do unanimously believe that there is no such distinction by Divine Right but that as the names in Scripture are synonymous and put for each other indifferently so the thing is wholly the same and that the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters which has now for many Ages obtained in the Church is onely of Positive and Ecclesiastical Right and has been introduced thereinto by degrees That even in the Apostles days a certain precedency of honour and place was given unto him who did excell his Colleagues either in Age or in the time of his Ordination so that he was as President or Moderator of the Presbytery and yet look'd upon as altogether of the same office and had no power or jurisdiction over his Colleagues and this Person did always perform those things which the Presidents or Moderators of our Synods now perform But in the following Age it so fell out that this Primacy was not conferr'd according to the Persons Age or time of entrance but a custom was introduced that one of the Presbyters should be chosen by the Votes of the whole Colledge who should continually preside after the same manner over the Presbytery and these after a while assumed to themselves the name of Bishops and by degrees gained more and more Prerogatives and brought their Colleagues into subjection to them till at length the matter grew up to that Tyranny which now obtains in the Church of Rome Moreover though all reformed Divines excepting those of the Church of England condemn that supream power which among the Papists Bishops usurp over Presbyters as Tyrannical and think that by the Law of God there is no distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter yet is there some dispute amongst them whether it be not expedient by Positive and Ecclesiastick riâ—â—â— to appoint some degrees amongst the Ministers of the Gospel by which some may be set above others provided such moderation be observed as that it may not degenerate into Tyranny the French and Dutch Churches and not a few in England it self think it dangerous and not sufficiently agreeable to the Laws of Christ to admit any such thing but the Judgment and Practice of the Churches in Germany and Poland is otherwise they have certain Bishops which they call Superintendents that preside in such certain districts over the rest of the Pastors with some Authority and Power but much short of that which the Popish Bishops claim The second I shall mention is Monsieur Jurieu Pastoral Letters let 14. who having spoken concerning the Monastick Life and Oecumenick Councils as two great Novelties which had very unhappy effects he adds Behold a third of them 't is the Original of the Hierarchy which hath given birth to the Antichristian Tyranny hereby is understood that subordination of Pastors which hath been seen in the Church for 1000 or 1200 years in this subordination are seen the lowest Orders in the lowest seats above these are seen the Priests above the Priests are the grand Vicars above the Grand Vicars are the Bishops above the Bishops are the Archbishops or Metropolitans above the Arch-bishops are the Primates above the Primates are the Exarchs above the Exarchs are the Patriarchs above all these appears a head which was insensibly framed and placed there this is that which is called the Pope All this is a new invention with respect to the Apostles who left in all the Churches Presbyters or Bishops to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments But the Bishop and Presbyter were not distinguished those which St. Paul calls Bishops he calls Presbyters in the the same place this is matter of fact which our Adversaries cannot deny Then he proceeds to tell us how this distinction was made and the account thereof agreeing very much of that of Le Blanc I shall not transcribe it The last I shall take notice of is the Renowned Monsieur Claude whose Name will be great in all the Churches as long as Piety and Learning have any esteem among Men his words are these As for those who are ordained by meer Presbyters can the Author of the Prejudices be ignorant Historical Defence of the Reform Part. 4. p. 95. that the distinction of Bishop and Priest as if they were two different offices is not only a thing they cannot prove out of Scripture but that which even contradicts the express words of Scripture where Bishop and Presbyter are names of one and the same office from whence it follows that Presbyters having by their first Institution a a rite to confer Ordination that Rite cannot be taken away from them by meer humane Rules can the author of the Prejudices be ignorant that St. Jerome Hilary and after them Hincmar wrote formerly concerning the Unity or as they speak the Identity of a Priest and Bishop in the beginning of the Church and about the first rise of that distinction which was afterwards made of them into different offices can he be ignorant that St. Austin himself writing to Jerome refers that distinction not to the first institution of the Ministry P. 97. but meerly to an Ecclesiastical use And elsewhere And to speak my thoughts freely it seems to me that this confident opinion of the absolute necessity of Episcopacy that goes so high as to own no Church or Call or Ministry or Sacraments or Salvation in the World where there are no Episcopal Ordinations although there should be the true Doctrine the true Faith and Piety there and which would make all Religion depend upon a formality and on such a formality as we have shewn to be of no other than Humane Institution that opinion I say cannot be lookt on otherwise than as
Religion upon pain of being convicted of Schism by the Word of God and how the effects of such an opinion should be any other than peace I cannot unless it be by an Antiperistasis and the powerful opposition of contrary principles that some Mon have suckt in I confess when these Gentlemen are so often telling us of the loss of peace if Dissenters will not all come to Church it appears to me like a menacing the Government as if they were resolved to throw all into confusion again unless they may be restored to the liberty of trampling us under foot and if our present Indulgence be attended with such dangerous symptoms I believe they do wholly arise from the discontents of some four and haughty Spirits that cannot be satisfied with all their Grandeur whilst Mordecai sits in the Gate and will not bow But says he suppose a Man should introduce the same doctrine into the State and tell people that it is lawful to act in separate Bodies that they need not own the Present Government but where has Mr. H. said any thing like this in the whole Enquiry Does he any where say Men need not to own the Government that God has established in his Church but may act by a Polity of their own I wish this Gentleman can clear himself as well of such a Doctrine as Mr. H. may If he means that it is as unlawful to have several distinct Bishops and Churches in the same Diocess as several Kings in the same Kingdom he deserves the rebukes of the Government much more than Mr. H. or the Vindicator either It is plainly the drift of these Men to make themselves as absolute Governours over the Laity as Princes over their Subjects and if they can persuade Men that it is as great a Crime to leave the Ministration of their Parish Priest what ever he be and go to hear another that is as truly a Minister of the Gospel as to rebel against their Prince and set up another in his room they have taken a great step towards it His harangue about the Present Government about the Title of K. James the Nature and Rights of Soveraignty he may if he pleases reserve for the Illumination of his Brethren that are for distinguishing between Kings de facto and de jure without which Vehicle they could not so easily have swallow'd the Oath of Allegiance or for his dear Friends in the Jacobite Conventicles whom it may be he would willingly excuse from Schism notwithstanding their Separation because they still adhere to Episcopacy and Ceremonies those fundamental Principles of Unity that which follows in the same Paragraph is equally false and impertinent Mr. H. never sets people at liberty to break into parties or to make any such divisions as he speaks of but endeavours to prevent all such things by fixing a brand upon that division in affection which commonly gives the rise to all other sinful divisions amongst men As to the differences betwixt the Presbyterian and the Independant Party in former times with which he upbraids us I shall only say if the Presbyterian Churches were framed according to the Word of God and laid no other Burden upon their Members than necessary things according to the Apostles Canon which all Churches are for ever bound to observe that Separation was Sinful and if it proceeded from uncharitableness it was Schismatical according to Mr. H's Notion And if this Concession will do him any service let him take it and make his best advantage of it And if it be sinful to break off from Particular Church Communion without just cause it is much more so for men to deny and renounce