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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all Instituted Worship and Discipline as if there could be Church-Members under Government antecedent to the being of Particular Churches even when no one that is not a Member of a Particular Church is a Member of the Universal As if a City that consists of many particular Houses were in order of nature antecedent to every particular House § 3. That the Unity of the Christian Church consists in one Communion Catholique Unity signifies Catholique Communion To have a Right to be a Member of the Christian Church to communicate in all the several Duties and Offices of Religion with all Christians all the World over and to partake in all the Priviledges of Christians and to be admitted to the freedom of their conversation to eat and drink and discourse and trade together So that such as are not Church-Members have no right to trade among Christians A pleasant Insinuation § 4. The Unity of the Christian Sacraments viz. Baptism and the Lords-Supper prove the Unity of Christian Communion This is from p. 193. to p. 208. § 5. Unity of Church-Power and Government doth also prove the Unity of Christian Communion Under this head he maintains 1. That every Bishop Presbyter or Deacon by his Ordination is made a Minister of the Catholique Church though for the better edification of the Church the exercise of his Office is more peculiarly confin'd to some particular place 2. Every Bishop and Presbyter receives into the Catholique Church by Baptism and shuts out of the Catholique Church by Excommunication 3. That the Catholique Church is united and coupled by the cement of Bishops who stick close together for which you produce Cyprian 4. That the Unity and Peace of the Episcopacy is maintained by their governing their Churches by mutual Consent Whence you mention the Collegium Episcopale the Episcopal Colledge which I take to be a Council of Bishops which Bishops have an Original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church i.e. the foreign Bishops as those of Alexandria and Rome c. have an Original Power and Right in relation to the whole Church even a Right and Power in relation to England 5. That every part of the Universal Church is under the Government of the Universal Bishops assembled in their Colledge or in Council and what Bishop soever abuse his Power he shall be accountable to those assembled in Council 6. That there is no such thing as the Independency of Bishops their Independency being almost as inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity as the Indpendency of single Congregations Whence the Church of England called either Archi-Episcopal National or Patriarchal is not Independent but accountable unto Foreign Bishops if at any time they abuse their Power 7. That this Council of Forreign Bishops unto which they are accountable must look on the Bishop of Rome as their Primate the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome being acknowledged it seems by our Author himself as well as by Bramhall The Primacy he saith out of Cyprian being given to Peter that it might appear that the Church of Christ was One and the Chair that is the Apostolical Office and Power is One. Thus Cyprian on whom lay all the care of the Churches dispatches Letters to Rome from whence they were sent through all the Catholique Churches All this is to be found from p. 208 to the end of the Chapter Thus you agree with Bramhall though you express not the Notion so well as he doth and should learn it better Before I proceed therefore I cannot but desire you to consider what is become of your Protestant Episcopacy I beseech you Sir consider Is the French Episcopacy a Protestant Episcopacy If not seeing the English Episcopacy as described by you is the same with the French Why call you the one a Popish and the other a Protestant Episcopacy Whether you agree not in these respects with the Papists let the world judge But you go on to assert § 6. That to be in Commuion with any Church is to be a Member of it every Member having equal Right and equal Obligation to all parts of Christian Communion even that Communion which is External and Visible p. 132 c. § 7. All Christians being bound to communicate with that part of the Catholique Church wherein they live are guilty of Schism if they separate whoever separate from such particular Churches as are members of the Catholick Church do separate from the Universal Catholick Church which is Schism For to divide from any part of the Catholick Church is to break Catholick communion i. e. to be a Schismatick Whence 't is concluded 1. That Schism is a separating from the Catholick Church which notion taken singly will stand the Dissenters and all true Christians who must be acknowledged to be members of the Catholick Church in great stead freeing them from the odious sin of Schism The Dissenters divide not themselves from the communion of the Universal Church Ergo not Schismaticks But the mischief is that as this notion of Schism which our Author adheres unto is the same with that of the Papists as is to be seen in Filiucius Azorius c. but in an especial manner in Charity maintain'd by Catholicks even so he closes with the same Popish Faction in asserting 2. That separating from the Church of England is a separating from the Catholick Church as if the Catholick Church had been as much confin'd within the bounds of the Church of England as the Papists says within the limits of Rome Whence whoever separates from the Church of England cuts himself from the Catholick Church puts himself out of a state of salvation He is extra Ecclesiam extra quam nulla salus they are all while Schismaticks in a state of damnation But surely if these men believed so much methinks they should not be at rest until all their unscriptural impositions were removed unless they have greater kindness for such trifles than they have for such immortal souls for whom Christ dyed By this Doctrine we may understand why 't is that some of our Clergy shew greater tenderness towards Drunkards Swearers Papists than towards poor Dissenters The former may hold communion with the Church of England and consequently with the Catholick Church when the others are undoubtedly in a state of damnation as if we were all in the same state with Hereticks I 'le not as easily I might now enlarge in shewing the weakness which the Dean's Substitute hath discovered in the management of this Grotian or Cassandrian Design but only tell him That if he had consulted that excellent Treatise The Grotian Religion discovered by Mr. Baxter he might have seen an unanswerable confutation of a great part of his Book or if he had rather applied himself unto that great Prelate Bishop Bramhall a man of extraordinary worth for his Learning he might have better digested his Notion For there he would have been furnished with such distinctions about Communion that would
Comment on the former entituled The English Pope Printed at London in the same Year 1643 and he will tell us That after Con had undertook the managing of the Affairs matters began to grow to some Agreement The King Required saith he such a Dispensation from the then Pope as that his Catholique Subjects might resort to the Protestant Churches and to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Fidelity and that the Pope's Jurisdiction here should be declared to be but of Humane Right And so far had the Pope consented that whatever did concern the King therein should have been really performed so far as other Catholick Princes usually enjoy and expect as their due And so far as the Bishops were to be Independent both from King and Pope there was no fear of breach on the Pope's part So that upon the point the Pope was to content himself amongst us in England with a Priority instead of a Superiority over other Bishops and with a Primacy instead of a Supremacy in these Parts of Christendom which I conceive no man of Learning and Sobriety would have grudged to grant him It was also condescended to in the name of the Pope that Marriage might be permitted to Priests that the Communion might be administred sub utraque specie and that the Liturgy might be officiated in the English Tongue And though the Author adds not long after that it was to be suspected That so far as the Inferiour Clergy and the People were concerned the after performance was to be left to the Popes discretion yet this was but his own Suspicion without ground at all And to obtain a Reconciliation upon these advantages the Archbishop had all the reason in the world to do as he did in ordering the Lords-Table to be placed where the Altar stood and making the accustomed Reverence in all approaches towards it and accesses to it In beautifying and adorning Churches and celebrating the Divine Service with all due Selemnities in taking care that all offensive and exasperating passages should be expunged out of such Books as were brought to the Press and for reducing the extravagancy of some Opinions to an evener temper His Majesty had the like Reason also for Tolerating lawful Recreations on Sundays and Holydays But the Doctor goes on If you would know how far they had proceeded towards this happy Reconciliation the Popes Nuncio will assure us thus That the Universities Bishops and Divines of this Realm did daily embrace Catholick Opinions though they professed not so much with Pen or Mouth for fear of the Puritans For example They hold that the Church of Rome is a true Church That the Pope is Superiour to all Bishops That to him it appertains to call General Councils That 't is lawful to pray for the Souls of the departed That Altars ought to be erected of Stone In sum That they believe all that is taught by the Church but not by the Court of Rome Another of their Authors tells us as was elsewhere noted That those amongst us of greatest Worth Learning and Authority began to love Temper and Moderation That their Doctrines began to be altered in many things for which their Progenitors forsook the Visible Church