Communion with all Christians and Churches that will not comply with needless inventions of their own We are now come to Mr. H's Description of Schism viz. That it is an Uncharitable Distance Division or Alienation of affection amongst those who are called Christians and agree in the Fundamentals of Religion occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things The Gentleman first charges this Description of Schism with Novelty and Wildness and then proceeds to draw out the consequences But as to Novelty and Wildness if it be the Scripture notion of Schism it will sufficiently clear it self of such imputations The question Mr. H. proposed was not what the Fathers called Schism but what the Spirit of God calls so in his Word it was this which he undertook to answer and if he has acquitted himself well in that he is not concerned what this or that Father calls Schism and this description is founded on the case of the Corinthians They were called Christians and it was fit to put that into the definition for we are not enquiring into the Schisms of Jews Turks or Pagans They agreed in the Fundamentals of Religion that is in all that was absolutely necessary to Salvation otherwise the Apostle would scarcely have given them the Title of Brethren and Saints acknowledging the Grace of God in them That there were contentions amongst them to the prejudice of Christian Love and Charity will not be denied since the Apostle plainly reprimands them for it And that these contentions were occasioned by different apprehensions is equally certain otherwise there would have been no room nor pretence for such contests And that all this was about little things that is comparatively little on which Salvation does not necessarily depend is sufficiently plain from the good account that is given of these persons as to the main notwithstanding these unhappy differences These contentions thus circumstantiated the Apostle calls Schisms and Mr. H. though a man might without danger or offence conclude That an Uncharitable distance or alienation of affections amongst those that are called Christians occasioned by their different apprehensions about little things is Schism according to the Scripture notion and account of it But nothing will please those that have a mind to be quarrelsome this must be bantered for a wild novel and bungling description the latest that ever was Coined And yet if this Gentleman had perused the Homilies of the Church of England before he subscribed to them as in all Reason and Conscience he ought to have done he would have found such an Agreement betwixt Mr. H's description of Schism and the sense of his own Church as would have obliged him for his own sake to have treated it with better language Let him consult the Homily against contention F. 9. and there he will find that the Church of England places the Unity of the Church in Concord and Charity and the Rents or Schisms of the Church in discord contention bitter Emulation c. Oh how the Church is divided Oh how it is cut and mangl'd Oh how that Coat of Christ which was without Seam is all rent and torn Oh body Mystical of Christ where is that holy Unity out of which whosoever is he is not in Christ If one Member be pulled from another where is
of the Essence of the Power but only requisite to the due exercise of it So it is not of the Essence of the Investiture that it be performed by Ministers but other competent Judges may do it where they cannot be had or will not do it upon lawful Terms This Case of Ordination has been very weil argued by the excellent Mr. Baxter of whom England was not worthy in his Disputations of Church Government and because I do not know that any one has directly assaulted him in it I would refer this Gentleman to it where he will find it illustrated thus If the Soveraign Power make a Law that there shall be Physicians Licensed by a Colledge of Physicians to Practise in this Common Wealth and describe the Persons that shall be so Licensed This plainly first concludeth that such Persons shall be Physicians but secondly de ordine that they shall be thus Licensed So that if the Colledge should License a Company of utterly insufficient men and murtherers that seek mens death or should refuse to License the Persons qualified according to Law they may themselves be punished and the qualified Persons may act as authorised by that which bindeth quoad materiam and is by the Colledge not by them frustrate quoad Ordinem So it is in this Case in hand This is a rational account of the matter and such as may give all Christians full satisfaction in the Truth of their Churches Ministry and Ordinances without flying up into the Clouds and inventing the Mysteries of an uninterrupted Succession indelible Characters and such like stuff What has this Gentleman to Object against it why He tells us no man can preach unless he be sent and no man can send him but he that is Authorized for that purpose If he means by this that no man ought to Preach but those that are Ordained and this he must mean if he speaks to the purpose the Constant Practice of his own Church Confutes him which allows men to preach several times before Ordination that their Qualifications may appear and they may acquire a Title but if no man can lawfully Preach till he be Ordained they ought not to allow this upon any account whatsoever not so much as to make experiment of their Abilities I would ask this Gentleman when your Candidates Preach before Ordination is there no Possibility that their Preaching may do good to the hearers and should they not in Preaching principally intend their Edification If not 'tis taking the Name of God in vain but if they may do good and should make that their chief aim in those Sermons then the Gentleman must find out some other sence for that Text he mentions which has been already explained in the first Chapter of this Treatise He thinks Ordainers are obliged to follow the Example of Christ who when he sent out his Apostles Mat. 28.18 recites his own Commission All Vower is given to me in Heaven and in Earth Go therefore as my Father sent me so I send you But it is the highest piece of Arrogance in the World to pretend to the same Power that Christ had in this matter He had Power to institute the Office and give the Authority of the Ministry Men have only the Power of Investiture as the Bishops in Crowning our Kings and as Christ never made these Words of his the set form of Ordination so ' tis-too bold for any Bishop how great soever to apply them to himself in that Office That which follows Review p. 52 about appointing Embassadors for Almighty God without his Order is already in substance answered if by appointing Embassadors he means giving the Commission and Power neither Lay-men nor Clergy-men must presume to do it if he means investing them that God has chosen with the Ceremonies of Ordination 't is fit that the Ministers should do it if they may be had or will do it on lawful Terms but if not better it were omitted than that the Embassy of Reconciliation should not be delivered to the World I suppose their unordained Candidates bring such an Embassy to their hearers I am sure they should do so and if they do then we have Embassadours without an appointment in his Sence of the Word The Cases of Necessity which the Vindicator mentioned are such as may happen and to neglect the publick Worship of God in expectation of a Gift of Miracles which I suppose he means by the reviving of the Charismata would be a profane Omission He thinks to ridicule us out of it by putting the Case concerning a company of Women cast upon an Island c. Well what if a man should say that the best qualified Sister among them might be chosen by the rest as the Abbesss to be most constantly employed in Prayer and Exhortation till better help could be had were not the Iberians Converted by a Captive Maid Russin l. 1. c. 10. and was it not the constant Custom of the Church of England till the Hampton Court Conference to permit Women to Baptize Children in Case of Necessity and how zealously did the Bishops endeavour to defend the lawfulness of it at that time The Bishop of London affirmed the words of the Common-Prayer-Book intended a Permission of Private Persons to baptize in such Cases and said it was agreeable to the Practice of the Primitive Church alledging the great numbers that were Baptized Acts 2. Which it was improbable the Apostles alone could do and added that some Fathers were of the same Opinion Fuller Cent. 17. l. 10. p. 9. and when the King opposed it the Bishop of Winchester replied that to deny Private Persons to Baptize in Case of necessity were to Cross all Antiquity and the Common Practice of the Church it being a Rule agreed on by Divines that the Minister is not of the Essence of the Sacrament Their great Ecclesiastical Polititian Mr. Hooker sets himself to prove that Baptism by any man in Case of Necessity is valid Eccles Pol. p. 320. and says it was the Voice of the whole World heretofore and elsewhere That God hath committed the Ministry of Baptism unto special men it is for Orders sake in the Church not that their Authority might add any force to the Sacrament Now is it not the most unaccountable perverseness in the World to make Episcopal Ordination so indispensibly necessary when the most solemn acts of the Ministry the Application of the Seals are allowed by themselves to those that have no Ordination at all yea to a Sister whether welll qualified or no in which they have quite out-done us no such thing being ever practised in the Presbyterian Churches He endeavours to prove the necessity of such Ordination from the Case of the Abyssines who were contented to be without those Ordinances which are to be dispensed by Priests till the return of Frumentius from Alexandria but pray what Ordinances are those that are to be dispensed by Priests only I thought
this Gentleman had made Preaching the Gospel of Reconciliation one of them I am sure for that end he press'd that Text How can they preach except they be sent Does he mean the Sacraments why the Fathers of his own Church tell him all Antiquity allows the Baptism of Private Persons in Case of necessity and why not the other Sacrament too the Words of Tertullian are well known offers tingis he argues from that Text He hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and to his Father It is the Authority of the Church that hath put a difference between the Clergy and the Laity Tert. de Corona Militis de Baptism p. 602.603 Laices etiam jus est Sufficiat in necessitatibus and which hath established this sacred honour for the Body of the Clergy this is so true that where there is no Clergy-man to be had thou dost Celebrate thou dost Baptize and thou art to thy self a Priest now where there are three there is a Church though they be Laicks for every one lives by his own Faith and God is no respecter of Persons If therefore these Abyssines deprived themselves so long of the Sacraments they were needlesly scrupulous Ruffinus tells us that when Frumentius by the Providence of God was advanced to some Power in the Realm during the Kings Minority he carefully sought out such as were Christians among the Roman Merchants and exhorted them to meet together and pray which they did and when the Indians came amongst them they instructed them in the Christian Faith and all this was done before he took his Journey to Alexandria and tho' Valesius will needs be so nice as to distiuguish betwixt Oratories and Churches and betwixt Preaching and instructing I yet here was the great End of Churches and Bishops and Sermons happily attained viz. The Conversion and Instruction of Poor Souls a greater Seal of Mission than that of working Miracles wherewith 't is said Frumentius returned The Gentleman 's other instances prove no more but that in the sence of those times it was very desireable to have Ministerial Ordination and that they rather chose to be at a great deal of pains than to want it but it is not the desireableness but the necessity of it that the Vindicator denied and the Church of England you see will stand by him in it Nor was it his design to ridicule the Ceremony of laying on of Hands But that foolish conceit that by such contact there is a transition of power from one to another in a continued Line The Presbyterians themselves always use that Apostolical rite in their Ordinations tho' they do not think it necessary to the conveyance of Authority He charges the Vindicator with want of Sence or Integrity in reporting the Notion of a Patriarchal Right to Soveraignty But if he can explain that Notion any better 't would have been a very obliging thing to have done it I must confess I am as dull as the Vindicator in understanding it and cannot imagine how that Patriarchal Right should exist any where but in the Line of the Eldest Family in the World For if at any time you set up a Younger Brother it must be upon some other Title not the Patriarchal but either the express Nomination of God or Election or Conquest or the like But to claim the Regal Power by Patriarchal Right without pretending at least to the Line of Primogeniture is a thing I despair of ever understanding That this Patriarchal Right was ascribed to our Kings in the Late Reigns is too well known and will not be so easily forgotten by the Nation as it is denied by those that then filled Mens Ears with it E. of W. a Noble Peer pretty well known to T. W. once publickly Animadverted upon this Doctrine and the Authors of it and observed that such a right could be but in one Person in the World at once and no Person in the World could tell who that was What he mentions p. 56. concerning the Decency of Ceremonies has been obviated in the former part and there he may learn from the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England that the Worship of God is never the better performed for them and therefore never the more decently and Bishop Sanderson condemns him for a Superstitious Fop that thinks otherwise this case is therefore adjudged already See the Review p. 57. If the Motion he makes of allowing the Bishops to be judges of Decency is to be so understood as that whatever the Clergy in Convocation Judge Fit and Decent must presently be submitted to and that the Pastors of Particular Churches or People how mean or half-witted soever must not make use of their discerning faculty this I confess is one way to end controversies by tying us all up to the Inspirations of the Canonical Tribe and this is that some of them have been long aiming at but surely 't is too far of the day to impose at this rate upon English Men. The Survey or endeavours to justifie their Excommunications by the old pretence of contempt and malice but these Men ought to be very certain that it is Malice and not real Scruple of Conscience against which they so severely proceed And they have no power to impose those things upon Men which they know thousands are dissatisfied in and they themselves acknowledge render their Duties not a whit more pleasing and acceptable to God That scandalous and disorderly Persons are to be disciplin'd according to the demerit of their Actions and Behaviour No Church or sober Christian that I know of will deny but that persons of Orthodox Judgment and Sober Conversation should be Excommunicated Fined Imprisoned Banished and Ruined because they dare not comply with such things as have been imposed in England is a practice not to be justified by any Rule in our Bibles or President in the Reformed Churches but is indeed contrary to Humanity it self To what he says about the Greek Churches p. 59. it is sufficient to reply If the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son be not an Article of Faith we desire to have a rule to distinguish what is de fide and what not in those Creeds But if it and the Greek Churches object against it then T. W. has excluded them unless he will say that ours is not the true Athanasian Creed and if it be not why must it be put into the Liturgy and Subscribed and Assented to under that denomination He endeavours to help his Alderman out about the same Table and tells us he meant something else by it than the same Table in Specie but since he has not told us what that more is we may suppose he wanted a handsome Salvo for he durst not say it must be the same numerically and it would be hard to find any thing betwixt those two kinds of Identity He tells us To have the same Prayers is to join with the Church
and like a good Angel made their fetters fall off and the doors fly open others were forced to abscond from their Families and Employments for fear of the Excommunication Writ and these it rescued from impending ruine and indeed it found them all insulted over scorned and trampled upon by the Bigots of the other Party but this Declaration put a respect upon them and gave them the Opportunity of letting the World see they were neither so few nor so bad nor contemptible as their Adversaries had represented them There are two things for which Dissenters are frequently reproached in the late Reign First Their accepting that Liberty with such Addresses of Thanks Secondly Their writing so few Books against Popery I have something to say in their just Defence upon both Accounts As to the First It had been the greatest Madness in the World for them to have refused the Advantages of that Liberty they thought themselves obliged to Worship God according to the Dictates of their Consciences when they run the Risque of Prisons and Banishment for so doing and to neglect it when they were freed from those hazards would have been such a piece of sullen unaccountable perversness as these Gentlemen would soon have upbraided us with I know it is commonly said that Toleration was promoted in favour of the Papists and I believe few of the Dissenters ever questioned it but they knew very well that when it was granted for them to have sate still and suffer'd the Papists alone to enjoy the Benefits of it would have strengthed Popery much more the Papists would have had never the less Liberty though Dissenters had been silent and when they were let