of Christ As for example The Pope not Antichrist Prayers for the Dead Limbus Patrum Pictures That the Church hath Authority in determining Controversies of Faith and to interpret Scriptures about Free-will Predestination Universal Grace That all our Works are not Sins Merit of good Works Inherent Justice Faith alone doth justifie Charity to be preferr'd before Knowledg the Authority of Traditions Commandments possible to be kept That in Exposition of the Scripture they are by Canon bound to follow the Fathers And that the once fearful names of Priests and Altars are used willingly in their Talk and Writings In which compliances so far forth as they speak the Truth saies Heylin for in some points through the Ignorance of the One and the Malice of the Other they are much mistaken there is scarce any thing which may not very well consist with the established though for a time discontinued Doctrine of the Church of England The Articles whereof as the same Jesuit hath observed seem patient or ambitious rather of some sense wherein they may seem Catholick And such a sense is put upon them by him that calls himself Franciscus â Sancta Clara as before was said So far Heylir Thus to carry on this Recenciling Design all the care imaginable must be taken to humour the Papist not only by prosecuting the Puritan with the greatest severity but the Pope must not any longer be stigmatized with the name of Antichrist all exasperating passages in any Book brought to the Press must be expung'd not one word of the Gunpowder-Treason for said Baker the Bishop of London's chaplain We are not now so angry with the Papists as we were twenty years ago and that there was no need to exasperate them and therefore the Book concerning the Gunpowder-Treason must by no means be reprinted the Divine Service must be in some respects altered that whereas the Reformers in Queen Elizabeth's time had a greater kindness for the Pope than those in H. 8. and Ed. 6. manifested by expunging a clause against the Pope viz. From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities Good Lord deliver us Even so in imitation Archbishop Land changes some phrases in the Book of Prayers for the fifth of November So far a Church of England Dr. To which I might add several other instances but I wish there had not been the woful occasion of insisting on so much By this time the Reader may see cause to suspect at least the Deans Substitute who in the Defence of the Dr. gives us the scheme of the old Grotian model so much esteemed by the Archbishop Laud who in his walking towards Rome kept most exactly thereunto But notwithstanding this caution must be had that we reproach not all the Church of England as if they had been such as this Author for I do verily believe there are very few this day in England among the Conforming Clergy who will approve of this mans notion but probably may judg themselves as much concerned to oppose it as any among the Dissenters I 'm sure Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury and Usher Primate of Ireland were persons of quite another principle and temper And not only Abbot and Usher but if we may judg of a Queen Elizabeth Protestant by the Writings of the famous Hooker and Dr. Field we may be sure that this man to say nothing of the Dean hath notwithstanding the great talk of the glory of the first Reformation forsaken the notion the old church of England had of the church and of such as are judged Schismatical falling in with the French Papacy about Church-Government as I will evince in the next Section SECT II. The Deans Substitutes agreement with the Papists about Schism even when he differs from the
Universal Church are in the number of French Papists Thus Cassander yea and Grotius as to Church-Government were for a French Papacy Whether the Dean's Substitute be or be not I 'le leave to the impartial censure of the judicious Râ—â—der who is desired to consider his notion as compared with that of the Parisians 1. The Dean's Substitute doth suggest That the Universal Church is the first Seat of Government 't is a political organiz'd Body in which there is a Pars Imperans Subdita the Bishops in their Colledg being the Governours or Pars Imperans and all others of the Universal Church the subdite part It may be our Author to gratifie the Dean will deny the Universal Church to be a political organiz'd body as indeed he doth but 't is even when he 's resolv'd to assert That the Universal church is the Seat of Government and Discipline as if there could be any Government in any Society without a governing and governed parts But so it is as a National even so the Universal church with him is not a political body that is 't is not such a body unto whose constitution a pars Imperans and subdita is necessary even when its constitution is such that it cannot be but there must be in it some Governours and other Governed Therâ— is not a Regent part in the Catholick Church but there is a Governing part that is there are Governours viz. the Catholick Bishops in their Colledg who are the Governours of the Catholick church Thus our Learned Gentleman in one place endeavouring to fetch the Dean off from that difficulty Mr. Humphreys had driven him unto concerning the constitutive Regent part of the church of England as National doth say The Dean answers in my poor opinion with great judgment and consideration We deny any necessity of such a constitutive Regent part For though a National church be one body yet it is not such a political body as Mr. B. describes i. e. there is no such Government as cannot be without a Pars Regens Subdita p. 562. And yet he grants That Church-Governours united and governing by consent are the pars Imperans and christian peoplo in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour submitting to such government are the pars subdita p. 565. All which is true saith he without a Constitutive Regent Head i. e. There is a Governing part or a pars Regens or to speak English a Constitutive Regent part or Head without a Constitutive Regent Head The like is asserted of the Universal Church namely That it is a Church governed by the Colledge of Bishops which Colledge of Bishops are the Pars Imperans though not the constitutive Regent part For we must allow him to wallow in his contradictions But a Governing part there is in the Universal Church which Governing part is compos'd of Bishops II. The Governours of the Universal Church are Catholick Bishops in Council who though they are equals and as such have no Superiority over one another p. 213. yet the Colledge or these Bishops assembled have Authority and command over any of its collegues that is every single Bishop is under the Authority and command of this Foreign Council III. The Catholick Church is One when it is not rent and divided but united and coupled by the cement of Bishops who stick câ—ose together p. 596. The result of all is That the Catholick Church of Christ being one Visible Political Body it is a compleatly Organiz'd body on Earth hath its Governing and Governed parts The Visible Governing part being a Terrestrial Numerical Head though collective viz. A Colledge of Bishops a General Council A Notion that doth not only subvert the present constitution of the Church of England that thinks not it self accountable to any such Forreign Power but moreover in it self as grosly absurd as 't is suited to the French the Cassandrian or the Grotian Model leading us all to Unite with all the other parts of the Catholick Church by rendring an unwarrantable Obedience unto such a Governing Power as is seldom in being and when so as dangerous and of as destructive a tendency to the Government of Jesus Christ as that of the Italian Papacy But whether our Author had a clear prospect of this Intreague when at first he was put on it I 'll not venture to determine it being sufficient that I have fully proved That the New-Modell'd Episcopacy of this Gentleman is the same with that of the French which is as inconsistent with the old-establish'd Episcopacy of our Church as is the Italian Papacy For if our Author may safely exceed the bounds of those Laws that do with the greatest Severity forbid our Appeal to any Forreign Power by addressing himself unto a Forreign Colledge Why may not another presume to make his Appeal to the Court of Rome What Reason can be given for the One which will not prove cogent for the Other especially to such who living where they have constant experiences of the excellency of a Monarchical Government in the State may be easily induced to conclude Monarchy as admirable in the Church and then farewel Impossibilities viz. General Councils a Roman Monarch in the Church being much more desirable Having thus given a true state of the Controversie whereby we find our Author to agree exactly with the French Papist about Gâ—vernment asserting the Universal Church as such to be a Governed Body in which there is a Governour and the Governed 't will be requisite that as I have shewn what are some of the Absurdities which flow from it that I do moreover evince it to be in it self unsound and false That this may the more clearly and with the greater conviction be performed I will be so just as to do our Author all the right imaginable by taking notice what he seems to assert and what he 's resolv'd to deny and accordingly proceed to the strictest disquisition after the Truth Our Author asserts That the Universal Church as such is the Seat of Government 't is a Body under Government as much as if it had been said There must be in it a Governing and a Governed part It being impossible that Government should be without Order which Order is secundum sub Supra Wherever there is Government there must be a Superiour part Governing and an Inferiour Governed There must be Dominus Subditus This our Author seems to grant when he doth to this Assertion of the Government of the Universal Church add his thoughts about the Governours thereof which he saies are the Universal Bishops assembled in Council But alrhough this is what our Author doth assert he doth notwithstanding resolutely deny the Universal Church to be a Political Body what he saith of a National that he asserts of the Universal Church both which are Govern'd Societies but neither a Political Body p. 564 565. All which is to fetch off the Dean from Mr. Humphrey's and Mr. B's unanswerable Queries