loose it was time for all hands to be at work to countermine them and there 's no better weapon to subdue Errour than the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God It is objected this Declaration was founded upon a Dispensing Power and to accept of it was owning such a Power But the Dissenters never by Word or Writing ascribed any such Power unto the King as to Dispense with the Laws that are for the good of the Nation indeed they always esteemed the Laws by which they were excluded to be very unjust and unreasonable Edicts contrary to the Law of God and the common Interest and that they ought not to have been made or ever executed when they were made they never thought them binding in Point of Conscience and though they were forced heretofore to submit to the Penalty yet they were not so forsaken of common Sence as to court the Continuance of that Penalty or cast themselves into Prison when the Magistrate did not think fit to do it But the Clergy of the Church of England had often in the Pulpit and from the Press told the King that he had such a Power as the Author of Vox Cleri pro Rege shews us in abundance of Instances And the Judges who were of the Church of England had given it for Law as the other had declared it for Gospel and all the Magistrates in England thought fit to acquiesce in it which surely they would not have done if they had not thought it a just and reasonable thing for indeed the Kings Declaration would have signified little if the Magistrates had put the Laws in Execution still and if they did not think those Laws were really suspended they were bound by their Oaths to have done it and their forbearance was a plain acknowledgment of such a Power at least as to such kind of Laws as were hereby suspended but the Dissenters only persisted to do that which they thought themselves obliged to as they had opportunity by the Law of God any thing in humane Laws to the Contrary notwithstanding And as to their Addresses of Thanks it least becomes the Churchmen of all others to Reflect upon them not only because it was their Cruelty that made Indulgence so very pleasant and Oppression sometimes makes a wise man mad but also because they fall vastly short of those high flights of Complement which these men themselves took in their Addresses of a far worse Nature and Occasion If it be so Criminal to Thank the King for not suffering Protestants to destroy one another what shall we say of those that in the most Luxuriant manner thank'd him for dissolving one of the best of Parliaments E. of W's Speech and as a Noble Peer lately told them Were so forward in the Surrender of Charters and their fulsom Addresses and Abhorrences making no other claim to their Liberties and Civil Rights but Concessions from the Crown telling the King every one of his Commands was stamp'd with Gods Authority c. Besides I am informed by one of those that joined in an Address of Thanks to the King in Cheshire that the Nonconformists never moved in it till the Churchmen had led them the way these Gentleman therefore are too Imprudent to provoke us to Recriminations that will be so vastly to their own dishonour I am sure the Dissenters thank'd the Late King for nothing but what our present King and Parliament have Confirmed to them as the likeliest way to unite Protestants in Interest and Affection as the Preamble of the Act speaks and if there was any thing in that Liberty that was serviceable to the Papists it must be in the manner of giving it not in the thing it self as far as we are concerned in it and if the Episcopal Party had been so wise as to have promoted a legal Comprehension when it was in their Power they had disabled the Papists from serving themselves of any Liberty of ours As to the Second That Dissenters writ so little against Popery in the Late Reign it may be very easily accounted for They have sufficiently demonstrated their Abhorrence of Popery at all times and their Leading Men as Mr. Baxter Mr. Pool and the Preachers of the Morning Lecture have acquitted themselves very well in the Confutation of it and Malice it self cannot really believe that they are in the least favourable to the Romish Heresie the Crime that has been generally objected against them has been their too great aversation and distance from it As for the late Discourses upon that Subject that are so much boasted of it is observable that most of them were begun upon Personal Engagements The Preface to the Exam. of the Council of Trent by Catholick Tradition as one of the Principal Managers thereof acknowledges There is says he a Train in Controversies as well as in Thoughts one thing still giving start to another Conferences produce Letters Letters Books and one discourse gives occasion for another c. Now in such Cases it would not been have decent for a Third Person to have stept in and invaded another mans Province Besides there was no manner of Necessity for it the Papists in England have been a baffled party for some Ages and their Errors so often exposed that it
of Presbyters they are called Bishops Surely these things are as clear proof that Bishops were not a Superior Order as a Negative is capable of and there being no one Text in Scripture that affirms the distinction Semper praesumitur pro negante we must have concluded in the Negative though we had not had these proofs But what is wanting in Scripture they hope to make up out of the Fathers and Councils in behalf of Diocesan Prelacy it is certain they think their greatest strength lies there And we deny not that many of the Fathers seem to make a great difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters but this does not overthrow our Hypothesis for if they are the same in Scripture the Sayings of the Fathers cannot make them otherwise and yet few or none of the Ancients say that they are distinct Orders much less that they are so by divine right but some of them acknowledge the contrary as we shall presently shew It is not therefore their using the Name of Bishop in a sence distinct from that of Presbyter or requiring Presbyters to be obedient to their Bishop that will prove a superiority of order jure divino for we grant that it was the early Practice of the Church to choose one of the Gravest and Wisest of the Presbyters and constitute him President over the rest and that where there were many Presbyters in a particular Church commonly the Eldest or worthiest was as Pastor and the other his Assistants but still we know the Parson and the Curates are of the same order and every Bishop in England is equal in order to the Archbishop of Canterbury though they take an Oath of Canonical Obedience to him the same we say of the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter in Primitive Times This would be a sufficient reply unto the Antiquities this Gentleman has alledged but lest he should think he has done a mighty feat in transcribing these Passages I shall animadvert more particularly upon them He begins with the Canons of the Apostles but why they should take place of Clemens Romanus and Ignatius I cannot tell unless he has a Mind to cheat us with the Name or was cheated by it himself Dr. Cave reckons them among the Supposititious Works of the First Age and Dr. Beveridge who has laboured so hard to defend them against Daille only contends that they were written by Clemens Alexandrinus near the latter End of the Second Century But what say these Canons why they say Let not the Presbyters or Deacons do any thing without the consent of the Bishop for he hath the People of the Lord entrusted to him and there shall one day be required of him an Account of their Souls Here says the Gentleman the Bishop has the Power of governing the Presbyters and Deacons Concil Carth. c. 23. Cypr. Edit Goul. Ep. 6. p. 17. Ep. 24. p. 55. it is well argued however the Kings of England can make no Laws without the consent of the Lords and Commons have they therefore the power of governing him Cyprian did nothing without the concurrence of his Presbyters nay he determined to do nothing without the consent of his People by our Gentleman's dialect the Presbyters and People had the Power of governing the Bishop And is there one word here to prove that the Bishop was of a Superior Order The Curates of a Church are to have the direction and consent of the Parson and yet the Order is the same And it deserves to be considered whether 't is likely this Bishop the Canon speaks of was any more than the Pastor of a particular Church since he must be supposed capable of giving the Necessary Orders for management of all Affairs and nothing must be done without his consent it would be a Rule hard to be observed as our present Dioceses are Modell'd and if Presbyters must do nothing without the Bishops consent they must do nothing at all the whole time being too little for Travel and Consultation there would be none left for Action unless by consent we must understand a general Permission to do what they please without consulting him at all in particular Matters which would be a very odd Comment upon such a Text and not very well agreeing with the Reason that is added for this consent viz. That the Bishop has the People of the Lord committed to him and shall give an account of their Souls Surtly this requires a more careful and near inspection than to commit the care of all by an Act of general consent to others without ever intending a personal Acquaintance with one of a Thousand Pres Treat of Repentance so solemnly committed to him Dr. Taylor says he is sure we cannot give an Account of those Souls of whom we have no notice The next passage is out of Clemens Romanus his Epistle to the Corinthians a Piece of Antiquity which all the World has a great Veneration for that which the Gentleman thinks is for his purpose he gives us thus The Apostles foreseeing that there would be Contentions about the Name or Dignity of Bishop or Episcopacy they set down a List or Continuation of Successors that when any died such a certain person should succeed him But this place in Clement is very falsly recited and whoever furnished him with it abused him and imposed upon his Ignorance This Translator whoever he be would have us to think that the Apostles set down a List of the Names of those that were to Succeed in the Episcopal See this we cannot admit until he tell us where this List is to be found how far it went It seems it was a Continuation of Successors but it is hard to imagine how they could have the Names of Persons so ready that were yet unborn and unconverted we know an Infallible Spirit could reveal it to them but surely then we should have had it in the Canon of Scripture such a thing would have been of singular Use not only for prevention of Disputes about the choice of Bishops but for the Uncontroulable Evidence of the Truth of Christianity when they were able to produce a Prophetical List with the Names of Persons then unborn and yet all in due time appearing and ascending the Chair according to that Sacred Roll for these Reasons we cannot but reject the Fiction of any such List of Names which when one died declared that such a certain Person should succeed him And I am sure the words of Clement say no such thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Edit Colomes 103. the true English of them is this And our Apostles understood by our Lord Jesus that contention would arise about the Name of Episcopacy and for this Cause being furnished with perfect foreknowledge ordained those before-mentioned and moreover gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 order that whensoever they should die other approved Men should succeed and perform their Functions I know there have been great Disputes about this odd word 〈◊〉
Learned Grotius has fully proved that there never was a Council truly called General excepting that of the Apostles at Jerusalem that Councils have no governing Power Non ideo convocari Synodum quòd in co pars sit imperii Yea that the Church has no Legislative Power by Divine Right That what was written in Synods for Order and Ornament are not called Laws but Canons and have either the force of advice only Burnets Abridement p. 139. or they oblige by way of agreement c. And our Reforming Bishops Cranmer Tonstal and others being required to give their opinions concerning the Authority of General Councils declared that this Authority did not flow from the number of the Bishops but from the matter of their decisions and this indeed is the only true notion of Ministerial Power it depends purely upon the matter of their Canons not the Authority of the Person so that they can never by their Authority make a thing indifferent to become a Duty Praeeant ipsi judicio directivo says Grotius they are Councils not Parliaments and only to shew men what is Sin and Duty not to make any thing Duty which was not so before Dr. Sherlock fairly acquits himself of the Suspicion of ascribing unto a Council of Bishops Vind. of Prot. Princ. p. 30. Vind. of the Def. of Dr. St. p. 162. any Power in matter of Faith or Manners or Catholick Unity and because in a former Treatise he had let fall an Expression that might seem to give them such a Power he by much strugling gets from under it and says he meant no more than a Power of Deposing Heretical Bishops but withal adds It does not follow that any Bishops or any Number of Bishops however assembled have such an Authority to declare Heresie as shall oblige all men to believe that to be Heresie which they decree to be so and therefore the effects of those Censures must of Necessity depond upon that Opinion which People have of them those who believe the Censure just will withdraw from the Communion of such a Bishop those who do not will still communicate with him and whether they do right or wrong their own Consciences must judge in this World and God will Judge in the next And elsewhere he thus speaks As for Ecclesiastical Causes nothing is a pure Ecclesiastical Cause but what concerns the Communion of the Church who shall be received into Communion or câ—st out or put under some less Censures c. Here we see it is not in the Power of Councils or Synods to take away any of that Power from Presbyters that God has given them this is none of the Ecclesiastical Causes belonging to them This is more directly asserted by the Author of the Summary of the Controversies betwixt the Church of England P. 119. and the Church of Rome what he says of the Episcopal Office will hold true of the Ministerial in General That a General Council has no Authority to give away those Rights and Powers which are inherent in every Church and inseparable from the Ministerial Office for it is not in Ecclesiastical as it is in Civil Rights Men may irrevocably grant away their own Civil Rights and Liberties but all the Authority in the Church cannot give away it self nor grant the whole entire Episcopacy with all the Rights and Powers of it to any one Bishop If Bishops or Presbyters will not exercise that Power which God has given them they are accountable to their Lord for it but they cannot give it away neither from themselves nor from their Successors for it is theirs only to use not to part with and therefore every Bishop or Presbyter may reassume such Rights though a General Council should give them away because the Grant is void in it self By ancient Ecclesiastical custom Arch-Bishops were set over Bishops Vind. Prot. Prin. p. 72. and yet Dr. Sherlock confesses they have not direct Authority and Jurisdiction over them and if Bishops have no Superiority over Presbyters but what is grounded upon this Ecclesiastical Right it will not amount to formal Authority But 2. No Power can be claimed by Ecclesiastical Right but what has been acquired according to the Rules of those Councils and Customs by which they claim if it be a jus Ecclesiasticum they must come by it more Ecclesiastico in that method which Ecclesiastical Canons have prescribed and nothing is more evident than that the Rules of the Primitive Churches gave all the Presbyters and the People too a voice in the Election of their Bishops the African Bishops in a Council where Cyprian Presided Cypr. Ep. 68. Concil Nic. Arab. Can. Sozom. l. 1. c. 23. determined that Plebs maximè habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi St. Ambrose Ep. 82. Electio vocatio quae sit à tota Ecclesia verè cartò est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi That this was the Primitive Custom none will deny though some Question whether this be absolutely necessary or no and I will not say it is necessary where the Office stands upon a Divine Institution but certainly where it only stands upon the Plea of Ecclesiastical Right the Ecclesiastical Method is absolutely necessary to give that Right for our Bishops cannot pretend to stand upon the Foundation of those Canons which they do not observe in their entrance upon that Office since those Canons must needs bind them as much in their Acquisition of Power as the People in their Subjection to them The best Title therefore our Bishops have to shew for their Prelatical Jurisdiction is the Law of the Land Our learned Historians and Lawyers tell us that before William the Conquerors time there were no such Courts in England as we now call Courts Ecclesiastical or Spiritual only by the Laws of Ethelstane the Bishops were allowed to be present with the Sheriffs in their Tourne Courts Brompton de Leg. Ethels where all Ecclefiastical matters were heard and determined Sir Edward Cook says William the Conquerour was the first that by his Charter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln prohibited Sheriffs to intermeddle any more with Ecclesiastical Causes but leave them wholly to the Bishop 4. l. Institut c. 53. p. 259. and yet there appears no enrolment of any such Charter till the 2d of Rich. 2d And Cook himself mentions the Red Book of Henry the first de general placit Comitat. extant in the Office of the Kings Rememb in the Exchequer wherein 't is said of the Sheriffs Tourne Courts Ibi agantur primo debita Christianitatis jura secundo Regis placita postremo causae singulorum and he adds certain it is the Bishops Consistories were erected and Causes Ecclesiastical removed from the Tourne to the Consistory after the making of the said Red Book Nothing will set this matter in a better Light than our Acts of Parliament especially that of the 37. Hen 8. Entituled An