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
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
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
thanks for The Doctor 's Substitute as hereafter I will from his own words prove doth sufficiently declare what his party would be at which is a point I 'm sure that will meet with opposition from such as are true Sons of the Church whereby the Controversie if closely followed must cease to be between Conformist and Noncormist it must be between Conformist and Conformist It looks as if there were among our Church-men some resolv'd to revive Laud's Design as 't is well known there are many others among them who highly value the Principles and Temper of that great Protestant Prelate Abbot Laud's Predecessor in the See of Canterbury between whom the Scussle must at last end That this may with the greater Conviction be evinc'd I will in this Reply to the Defence of the Dean c. confine my self to the Author 's own words as compared with what is more than suggested in the Writings of Bishop Bramhall and some other Sons of the Church of England the which with due clearness I shall not be able to compass if I follow our Author in his disorderly way of Writing For which reason I must keep to the Method I took in the Modest and Peaceable Enquiry and bring what calls for my observation into its proper place The whole then he hath offered in Answer to the Enquiry may be reduced to these Heads 1. His Reflections on the Title of the Enquiry 2. His Censure of the Author's Design 3. The Defence of the Dean I 'll begin with the First The Author reflects on the Title as if the Discourse notwithstanding the specious pretences of the Title had not been as Modest nor as Peaceable as suggested in doing which he spends one whole Chapter it may be not fâ—nding matter enough in the Discourse it self to enlarge so far as to write any thing that might deserve the name of an Answer or countenance the Title given his Great Book I could very easily therefore as one unconcern'd pass by this first Chapter if there had not been more in it than the representing me as a person who deserve not the Character of being either Modest or Peaceable But the Overt acts of Immodesty which are insisted on by this Author being such as cannot but be of an ill Tendency I must consider ' em The first instance of Immodesty is thus express'd He begins his Epistle to the Dean with observing how industrious the Papists have been ever since the Reformation to ruine England and the Churches of Christ in it which he sufficiently proves from their Rebellions and Insurrections in King Edward's days the Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeths the Gun-Powder Treason in King James's c. and the late Hellish Conspiracy which was designed for the utter Extirpation of the Protestant Religion and the universal Destruction of all the Professors thereof whether Episcopal or Dissenter But this modest man saies our Author takes no notice That King and Kingdom Church and State have been once ruined already by such Modest Dissenters and may be in a fair way for it again if we suffer our selves to be Charmed and Lulled asleep by such modest Inquirers We are aware Sir what a Popish Zeal would do and what a Factious Zeal has done and think our selves concern'd as much as we can to countermine the Designs of both But however I confess it was very modestly done to pass over this that while men are zealous against Popery they may fear no danger from any other quarter Rep. Whether the mentioning the Rebellions and Insurrections of the Papists in King Edw. the 6th days the Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeths the Gunpowder-Treason in King James's the Hellish Plot of late discovered be an extraordinary act of Immodesty or Unpeaceableness let any temperate man among the Church of England judge that please Is it an Act of Immodesty to relate such notorious Truths or of Unpeaceableness to mention the Dangers we are in on the account of Popish bloody Plots This it may be is not the Crime but what follows which is This modest man saith our Author takes no notice That King and Kingdom Church and State have been once ruin'd already by such modest Dissenters and may be in a fair way for it again if we suffer our selves to be Charm'd and Lull'd asleep by such Modest Inquirers Rep. Hereby we know what the Authour would be at 't is as if he had said This Modest Enquirer is very immodest and quarrelsome for not imitating the Jesuitical Clubs who are contrary to the Act of Oblivion raking in old sores calling us to the remembrance of 41. to make us look back on the actings of Archb. Laud and his Faction the steps they made towards Rome the bones of contention they cast in between a Protestant Prince and a Church of England Parliament the Civil War begun by the Episcâ—pal who were Chief in each Army 'T was this the Enquirer indeed past over in silence wishing with his very Soul that the Episcopal Clergy had been either so wise or honest as to have done their utmost to have prevented those Ruins which their own Divisions brought on these Nations For 't is well known to many hundreds now alive who they were that had an Influence on those Unnatural Broils and Intestine Quarrels and whoever will consult Mr. Baxter against Hinekley or rather Mr. Rushworth and Dr. Heylin will see That the Sons of the Church of England more on both sides the active persons concern'd in the very beginning of those Troubles But those things the Inquirer was loath to mention it being as Unnecessary as Unsuitable to his Peaceable Design However seeing our Author will not be satisfied unless some notice be taken of those that once already Ruin'd King and Kingdom c. I will out of Dr. Heylin's Life of Laud a good Record at least in the sense of the Dean's Defender shew who they were that did it In a perusal of which 't will appear That 't was the Papists who had a sole hand in the Plot no Protestant I verily believe ever design'd what was the unhappy product of the Hellish Conspiracies of the bloody Papist This hath been long ago discover'd by Dr. Du Moulm and since by Dr. Oates and here most exactly related by Dr. Heylin a Son of the Church in these words viz. A Confederacy was formed amongst them i. e. the Papists consisting of some of the most subtle heads in the whole fesuitical Party by whom it was concluded to foment the Broils began in Scotland and to heighten the Combustions there that the King being drawn into a War might give them the opportunity to effect their Enterprize for sending Him and the Archbishop to the other World Which being by one of the party on Compunction of Conscience made known to Andreas ab Habernsfield who had been Chaplain as some said to the Queen of Bohemia they both together gave intimation of it to Sir William Boswell his Majesties Resident at
have been for his purpose and rectification In his Defence of the Church of England Tom. 2. Disp 2. c. 2. he saith The Communion of the Christian Catholick Church is partly internal partly external Among many other things in discoursing of internal communion 't is added That it is to judg charitably one of another To exclude none from the Catholick Communion and hope of salvation either Eastern or Western or Southern or Northern Christians which profess the ancient Faith of the Apostles and primitive Fathers established in the first General Councils and comprehended in the Apostolick Nicene and Athanasian Creeds This granted by our Author as describ'd by Bramhall seeing the Faith contain'd in these Creeds is professed by the Dissenters 't is queried Whether or no this Gentleman doth not fall short in this respect of Catholick internal communion by excluding the Dissenters from the Catholick communion and hope of salvation Moreover as to external communion says Bramhall There are degrees of exclusion every one that is excluded is not cut off from the Catholick Church for external communion may sometimes be suspended more or less by the just censures of the Church clave non errante as in the primitive times some were excluded a caetu participantium only from the use of the Sacraments others a caetu procumbentium from Sacraments and Prayers also and others a caetu Audientium from Sacraments Prayers and Sermons and others a caetu Filâ—lium from the society of Christians yea and as it may be suspended it may be waved or withdrawn by particular Churches or persons from their Neighbour Churches or Christians in their Innovations or Errors Nor is there so strict and perpetual an adherence required to a particular Church as to the universal Church This surely is enough to intimate how sudden our Authors thoughts were for had he but deliberated on those things as this great Bishop did he would not assert so confidently That the separating from a particular Church that is in the Universal is a separating from the Universal Leaving therefore our Author to receive further light from this Bishop concerning his own notion I 'le make my address to the Reader beseeching him to apply himself to our Protestant Divines for an answer to what is said against the dependency of the Church of England on Foreign Churches such as Rome c. And as to what he saith concerning Schism from the Universal Church which p. 256. saith he is when any shall separate from that part of the Catholick Church where they dwell and set up any distinct Churches meerly for some greater degree of purity This is so like what the Author of Charity maintain'd by Catholicks insisted on that the Memorandums given by the famous Mr. Chillingworth will be sufficient to enab'e an ordinary capacity to answer the whole he hath asserted about Schism 1. That not every separation but a causless separation from