Act that Doctors of Civil Law being married may exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction In most humble wise shew and declare unto your Highness your most faithful humble and obedient Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of this Present Parliament Assembled That whereas your Highness is c. The Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans and other Ecclesiastical Persons who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty to whom by Scripture all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all Causes Ecclesiastical and to all such Persons as your Majesty shall appoint thereunto And long before this time our Kings were so tender of their Royal Rights in Ecclesiastical Matters that when the Clergy in Parliament 51. Edw. 3d. Petitioned that of every Consultation Conditional the Ordinary may of himself take upon him the true Understanding thereof and therein proceed accordingly that is without Appeal to the King who by his Delegates by Commission under the great Seal might determine the same the Kings Answer was That the King cannot depart with his Right Instit 4th part cap. 74. p. 339. but to yield to Subjects according to Law upon which Sir Edw. Cook gives an Item Nota hoc stude bene By the Statute 1. Edw. 6.2 The Bishops could hold no Court but in the Kings Name and it was no less than Praemunire to issue out Process in their own Names and under their own Seals and though that Statute was Repealed in 1. Mary 2. Yet it lets us see the true Fountain of Prelatical Jurisdiction and some are of opinion that it was revived in general terms in the 1. Eliz. 1. Which annexes and unites all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Imperial Crown of England and shews that the Prelatical Power of our Bishops is wholly founded directed and limited by the Laws of the Land And this is readily granted by our ablest Civilians particularly Godolphin in his Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Laws Introduct p. 2◠whose words are No sooner had Princes in ancient times assigned and limited certain matters and causes Controversial to the Cognizance of Bishops and to that end dignified the Episcopal Order with an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but the multiplicity and emergency of such Affairs require for the dispatch and management thereof the Assistance of subordinate Ordinaries c. Dr. Cases of Consc l. 3. ch 3. fol. 544. Jeremy Taylor acknowledges that the Supream Civil Power is also Supream Governour over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical and he says This is a rule of such great necessity for the conduct of Conscience as that it is the measure of determining all Persons concerning the the Sanction of Obedience to all Ecclesiastical Laws c. And in another place It was never known in the Primitive Church that ever any Ecclesiastical Law did oblige the Church unless the secular Prince did establish it The Nicene Canons became Laws by the Rescript of the Emperor Constantine says Sozomen When the Council of Constantinople was finished the Fathers wrote to the Emperor Theodosius Ibidem cap. 4. fol. 600. Petitioning ut Edicto Pietatis tua confirmetur Synodi sententia The Decrees of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon had the same Confirmation as to the last Marcion the Emperor wrote to Palladius his Prefect Quod ea quae de Christiana fide à Sacerdotibus qui Chalcedone convenerunt per nostra praecepta statuta sunt And indeed what is it that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of a Prelate in the Church of England He may elect the Person and does so in reality for he nominates Authoritatively and whatever some pretend Godolph Repert Canon p. 42. the Dean and Chapter have no power to refuse the Conge d'eslire and Mr. Gwin in the preface to his Readings tells us that the King of England had of antient time the free appointment of all Ecclesiastical Dignities investing them first per Annulum Baculum and afterwards by his Letters Patents and that in process of time he made the Election over to others under certain Forms and Conditions and affirmeth with good authorities out of the Books of the Common Law that King John was the first that granted this Liberty of Election to the Dean and Chapter but that all Bishopricks were at first Donative The Civil Magistrate may multiply Bishops ad libitum and if he pleases may appoint one in every Parish by the Statute of 26 Hen. VIII c. 14. Six and twenty Suffragan Bishops are added to the Diocesans as saith the Act hath been accustomed to be in this Realm the Arch-Bishop or Bishop was to name two whereof the King to chuse one and to give him the Name Title and Dignity of Bishop and to that Name Title and Dignity the Arch Bishop with two Bishops or Suffragans more is to consecrate him onely he is to act by the Commission of the Diocesan and to have none of the profits of the Bishoprick this restraint in the exercise might have been taken off if the Legislative Power had so pleased And if this Law had not given them the Episcopal Power they could not have exercised that Power by any Commission from the Diocesan whatsoever He may also delegate the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to whom he pleases either to Lay-Men or to Presbyters 'T is commonly assigned to Lay-Chancellors they do judicially Excommunicate and Absolve and they have their Commission to do it from the King not from the Bishop and in some places the Episcopal Jurisdiction is reserved to a Presbyter as in the Peculiars we have in divers parts of England at Bridgnorth six Parishes are Governed by a Court held by a Presbyter and Godolphin tells us there are certain peculiar Jurisdictions belonging to some certain Parishes the Inhabitants whereof are exempted from the Arch-Deacons and sometimes from the Bishops Jurisdiction of which there are fifty seven in the Province of Canterbury A certain proof that the Bishops Jurisdiction is only by humane Right or Custom because the Law can exempt some Parishes from it but by the Citizen of Chesters Divinity all these peculiars have the peculiar priviledge of being unchurched and their exemption would be tantamount to Excommunication because they are not under the Government of the Bishop without which there can be no Church Unity If any say they are under the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction I answer they are no otherwise under it than the Bishops are and the Prelatical party themselves acknowledge that Arch-Bishops are but of Humane Institution Lastly The Civil Magistrate may also depose and deprive Bishops when they see just cause and this power has been so lately exerted that it needs no farther proof I would fain know whether the deprived Bishops be not divested of all Episcopal Jurisdiction Perhaps this will be thought an invidious question and an insulting over the misfortunes of those learned Gentlemen but I profess seriously it is
and that Dissenters are not hereby excused from Disobedience to the State though they be not accountable to the Law for their Non-conformity This as far as I can learn by his Book he grounds upon these two Suppositions 1. That our present Liberty extends no farther than to the removing the Sanction of the Law 2. That the taking away of the Sanction does not take away the whole Obligation of the Law And having very civilly arraigned the Government as doing that which it ought not to do P. 24 32. in granting this Liberty and predicted I know not what ill Consequences to the Nation and general Interest of Religion which time will shew He concludes with a very great Complement upon himself that he believes the Argument has suffered no damage by the Management of it and that he has so broken the Neck of his Adversaries Objection P. 78. that he had need to be a skilful Artist that shall set it again I must confess this is enough to discourage a man from medling that is conscious to himself how little skill he has in setting broken Necks but however we will venture to examine the matter and if there should chance to be no such mortal blow given the less skill will serve to set all right again I could wish the Gentleman had bestowed a little more pains to make the first Point good for the Question is not what Toleration signifies in the strict or forensick sense of the word nor what Suarez says nor how he criticizes or distinguishes of it for the words of the Statute are to be our Rule in discovering the Extent and Effects of it and not the critical meaning of the word Toleration which we have nothing to do with being a word not to be found in the Act of Liberty from the beginning to the end of it and to lay the stress of his Argument upon a bare word which is not in the Statute is so grand an impertinency as