the external communion of any Church is the sin of Schism 2. That imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known errors and practising known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation and that this is the cause which Protestants alledg to justifie their separation from the Church of Rome To which I must add That this is the cause which Dissenters alledg to justifie their separation from the Church of England it being uncontroulably true That the professing known errors and the practising known corruptions is imposed on Dissenters on pain of Excommunication as hath been proved in Mr. Baxter's first Plea for Peace never answered but only nibled at by some inconsiderate Scriblers The Dissenters are convinc'd in conscience that if they continued in your communion they should sin against God What can be offered against this I know not unless you 'l say unto us thus viz. If this your pretence of conscience may serve what Schismatick in the Church what popular seditious brain in a Kingdom may not alledg the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from Schism or Sedition No man wishes them to do any thing against their conscience but we say that they may and ought to rectifie and depose such a conscience which is easie for them to do This is what hath been frequently urg'd by the Clergy yea by the Dean of Pauls But seeing these words are taken out of the mouth of a Papist the answer shall be no other than what I find in the mouth of a son of the Church the famous Chillingworth who asserts That whoever is convinced in conscience that the Church of Rome errs cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of her errors and the reason hereof is manifest because otherwise he must profess what he believes not and practice what he approves not which is no more than your self in thesi have divers times affirmed For in one place you say 't is unlawful to speak any the least untruth Now he that professes your Religion and believes it not what else doth he but live in a perpetual lye Again in another you have called them that profess one thing and believe another a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And therefore in inveighing against Protestants for forsaking the profession of those Errors the belief whereof they had already forsaken what do you but rail at them for not being a damned crew of Sycophants The same may be said as to the Dissenters who are in conscience convinced that they must profess to believe what really they do not should they conform But as to what the wicked may pretend as to conscience take the Author's answer 'T is said that a pretence of conscience will not serve to justifie separation from being Schismatical which is true but little to the purpose saith Mr. Chil. seeing it was but an erroneous persuasion much less an hypocritical pretence but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience And therefore though seditious men in the Church and State may pretend conscience for a cloak of their Rebellion yet this I hope hinders not but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience rather than the unjust command of his Tyrannous Superiors Otherwise with what colour can you defend either your own refusing the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy I may add Otherwise with what colour can the Dean and his Substitute defend their so firmly adhering to the present Constitution But to return to the third Memorandum 3. That to leave the Church and to leave the external communion of the Church at least as Dr. Potter understands the words and I think I may safely add as every Protestant but a Grotian understands is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to have those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as Faith and Obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick Worship of God This little Armour
any one instance Or did I make it my business to carp at every little thing in his Preface Did I insist on far-fetcht consequences or force any undue sense on his words Did I speak all I could to shew the Tendency of his Preface or whole Book Or did I take notice of any thing more than what was necessary for the clearing up the innocency of the Dissenter As to these particulars you cannot fasten your Accusation But yet my aim must be exposing the Dean and why exposing him What was the Dean expos'd because the charge with which he would load Dissenters was such that the very repeating and confuting it tends to his Reproach If so whose fault is that I do freely confess That I believe the Deans charge against Dissenters to be so indecent that thereby he hath lost very much of that Esteem he formerly had among Judicious Gentlemen of the Church of England but this is not my fault nor an Argument that what I wrote in the Defence of the Dissenter was with a design of exposing the Dean A thing I could have easily done without either wresting his words or imposing a forreign sense on ' em How easily could I have imitated the famous Bishop Jewel and have pick'd such passages out of the Dean's Discourses as that Great Prelate did out of Harding and have shewed how unlike himself the Dean acted in contemning and pitying the Reverend Mr. Baxter in comparing the judicious Mr. Alsop's Discourse to the Bird of Athens made up of Face and Feathers and representing Mr. Alsop himself so as if all things had not been right that is as if he had been mad Of this I the rather take notice because a very serious person on the reading the Dean's Book came to me on purpose to enquire whether Mr. Alsop was never mad If not said he Why did Dr. Stillingfleet write as if he had Many other things of a more uncomely aspect I could have taken out of the Dean's Writings but I wav'd it it not being my work in that Enquiry or this Reply to acquaint the World with the naevi of the Reverend Doctor and therefore notwithstanding the many provocations you have given me in your Defence of the Dean I 'm resolved to treat the Dean more civilly than he did Mr. B. or Mr. A. or than you have Mr. B. or Mr. H. and the Country Conformist The exposing men to Popular Odium and Fury becomes only such who hate Persons more than their Opinions and who have little to offer against their Adversaries besides hard words It becomes not men who pretend to act suitably to the Christian Rule to use railing Expressions instead of pungent Arguments nor to expose the Person instead of confuting his Opinion For this Reason I did in the Mâ—dest and Peaceable Enquiry on a second perusal expunge all such words as might seem hard or unmeet treating the Dean with the greatest Candour and Respect not suffering one passage to go to the Press that might tend to his reproach unless rehearsing the charge lain in against the Dissenter as cloath'd with his own words and the confuting him must be esteem'd as such 'T is true I shew'd the Tendency of his Discourse which I thought to be for the advancing the Papal Interest The very thing the Dean's Substitute drives at in the Dean's Defence wherein our Author goes much further than the Dean or at least hath expressed his sentiments more freely and with less caution But shall this be considered as an exposing you to popular odium and fury You assert That the Universal Church is a governed Society That the Bishops in their Colledg are the governing part That the Bishops conven'd in their Assembly do not meet only for mutual Help and Concord but for Regiment The Assembly of Bishops in Council is not such as that of Princes of several distinct Territories who meet together in order to the maintaining and conserving a general Union and Peace in the World for instance that at Nimmegen at which Convention the Princes come freely and when there the One is not under the Regiment of the Assembly but each one free to Consent or Dissent to any thing proposed for Peace their Territories being as so many distinct Independent Governments whose Governours are not accountable to any General Council of Princes in the World Such an Assembly of Bishops you are not for For this say you p. 601. makes Christian Communion as Arbitrary a thing as the Confederacies of Princes whereas the Episcopal Office is but One and therefore ought to be administred by the mutual Advice and Consent of Bishops who all equally share in it that is the whole World must be considered as of One and the same Government that the many particular Princes of diâ—tinct Territories such as England France Spain Denmark c. are not Independent in their Government but are accountable either unto One Universal Emperour or Diâ—â— c. This is what you assert as to Church-Government 't is One all the World ever Though lesser Societies are variously dispersed yet are all under one and the same Government the Bishops of the one and of the other are oblig'd to meet together in their Colledge or Diâ—â— where they are all bound to submit unto the Caâ—â—â— Dâ—â—â—â— or Determinations of the Colledge that whoever dissents from the Body of the Colledge is Schismatical This is your Notion and for ought I know the Deans a Notion that is the same with that of the French Papacy that doth but fairly lead us to Rome But must the mentioning so much expose you to the rage and fury of the people If so whom can you blame but your self The like may be said to the Dean to whom I add this one request which is to consider the Tendency of his great Book as well as of this your Defence of him and if his Aimes and the Tendency of either of these Discourses be different 't will be apparent that I was not mistaken in my Charity of the Author when I pass'd my censure on his Treatise However 't is sufficient that the utmost I did was to expose the evil Tendency of the Book endeavouring as much as possibly I could to save the Dean from lying under Reproaeh distinguishing between the Author and his Work This much may serve as more than enough to our Author's Censure of invisible and unknown Designs CHAP. III. A Reply to the Defence of the Dean of Paul's so far as it concerns the Modest and Peaceable Enquiry SECT I. The Answer to what the Enquirer insisted on in shewing the Deans Mistakes about the Jesuits Doctrine concerning Spiritual Prayer Examined § 1. The present Aids of the Spirit in enabling Ministers in the Exercise of their Function agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England Dr. Burnet's most Christian Reproof to such Ministers as neglect the inward Motions of the Spirit § 2. The Ground of the first Separation in Queen Elizabeths
days the very same with that of the first Reformation from Popery beginning in Henry the 8th's time and Sealed after with the Blood of our Martyrs THE Deans Substitute doth at last apply himself to the Defence of the Doctor in doing which he considers the Reasons I collected out of the Dean's Preface which the Dean urges to engage the Reader to believe that the Dissenters are a people carrying on the Popish Designs 1. The Dissenters have embraced the Jesuits Principles about Spiritual Prayer and a more pure way of Worship This is what I observ'd out of Dr. Still But our Author who hath read over the Doctors Preface very carefully can find no such thing urged against the Dissenters and adds All that Mr. Lobb founds this Accusation on is That the Dean says It is not improbable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of Spiritual Prayer in England And then goes on to a very decent Censure saying That this is mighty falsely and imperfectly represented Sir If I had insisted on no more than what you here mention as the foundation of my Charge I must acknowledg that 't would not only be imperfectly but impertinently related For what connexion is there between the Jesuits Practises and their Principles Is it not well known that the Principles they profess the Doctrines they embrace concerning many a point in Divinity are one thing even when their Practice is another May they not then in order to the carrying on a further Design set on Practices contrary to their Doctrines Yea surely they may and this is the whole Defence you make in behalf of the Dean with which after an unnecessary Harangue you dismiss the Subject But is this fair to misrepresent an Adversary and then confute what needs no Confutation Doth this redound to the Honour of a Presbyter of the Church of England Was this all on which Mr. Lobb founded his Accusation Did he not add somewhat more than what you relate You say all that Mr. Lobb founds this accusation on is that the Dean says It is not improbable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of Spiritual Prayer in England which is mighty falsely and imperfectly repesented p. 6. Yet whoever will consult the Enguiry will find that I do out of the Dean add That there is no improbality of the thing if we consider the Dissenters pretences about Spiritual Prayer to the Doctrine and Practice of the Jesuits The Dean suggests that Spiritual and Free Prayer even that Spiritual and Free Prayer about which there is such a Pother is suited to the Doctrines of the Jesuits to the Doctrine that is to their Principles What difference is there between the Doctrine and the Principles of the Church of England In like manner I Query What difference is there between the Doctrines and Principles of the Jesuits Doth the Dean then assert such an Agreement to be between the Pretences of the Dissenter about Spiritual Prayer and the Doctrines or Principles of the Jesuits not only the Practices but Doctrines of the Jesuits Who then is the impersect or mistaken Reporter The Dean's Charge against Dissenters is That the Dissenters pretences about Spiritual Prayer are suited with the Doctrines of the Jesuits And 't is our concern to enquire after the truth of this Charge I say of this charge to wit about the Agreeableness that is between our Pretences and their Doctrines For it is no way momentous to enquire after the practice of a company of Villains who can transform themselves into a thousand shapes whenever their Interest obliges them to do so Was it never known that a Papist crept into some great Preferment in the Church of England at which time they did both Assent and Consent to the doctrines of the Church of England What think you of a quondam Bishop of Glocester to mention no more did he not speak well of the Church of England yea even of the Protestant Religion Is it therefore Popery For this Reafon it concerns me not to enquire after those Stories insisted on by the Doctor or to be found in that Pamphlet called Foxes and Firebrands The great Enquiry must be after the Doctrines of the Jesuit whether there is any suitableness between the Dissenters pretences and the Jesuits Doctrines For which Reason the Jesuits Writings were consulted and the Doctor 's Charge found untrue the Dr. being mistaken as to matter of fact He represented the Jesuits Doctrines to be other than indeed they are which to speak softly was a Mistake If the Deans Defender would have spoke to the purpose He should have searched those places I insisted on in Azorius Filiucius and Bellarmine and have shewed wherein I had either made a false report of their sayings or misinterpreted ' em But this was impossible There being nothing else of moment in the Reply to what I offered against the Dean about Spiritual Prayer I might fairly without saying any thing more proceed to the next particular But seeing some have spoken contemptibly of the Spirit of prayer which is said to assist such as use free or extempore prayer as if those who spake of receiv'd help from the Spirit in prayer were Enthusiastical c. and because our Author talks as if the Jesuits had the first hand in the Separation of the old Nonconformists from the Church of England crying down the Common-prayers as a dull formal superstitious Worship and the setting up free prayer in the room of it I will shew 1. The sense of the first Reformers about the aid of the Spirit And 2. What was the great and chief ground of the First Separation § 1. Concerning the Aid of the Holy Spirit by which many are enabled to pray freely or spiritually it hath been by some of the conforming Ministers asserted That such as pretend to receive the aid of the Spirit may as well pretend to inspiration c. That then they 'l believe that persons can pray by the Spirit when they hear the unlearned can pray in Latin Greek or in some other unknown language as if the aids the Spirit affords unto such as pray freely had been extraordinary c. This I cannot but consider as what doth very much reflect on the Dispensation of the Spirit to the great dishonour of true Christian Religion For such is the present state of true Religion that whoever speaks contemptibly of the Spirits Aid must be esteemed not only a Despiser of the first Reformers but of that part of the present Constitution to which our Clergy on their entrance into their Function are principally concern'd 1. T is well known that what the first Reformers did in the Reforming the Liturgy was by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled in Parliament recorded to have been done by the Aid of the Holy Ghost The Parliament in K. Edward's days passing an Act for the confirmation of the Publick Liturgy in the preamble thereof declare That those who drew up that Order
Christian world Let us have but such Churches and such Bishops with Presbyters and Deacons as were in the Churches of Corinth Jâ—râ—â—lem and Antioch in the days of Clemens James and Ignatius and the Countrey Conformist is satisfied and so would Mr. B. and most Nonconformists in England besides Whether this kind of Episcopacy be a new name for Presbytery and whether this Author have proved it I leave to such Readers to judg as can consider as well as read his Book But how comes this Gentleman to know that the Countrey Conformist is such a one as those that raised a Civil War some years ago and pulled down Church and State to set up a Presbytery Can a man oppose nothing that is defended by some Church-men but he must immediately be reported a secret Traytor or Rebel Is this becoming Christianity or the Preachers of it Do these men believe the Gospel that dare slander and traduce their brethren in such a villanous manner 'T is a word I received from him I hope he will take it agen Tho' it should be granted the Miter supports the Crown yet surely the Errors and Vices of Church-men give no support unto it and I am of opinion that a man may speak for peace and against the opinions and corruption of Churches and Church-men and yet be a very good subject to his Prince notwithstanding that perpetual buz of Rebellion that is suggested by some Huffs in the prejudice of such men and their discourses But why did I enquire how this Monsieur came to know that the Countrey Conformist was such another as those that raised the Rebellion in forty three The nature of the assertion betrays the Author of the Information and there needs no great skill in Magick to find him yet lest he should be ignorant of him I will be so kind as to tell his name he is called Beclzebub the Father of lyes and I hope when he writes agen he will beware of him and hold better correspondencies for his information Pag. 7. he adds Our Conformist doth plainly deride the Dean for thinking he can justifie our present Episcopacy and then quotes his words as followeth But the Dr. makes no question but he shall confute this fanciful man and make it appear that our present Episcopacy which Mr. B. opposes is agreeable to the institution of Christ and the best and most flourishing Churches And easily he may if Mr. B. be such a pitiful Antagonist But what is there in these words that savour of derision I have read and considered them agen and agen and I cannot find it by all the search that I can make The Learned Dr. had pitied Mr. B. and given sufficient evidence of the mean opinion he had of his performances in his late Books and particularly in his Treatise of Episcopacy and is it to deride the Dean to say he may easily confute so contemptible an Adversary This I confess I cannot understand And yet after all I am not satisfied that the Learned Dr. or his Defender hath confuted