one would not have expected from Mr. Norris and whatever his Admirers may say of this kind of Arguing I am sure the Lawyers will think it receives some damage in the management He tells us Where there is an Establisht National Church all that Toleration can do is only to remove the Penalty P. 15. and it cannot there be a Liberty of Allowance but only of Impunity But what if the very Act it self expresly says it is an Allowance why then either there may be an Allowance to dissent from an Establisht Church or else this Act of Allowance destroys the Establishment let him take whether of these Consequences he pleases it is all one to me The words of the Act are Provided always that no Congregation or Assembly for Religious Worship shall be permitted or allowed by this Act until the place of such Meeting shall be certified c. Here the Law says such Assemblies so certified are allowed by this Act. Mr. Norris says they are not allowed I hope he will not be displeased if we believe those favourable words of the Law rather than his unkind contradiction But he says It cannot be an Allowance and yet if it be so it can be so and let him argue the Notional impossibility as long as he pleases whilst we have the plain words of the Statute and matter of fact to the contrary but says he if it be an Allowance the National Church is not Establisht why then it is not Establisht for an Allowance it is if we may believe the words of the Law and if this Act of Allowance have destroyed the former Establishment who can help it And yet I see no reason why the Church of England may not be Establish'd and Nonconformity allowed too unless by Establishment something more be meant than that word can necessarily import Indeed if by Establishment he mean a direct positive Command to Worship God according to the Mode of the Episcopal Party I grant it cannot well consist with an Allowance to Worship him otherwise but certainly the Law is not to be set at variance with it self it has but one Voice and speaks distinctly and consistently and therefore if former Laws have said We command you all to Worship God after this manner and a latter Law says We allow you to Worship God after another manner it is plain the last is the present Voice of the Law signifying that it is not its design to tye us up to that particular Mode and that former Command which he accounts the Establishment cannot disannul the Allowance which comes after but if they cannot consist together the former must be vacated by the latter The Church of England has still a Legal Establishment that is to say she has great Priviledges large Revenues the Publick Places of Worship and those she has by Law but as Mr. Norris tells us All that Toleration can do where there is an Establishment is to remove the Penalty So we may reply All that Establishment can do or signifie where there is an Act of Allowance is only to confer such outward Priviledges and as the removal of the Penal Sanction does not always abolish the Command so the continuance of the Praemial Sanction does not continue the Obligation of the Command where an Act of express Allowance has taken it away 2. His other Maxim That the taking away of the Sanction does not take away the whole Obligation of the Law wants a little explanation too for though I readily grant it will not in all cases have that effect yet I suppose in some it may There are certain Laws that are as well satisfied with the bearing of the Penalty as with obeying the Precept and Mr. Norris confesses as much concerning those Laws that are purely Penal that is as he says that do not oblige absolutely to the Fact but only conditionally either to the Fact or to the Penalty that there are such Laws I grant only in this I differ from him P. 50. Whereas he says these purely Penal Laws bind to the Penalty I think we are not bound to the Penalty by the Authority of the Law but only by the honour and respect due to the Law-giver that is a man is not bound in Conscience to suffer the Penalty if he can avoid it without putting an affront upon the Office of the Magistracy for by our Laws as well as the Law of Nature no man is bound to accuse himself of any thing that has a Penalty annexed to it especially since the repealing of the Oath ex Officio We are thus far agreed that there are Laws that do not absolutely bind to the Fact Now the Question is Whether the Act of Uniformity and the rest as far as they relate to Protestant Dissenters be not some of those Laws that he calls purely Penal Mr. Norris well observes That Human Laws are not therefore purely Penal because Human and no question but he is so far right Human Laws may be so just and
that no man shall be disquieted or called in Question for differences in Opinion which do not disturb the Peace of the Kingdom and that we shall be ready to Consent to such Acts of Parliament as upon Mature Deliberation shall be of fered to us for the full granting that Indulgence And in his Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs Oct. 25. 1660. he saith When We were in Holland we were attended by many Grave and Learned Ministers from hence who were look't upon as the most able and principal Assertors of the Presbyterian Opinions and to our great satisfaction we found them Persons full of Affection towards us of Zeal for the Peace of the Church and State and neither Enemies to Episcopacy nor Liturgy but modestly to desire such Alterations in either as without shaking the Foundations might best allay the present Distempers which the Indispositions of the times and tenderness of some mens Consciences had contracted for the better doing whereof we did intend to call a Synod and in the mean time We published in our Declaration from Breda a Liberty to tender Consciences We need not profess the high Affection and Esteem which We have for the Church of England as it is established by Law nor do we think that Reverence in the least diminished by our Condescentions not peremptorily to insist upon some particulars of Ceremony which however intruduced by the Piety and Devotion and Order of the former times may not be so agreeable to the present but may even lessen that Piety and Devotion for the improvement whereof they might be happily first introduced and consequently may be well dispens'd with And We have not the least doubt but the Bishops will think the Concessions now made by us just and reasonable and will cheerfully conform themselves thereunto that Kneeling at the Sacrament shall not be imposed nor the Cross nor Surplice nor any compelled to the Subscription or Oath of Canonical Obedience c. Behold the Promises that were made I hope he would not have us prove that they were not performed But it seems the King left all to the Parliament and they re-established matters to satisfaction but this will not prove that these Promises were not broken but only that they should not have been made The King at that time seemed willing to have kept his Promise and he had some honest Counsellors about him that advised him to it and in Order thereunto by his Commission He authorized divers Learned Persons of both Perswasions to consult together and agree on such Alterations in the Liturgy as were necessary to tender Consciences The Presbyterian Divines not one Dissenting offered to submit to Arch-Bishop Usher's Primitive Form of Episcopacy and to a stated Liturgy and drew up a most excellent One for that purpose which for aptness and gravity of Expression excellent Coherence and Method and suitableness to all the Emergencies of humane Life was incomparably beyond the old one And when that would not be received offered some amendments of the old one and would have complied with it but the Bishops treated them after a disdainful imperious manner and would yield to nothing for accommodation the Truth of this cannot be doubted by any that have seen the Proposals to the King the Petition for Peace and Account of the Proceedings of the Commissioners at the Savoy which an ingenious Conformist having lately read confessed to me that was a brave Opportunity for Comprehension and he was fully satisfied that the after Schism lay at the Bishops door And indeed it is no wonder that Consultation was so unsuccessful when it appears the leading men amongst the Bishops were so far from intending any such thing as Comprehension that their great design in Treating with the other Party was to know what they would stick at that so they might be sure to shut them out and it is credibly reported that Arch-Bishop Sheldon should say now we know their Minds we 'll make them all Knaves if they Conform and it was a remarkable saying of a Reverend Dean T. W. has often heard of when a sober Gentleman shewed some regret that the door was so strait that many sober Ministers could not have Admission replyed it was no Pitty at all if we thought so many of them would have Conformed we would have made it straiter The Act of Uniformity which they got in 1661. is justly esteemed the Source and Spring of all that Discord Persecution and Distraction the Nation has groaned under for many