what Mr. B. hath said in prejudice to our present Diocesan Episcopacy he says that the enlargement of Diocesses hath varied the species of Episcopacy and gives many arguments for the proof of it which neither the Dr. nor this Gentleman hath attempted to answer I know the latter of them says that the enlargement of Diocesses doth not vary the species of Bishops and that a great and a little King are specifically the same Governours But I can by no means believe this to be true of Bishops whatever it be of Kings For the Diocess of the Pope is only bigger than that of the Bishop of London or Worcester or Lincoln and yet I think they are Governours specifically distinct and I hope this Gentleman thinks so too Yea give me leave to suppose that there were but two Bishops in England there would be only a gradual difference in their Diocess and yet I suspect some men would think that the Government were specifically altered but let not our Author infer that this supposition is my desire for he is apt to pervert mens words for I will assure him that I do not desire it but would have many more Bishops not less In fine 't is my opinion that the needs of the Church and the abilities of Bishops to perform the work of the Episcopal Office ought to determine the extent of their Diocess Let their Diocesses be as big as they can manage and no bugger and if so I am sure they must be reduced to smaller limits than now they are No Bishop can discharge the proper work of his Office in a thousand or five hundred Parishes nay I will say That there are many single Parishes in England that will employ the most industrious Bishops on earth If it be said that they do perform the proper work of their Office in many Parishes I utterly deny it that the work is not done and thence proceeds the prophaness and wickedness of particular Churches and thence follows the Schisms and Separations that have and do vex this Church at this day Pag. ib. Our Author proceeds He pleads i. e. the Countrey Conformist for taking off the Impositions in general without any limitation to receive the Presbyterians again into our Church which before he told us were Subscriptions Declarations c. and some few Alterations besides That is faith our Commentator either a form of Prayer or at least our present Liturgy Ceremonies and Administration of religious Offices Now he is an admirable Conformist indeed who at once grants away the Episcopal Office and instead of it setteth up a Bishop in every Parish or either an Anti-Christian Bishop of Bishops or an Ecclesiastical Minister of State to head and govern them and alters the whole frame of our Worship and into the bargain leaves every man to do as he saith and all this without injuring our present Constitution Nay he concludes That all those that hinder the Union of Presbyterians with this Church by continuing the Impositions are Factors for the Pope In this paragraph are a great many falshoods He charges the Countrey Conformist with pleading for the Admission of the Presbyterians into the Church without any Impositions Subscriptions or Declarations This was very ill done of him if it be true which I do a little suspect because this Gentleman is so apt to misunderstand and misrepresent the words and meaning of his Adversaries The Country Conformist hath declared in several places of his Books That he pleads the Cause of none but tolerable Dissenters and for the Admission of none into the Church but such as can Officiate in our Parochial Assemblies but how this difference can be made without Impositions or Subscriptions is not imaginable And therefore to say no more I think this Author hath injur'd and wronged him in this report of his judgment And wheras by those few Alterations besides that the Country-Conformist speaks of he understands either a Form of
Prayer or the present Liturgy Ceremonies and Administration of Religious Offices 't is his own Comment and he is not obliged to confute it Yet thus much I will say on his behalf that upon my knowledg he is in his judgment for a Form of Prayer in Publique-Offices and Administrations and hath a very hearty esteem for that of our Church but I cannot say so of the Ceremonies I think he might be easily perswaded to part with them and if some exceptionable passages in the Liturgy and Rubricks were altered I believe he would make no opposition to it But he charges this admirable Conformist as he is pleased to call him with giving away at once the Episcopal Office and instead of it sets up a Bishop in every Parish and either an Antichristian Bishop of Bishops or an Ecclesiastical Minister of State to govern them How little there is of truth in this charge may be collected from what I have said already The Conformist sets up no more Bishops than the necessities of the Church and the duty and work of the Episcopal-Office requires and I understand not that this is giving away the Episcopal Office And if this Author can free Metropolitan Bishops from Antichristianism which he says some do derive from the very days of the Apostles and that not without some good appearance of Reason I hope the Conformist will defend the Episcopi Episcoporum from that appellation As to what he says of an Ecclesiastical Minister of State the Conformist hath no more to reply than this He hopes this Gentleman will not plead an Exemption for the Clergy from under the Civil Magistrates Power and Government and if this be granted I know not what can be matter of Controversie between him and this Author For he supposes him to exercise no Power over the Bishops but what is inherent in the King and in this Minister of State by Delegation that is in few words to see that they do their own Duty carefully reprove their Negligence and Male-administrations and preserve peace among them And what is there in this Doctrine that our Author should take such offence at I am yet to seek He addes And alters the whole frame of our Worship leaves every man to do as he lists and all this without injury to our present Constitution In these Lines to speak plainly there is not one word of truth as any man may easily collect from what I have said already And this Gentleman himself confesses in the next page That the Conformist will not indeed allow of universal Toleration How this can be reconciled with Leaving all men to do as they list I am not able to tell That the Conformist said That those that hinder the Union of Presbyterians with the Church of England by continuing the Impositions are Factors for the Pope I do easily acknowledg and I believe he is still of the same minde and as I remember he gave some Reasons for it too which this Gentleman takes no notice of When he confutes them perhaps he may hear of a Vindication if there be just reason for it Pag. the 8th he proceeds thus He i.e. the Conform pleads for the Indulgence of others particularly the Independents who he says will be content with their own Congregations and is mightily taken with Mr. Humfreys Project That the tolerated Churches such as Independents be declared parts of the National Church whereof the King to be the Head The Countrey-Conformist is so great a Lover of Peace that I do easily suppose he might be pleased with Mr. H's Project as he calls it and I do assure him that I my self am much more pleased with it since I read his Book than I was before though I had always a value for it For I think the Design of uniting the Dissenting Protestants in this Nation is into one National Church whereof the King to be the Head more laudable than the design of uniting Protestants in a General Council or in a Pope Primate or Metropolitan which seems to be the design of our Author though he hath not Courage or Instruction enough as yet to speak it out For he affirms 1. That the Episcopal Office and Power is but one and not resident in the Bishops of the Universal Church p. 212. 2. That the Independency of Bishops is inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity p. 115. And 3. that although equals have no Authority over one the other yet a Collegue hath Authority over any one of his Collegues p. 213. 4. That the Bonds and Combinations of Churches are of Divine Right though the ordering and determination of them be of Humane Prudence p. 258. 5. That the Unity of the Church is as much of Divine Right as any Form of Government in it and that the whole Church may be divided into greater or lesser parts as may best serve the ends of Peace and Unity And that it seems strange to him that a National or Patriarchal Church should not be thought as much a Divine Institution as any particular Church p. 259. And further he adds When Christ and his Apostles have instituted one Form of Government for all particular Churches and commanded them all to live in Unity Peace Communion and amicable Correspondency with each other the Union and Combination of Churches into one according to this Institution to serve the ends of Catholick Communion must be thought as much a Divine Institution as the bounds of particular Churches For if we will not allow those Churches to be of Divine Institution which have Officers of Divine Appointment and are formed according to the general Directions of Christ and his Apostles so as may serve the ends of Church-Government I know not where to find a Church of Divine Institution in the world pag. 259 260. These are the words of our Author from whence we may collect many things for our Information 1. That the Bishops of the Catholique Church are the regent part thereof in the same sense that the Bishops of any National Church are the regent part of that Church For although there be no Superiority among Bishops their Power and Office being the same yet Independency among them being inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity both in the National and in the Universal Church they are bound to unite for the Government of both and this by Divine Command Authority and Obligation 2. That whatsoever is determined by the Bishops of the Catholick Church doth oblige all particular Bishops and all Christians all the world over provided they determine nothing contrary to the Word of God 3. That whatever Bishop shall refuse their Canons and Determinations and govern his particular Church by other Laws than they shall appoint is a Schismatick and they may Depose and Excommunicate him yea if a whole combination of Bishops do refuse to govern their National Church by their Laws Appointments and Constitutions they are all Schismaticks and if the Nation refuse to forsake such Bishops they are all Schismaticks
also both they and their Bishops are liable to the same Censure 4. That the external Union of the Catholick Church consists in their Union to and with the Bishops thereof that is with a General Council See pag. 595. where he makes Catholick Communion to consist in two things 1. In the Agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholick Church among themselves 2. In the Communion of particular Churches and Christians with each other And he adds That Catholick Communion is no arbitrary thing but essential to the Church and whoever violates it by an unreasonable Dissent he is a Schismatick whoever he be and no Member of the Catholick Church pag. 601. 5. That Metrapolitan Patriarchal Churches are of Divine Appointment as much as any other Churches must govern their Churches by such Laws as are advised by a General Council or by the Bishops of the Church Universal For although they be not founded on any express Divine Law yet they are warranted by our obligations to Catholick Unity p. 293. And for my part I am not able to see any reason why the same obligations to Unity may not warrant one Papal Church as well as three or four Patriarchal Churches in all the Christian world For the Papists think it the most effectual way to preserve Unity and for ought that I know they may think as wisely as this Gentleman I envy neither him nor them the pleasure of their Dreams but I hope there are but few Church-of England-men that do think the same thoughts with him these were the thoughts of Hugo Grotius whom Bishop Bramhal commends and defends Unitas antistuis optimum est adversus Schisma remedium quod Christus monstravit Experientia comprobavit Vid. Annot. In consultat de Religione ad Art Sept. I have quoted the words of this Author and I am not conscious to my self that I have perverted them or made any ill deductions from them and if it be his design to unite all Pretestants in the Decrees of General Councils and in the Intervals of Councils in the Pope or three or four Patriarchs who are to govern according to their Canons I do assure him that I prefer Mr. Humfry's design far before it For I am of opinion 't is a more Christian Design to untie Protestants together and among themselves than to unite them with the Papists Mr. Humfry's Design I will transcribe from his Book that those that shall read these few Sheets may compare it with that of our Author Archbishop Usher hath left us his Model for an Accommodation And it hath been upon the hearts generally of all moderate persons that a reduction of such a Government into our Church as was in the Primitive Times when there was a Consessus Presbyterorum joyn'd with the Bishop in all his Acts of Ordination and Jurisdiction were the way and only effectual way to our true Happiness and Reformation Unto which if one thing more might be added that is If the Common-Prayer might be new cast it being fit that such a vessel for the Sanctuary should be all of pure Gold so as the whole of it were composed of Scripture-Phrase altogether leaving nothing at all liable any more to exception unless the Imposition of a Form only which I doubt not but is also justifiable by Scripture-Instances as well as sound Reason it might go near to put an end to all Dissention among the Sober and Peaceable of the Nation It is this I know is apt to recur into the Imaginations of good men and forasmuch as there was lately two Bills prepared for Comprehension or Uniting the Pootestants and for Indulgence or repealing the Penal Statutes I shall not I hope incur any blame if I apprehend that such men who are most considerate and intent upon the Interest of God in what they seek do or did look upon either of such Bills as no other than an English Interim preparative to this higher Concord and Union of the Bishop with his Presbyters according to the Primitive Pattern mentioned assoon as more mellow Opportunity and well-advised Piety should administer unto such farther Perâ—ection Nevertheless in regard there is no Uniting of a Nation can be supposed by any Model but such as is of Human Contrivance and there are multitudes of Holy and Learned Men in this Kingdom that do believe the way of their Gathered Congregations is after a higher Pattern than this of Primitive Episcopacy it self if there were any hope of the return of it it is manifest that there is no Society which is National in England could be formed on these terms because these Congregational-men can never recede from that which is of Divine Appointment for the sake of any Antiquity whatsoever They do hold Particular Churches to be of Christ's Institution and Diocesan of Ecclesiastical Consent only and under the Notion of Divine Right it is Sin to them to submit to any Bishop There is another Notion then that must be advanced to take in these good Men of This Way as well as those of the Parochial and Diocesan Way into one Political Body for the making up the National Church of England whereof the King is Head as I have been speaking and that is by an Act of Parliament Legitimating these Meetings of the Nonconformists so as to become thereby immediately Parts of the Church as National no less than Parochial Assemblies It was a good thing in the House of Commons that they were about to free many Innocent Men from the danger of the Penal Statutes but the making such Meetings to be Legal is a Design of another Nature of a far greater nobler and vast Importance See page 28 29 30 31. To which add what he says pag. 36. ' If these Separate Assemblies were made Legal the Schism presently in reference to the National Church were at an end Schism in a Separation from that Church whereof we ought or are bound to be Members If the Supreme Authority then loose our Obligation to the Parish-Meeting so that we are bound no longer the Iniquity upon that account is not to be found and the Schism gone It is one Act of Parliament would give a full Answer to all mens Arguments Mr. H.'s design may be easily gathered from these words which I have thus largely transcribed and should our Superiors favour and promote it it would restore peace and quiet to a Church and State almost broken to pieces by divisions animosities fears and jealousies By this means the sons of the Church might enjoy their Dignities Preferments and Livings and believe their Government and Discipline to be of Divine right and exercise it on all that are of the same apprehension and judgment The Separate Congregations may enjoy their own opinions concerning their own Government and Churches and all might live together in love and every one sit under his vine and fig-tree and none make him afraid A closer union I do easily grant were desirable but I am
out a Constitutive Head and an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Head by Christs Institution and to say that all this is true without one is to me a perfect contradiction When he goes on then p. 566. to prove that this is all that is or can be required to make a National Church One by two Arguments I answer If there be so much as this indeed required his two Arguments must prove it not onely to be One but one Political proper Church with an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Regent part to it The Bishops he says have equal power by Christs appointment and rule not by Superiority but by Consent that is not by Superiority over one another but they do rule by a Superiority I hope over the people and that is an Aristocratical Government and when the People do consent to Unite in Communion with them this makes them Members he says of that Political body And these are his two reasons p. 566 and 567. which need no other Animadversion but this notice of them The great questions onely are whether this indeed be the will of Christ that the Catholick and so every National Church as he states the matter should be ruled by these Bishops as Colleagues that is by a Government as he calls it by consent and if it be how it should come to pass that we have not in England such a Government where there is for certain no such Rule by consent of the Colledg without a Superiority but by a Superiority or a Supremacy of the King who is the Head of these Bishops themselves as well as the Nation This I make not my Province P. 568. He hath four things for the strengthning the Government of his Mintage and then concludes that if Mr. Baxter can give him one reason why this may not be called one Church or Ecclesiastical Body Politick without a Constitutive Regent part he will think farther of it To which I answer and tell him presently why this cannot be called one Church or Ecclesiastical Body Politick without a Constitutive Regent part the reason is because it is a Body Politick Ecclesiastical with a Constitutive Regent part and so he need think no farther of it And this Answer being of another nature then that which he fancies like to be made him in the next page p. 569. I need say nothing to that nor the next p. 570. but come on to p. 571. for now he hath prepared the way as he says to justify the Doctor Well where there is a Political Church says Mr. Baxter there must be a Constitutive Head The Doctor answers there may be the true notion of a Church without one I Reply This is a coming off but the question indeed at the bottome is whether it be the true notion of the Church of England The Doctor argues If it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick Visible Head to the Church Catholick Visible This Argument the Deans Defender thinks unanswerable But we reply the Argument is such as needs no Answer and it may easily be Answered In the first place it