years and indeed no better Fruits could be expected from it if we consider the scandalous Arts that were used for the obtaining of it and though I am weary of Transcribing yet I will insert that remarkable Story that Captain Yarranton tells us in His full discovery of the first Presbyterian Sham-Plot Printed at London for Francis Smith near the Royal Exchange 1681. Where speaking of the Kings Gracious Declaration touching Ecclesiastical Affairs in 1660. part of which I have already recited he says If the Parliament had pass'd it into an Act it had probably cemented the greatest part of the Protestants throughout the Nation but some both of the Clergy and Laity that bore the greatest sway rejected it and so his Majesties good and peaceable Intentions proved Abortive These men by whose Instigations you may imagine instead of an Act of Union resolve upon an Act of Uniformity which they could not but know would prove the greatest Bâ—ne of Contention that ever was in the Nation and some of the Leading Church-men were heard to say they would have an Act so framed as would reach every Puritan in the Kingdom and that if they thought any of them would so stretch their Consciences as to be comprehended by it they would insert yet other Conditions and Subscriptions so as that they should have no Benefit by it But the King and Parliament they feared were not yet fully prepared for the passing of such an Act thereupon a Contrivement was set on Foot to make a Presbyterian Plot and this was the first they ever took in band and because it was never taken Notice of by some and forgotten by others I shall therefore set it down at large which I can the better do because I was a great sufferer therein and what I relate if occasion be I can prove by Letters and many living Witnesses This Sham-Plot was laid in about thirty six Counties of England but I shall write principally of that part of it which was executed in Worcestershire the Month of November in the Year 1661. Several Letters were drawn up and delivered by Sir John P to one Richard N his Neighbour to carry to one Cole of Martly about four Miles from Worcester who is now living This Cole according to Instructions delivereth a Pacquet of Letters to one Churne of Witchinford who also is or lately was alive and dwelt near Martly This Pacquet of Letters was carried by Cole and Churne unto Sir John P. from whom it came
exprest far different Sentiments concerning us and we hope we shall never do any thing to forfeit their Friendly respect but be always as ready to return as receive it I must not omit what this Gentleman has replyed to the Vindicator concerning the Penal Laws as they have been executed upon Protestant Dissenters He pretends they reclaimed many and did a great deal towards bringing English Protestants to Uniformity it was well he did not say to Unity for that had been one of the grossest Fallacies in the World And I will not deny but that many Dissenters went to Church when they had no where else to go their Ministers being some in Prison others beyond Sea and many not daring to shew their Heads and perhaps some of them were forced by those severe Proceedings to comply further than their Consciences could well allow and such kind of Conversions the French Dragoons may boast of too but it is nevertheless certain that these things tend to alienate the Minds of Men one from another and the present numbers of Dissenters may convince him such Methods will never effect a general Unity and it was some years ago observed in Parliament by an Honourable Person That neither the Oxford Act 1680. Coll. of Debates p. 211. nor that of the thirty fifth of the Queen nor any other had ever been executed in favour of the Church that Dissenters were as many if not more than ever And the present Bishop of Worcester will tell this Gentleman Charge in his Primary Visitation p. 25 26. That distance and too great stiffness of behaviour towards Dissenters have made some of them more their Enemies than they would have been That Persecution was a Popular Argument for them the Complaining side having always the most pitty but now that is taken off says he you may deal with them upon more equal Terms Some think Severity makes men consider I am afraid it heats them too much and makes them too violent and refractory That this Gentleman may see that not the Vindicator only but the most eminent Fathers of the Church of England condemn the Severities that have been used towards Protestant Dissenters and how unbecoming as well as imprudent a thing it is in him to justifie them I shall leave their own Words to his Consideration The present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who Honours the Metropolitane See more than he can be honoured by it in a Fast Sermon before the Queen Sept. 16 1691. speaking of the Clergy expresses himself thus And it can never be sufficiently lamented no though it were with Tears of Blood that we whose particular Charge and Imployment it is to build up the Souls of men in a Holy Faith and in the Resolution of a good Life should for want of due Instruction and by the Dissolute and Profligate Lives of too many amongst us and by inflaming our needless differences about lesser things have so great a hand in the pulling down Religion and in betraying the Souls of men c. The Bishop of Worcester in his Visliation Charge acknowledges that the Persecution of Dissenters was promoted by the Papists his Words are I hope they are now convinced that the Persecution which they complained lately so much of was carried on by other men and for other designs than they would then seem to believe Indeed we always thought the Papists had the chief hand in it and we are glad others begin to see it None has spoke more freely to this matter than the Bishop of Sarum in his Observations upon Ridleys Letter to Hooper P. 4. he puts this Objection But when the Clergy of the Church of England saw that good and great Men and the glorious Martyrs of Jesus Christ such as Hooper was were offended with these Ceremonies they should have used their utmost endeavours to have gotten them discharged by Law as they were impos'd by Law and not have left them to remain as a standing offence and a perpetual stumbling block to all others of Hoopers mind Now to this he Answers This I confess would be an Objection very much to the Prejudice of the Church of England could it not be truly said that the Clergy did heartily endeavour to procure this ease to scrupulous Consciences though without success for all the eminent Bishops of England in Queen Elizabeths time did labour in this Point and could not prevail with the Queen to Consent to it And a little further blaming the Nonconformists for crying out so much of Persecution excuses it thus If any man take my right hand and therewith bruise and batter my left hand is my right hand therefore become a Persecutor Is it not really persecuted as well as the other and has it not a fellow-feeling and share of the Misery and in his Exhortation to Peace and Union God be thanked for it that there is an End put to all Persecution in matters of Religion P. 27. and that the first and chief right of Humane Nature of following the dictates of Conscience in the Service of God is secured to all men amongst us and that we are freed I hope for ever of all the Remnants of the worst part of Popery I mean the Spirit of Persecution The Seven Bishops in their Petition to the late King declared they would not be wanting in due Tenderness to Dissenters but willingly come to such a temper as should be thought fit when the matter should come to be considered and settled in Parliament and Convocation and about the time of the P. of Orange's Landing all their discourse was of Union Comprehension insomuch as that a Reverend Prelate told a dissenting Minister He need never to fear Persecution from the Church of England again adding If any such thing should ever happen let me be accounted a false Prephet I hope these Gentlemen will not give us occasion to say as Demades the Orator was wont to say of the Athenians That they never came to consult of Peace nisi atrati but in Mourning under some Publick Calamity or Danger Our gracious Soveraign when P. of Orange in his Declaration promised to endeavour a good Agreement between the Church of England and all Protestant Dissenters and to cover and secure all those who would live peaceably under the Government from all persecution upon the account of their Religion and has all along strictly adhered to that Royal Promise and Design and in pursuance thereof encircled with his Lords and Commons in Parliament has given us our present Indulgence as that which the Wisdom of the Nation judged the likeliest way to Unite us all in Interest and Affection and I hope the Sentiments of all these will more than ballance what our Gentleman has offered to Vindicate the Execution of the Penal Laws and he must be a man of more than ordinary assurance that durst take upon him to oppose his private peevish opinion to such an august and venerable Determination This Gent. as well as