needs no Answer because the thing it would prove is but what we can grant him that is a Visible Head to the Catholick Church Christ is that Head we say and he is Visible When he was on earth he gave Laws for his Church and Commissionated Officers which are Rights of a Head He after appeared to Paul and Commissionated him and is now Visible in Heaven This is plain proof in Reason Sense and Scripture and not to be jeered off and therefore in the first place the Doctors Argument needs no Answer In the next place we say farther it is easily Answered for we deny the Argument If it be necessary for a Church to have a Constitutive Head it follows that the Catholick Church must have a Constitutive one but it follows not that it must have a Catholick Visible Head or that that Constitutive Head must be Visible This in truth is introducing four Terms into the Argument which we know is false Arguing When there is put more into the thing Asserted in the Consequence then there is to prove it in the Antecedent in an Hypothetical Syllogisme it is all one as to argue with four terms in a Syllogism that is Categorical But the Doctor says he puts more strength in it The question is about the Catholick Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being Visible do require the Constitutive Regent part to be Visible I Answer though here be more words here is no more strength put into the Argument I still deny the Consequence For though the Catholick Church consists of Particular Churches which are Visible it consists also of that society in heaven which is not Visible Christs Body is but one Body whereof part is in Heaven and part on Earth and while the Head is in Heaven it follows not that because part of the Body is Visible therefore the Head must be Visible It is all one as if he should argue thus Particular Churches are on Earth and if Christ be Head of the Catholick Church whereof they are parts he must not be in Heaven And when indeed this is one and the same Argument and we know it to be false we do justly deny the Doctors Argument Suppose a man so high as that his head reached above the clouds will you argue that this person hath no head because his head is not visible I deny the Argument There is really nothing hard in the Doctors Argument but to understand why his Defender whom I value for his Parts should come to think it unanswerable It may be the Doctors confident word at first it undenyably follows drew on this apprehension and he hath fetcht the Argument over so long till he hath put enough in it to make himself believe it We are far says he from asserting that the Universal Head must be Visible if the Subordinate be so he should be as far from asserting the Head to be Visible because Particular Churches or the Members are so but this we assert that if no Church can be a true Visible Church without a Subordinate Visible Head then the Universal Church cannot be a Visible Church without a Subordinate Catholick Visible Head p. 574 575 576. This he takes to be the Doctors Argument and he will make the consequence hold before he has done with it But against whom does the Doctor and this man argue Is it not against Mr. Bexter and did Mr. Baxter ever say this that there can be no true Church without a Subordinate Head under Christ Is not Mr. Baxter a Protestant as well as the Doctor and do they not both maintain the Catholick Church to have one onely Supreme Head and no Subordinate one in Earth If his Defender hath found out one who is not the Pope but the Colledge of Bishops I desire Doctor Stillingfleet
on her part If not the schism is on ours To what end he does this unless there be some body else entertaining the task which the Doctor ought I cannot tell but if this be supposed the true case between us then should the business here that Doctor Stillingfleet had to doe have been this To see what things are alledged by the Nonconformists as Unlawful in the point of Conformity whereof there was a tast first in the Peaceable Design and a fuller measure after in Mr. Baxters Plea and then to have answered those Allegations If the Doctor was able sincerely and substantially to have done this then hath he declined his work if indeed he cannot at least on the Ministers part he cannot then hath he yielded the Nonconformist his Cause The Doctors Defender seeing this does endeavour to supply his defect and speaks to many of these things but I must tell him he has done it in such an overly way with such misrepresentation of Mr. Baxter such incidental mistakes such slight and perfunctory answers that I do not apprehend he believes in his heart that what he hath said can give satisfaction I will content my self with one instance to shew him this It is in the matter of Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in and prescribed by the two Books of the Liturgy and Orders 'T is plain by these words that whatsoever is Asserted in these Books we must give our assent to the truth of it as whatsoever is prescribed we must consent to the use of it How vast a Field then have we here for our Objections against this Declaration and yet does this Author come off thus We do not give our assent to every saying in the Common Prayer Book but to every thing contained in and prescribed by it that is what we are bound to use p. 105. And does this man now think indeed this enough to satisfie a Conscientious man in any thing which he scruples upon this account Is this distinction enough to salve the matter We do not assent to the Sayings of the Book but to the Things as if whatsoever is said in the Book were not something that is contained in it Or as if there was nothing to be assented to as true but what is prescribed to be used Good Lord what Healers are we like to have of such men as these be They should set themselves to satisfie us in such Solutions of our Objections as our Consciences being convinced of the Solidity might acquiess in them but their care is only to satisfie themselves and no matter so long as they come off with any Evasion In the last place there remains some passages this Author hath here and there in his Book and more industriously in his Preface on set purpose to expose me in an ill representing some of my expressions without regard to the matter between us whether it be any thing or nothing which though it can hardly be well as to me to asperse a man for the aspersion sake when as to Mr. Baxter it is I Judge even irreligiously ill yet do I readily forgive it him upon this double account The one is because when I wrote these sheets I think I was to blame that having written them foul I could not abide to be at the pains to write them over fair which yet I thought to have done and then I should have castigated such expressions that now in his exposing them again to me do not like me some of them as indeed not cautious enough for my self or respectful enough for the Doctor I am ready to crave the Doctors pardon which is my best satisfaction for that The other is because the Author does it out of respect to so worthy a person as him he vindicates not out of malice to me and one may think it but a friendly Office for him to do so But I do think also that Dr. Stillingfleet himself ought not to pass it so lightly who hath the more cause to be aware of him and to say the rather Get thee behind me Sherlock thou art one that wouldst foment my pride when others I am to believe have more honestly endeavoured to let me see it that I may be humbled to God for it If it was meerly for peace sake and out of tenderness to the Nonconformists seeking their good at his heart as in the sight of God that Dr. Stillingfleet Preached his Sermon and writ his Book the good Lord pardon every man that hath had but one hard thought or spake one hard word of so good and learned a man but if it was really otherwise if it was to appear some body to seek himself and in lifting himself up against his Brethren without regard to the consequence the righteous God is ready to take the least hurt he does them to be all one as done to himself then the good Lord pardon him for he hath sinned much and bring him to see though at last unto whom he is indeed more beholding or from whom he is indeed like to receive most good either him that licketh up his spittle or him that hath rebuked his fault The Author of the Peaceable Design Materials forVnion WHereas there are three Parties of Protestants in the Nation the Episcopalian the Presbyterian and the Independent or Congregational-Men which are of diverse sorts who do and will ever differ in their Opinions about the Church and Discipline of it in the Question which is of Christ's Institution or Whether the One or the Other is most consonant to Scripture it is not our Disputes about the Church as Particular which are rather to be mutually forborn and every Party left herein to their own Perswasion but a Common Agreement in what we Can Agree and that is in the Church as National must Heal our Divisions It is here we must lay the Foundation-Stone of Vnion When the Parliament then shall set about this business to purpose A Bill should be brought in for Declaring the Constitution of Our Church of England A Parliament is the Representative of the whole People of England and I doubt not but by Consent and Agreement they might Make a New Constitution of the CHURCH as it is National and much more may they Declare the Constitution of it The Papists are for one Universal Organical Church throughout the world whereof the Pope is Head by Christ's Appintment and whosoever consequently is not of this Roman Catholick-Church and Governed by him must be damned There are some of our late Prelatists are for the same Church but under the Diocesan Bishops of the whole Earth who being Convened in a General Council are the Head that must give laws to it and whosoever refuse to be Govern'd by the Laws of these General Counsels are Schismaticks I am much rather therefore in my mind for the Notion which is that in the Embryo the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls seems to me to aim at if it could be once well