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Bishops obtained a Statute whereby they were Authorized to keep their Courts in the Kings Name the which Statute was repealed in Queen Maries days and was not revived in her Majesties time that now is whereupon it was doubtful to me by what Authority the Bishops do keep their Courts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
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
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
of Expediency or Brotherly Correspondence or on the force of Civil Laws For when the Christian Belief had not the support of Law Every Bishop taught his own Flock the best he could and gave his Neighbours such an account of his Faith at or soon after his Consecration as satisfied them and so maintain'd the Unity of the Church The Formality of Synods grew up in the Church from the Division of the Roman Empire and the Dignity of the several Cities which is a thing so well known and so plainly acknowledged by the Writers of all sides that it were a needless Imposing on the Readers Patience to spend time to prove it Such as would understand it more perfectly will find it in de Marca the late Archbishop of Paris's Books de Concordia Imperii Sacerdotii and in Blondels works de La Primaute de l'Englise None can Imagine there is a Divine Authority in that which sprang from such a Beginning The Major part of Synods cannot be supposed to be in matters of Faith so assisted from Heaven that the lesser part must necessarily Acquiesce in their Decrees or that the Civil powers must always measure their Laws by their Votes especially where intrest doth visibly turn the Scales so far Dr. Burnet The contrary unto which being asserted by the Deans Substitute 't is Apparent that he doth abundantly recede from the true Church of England not only to the Reproach of his Profession but of the first Reformation and grief of the sober and moderate Conformist This I thought necessary to suggest that I might engage the Reader to consider with what Injustice this Author treats not only those who dissent from the Church in some things but the Sober Conformist also who is a through Church man by Reprsenting us all as Enemies both to Church and State as if the adhereing unto Old Protestant Principles about Church Discipline had been the Overt Act of a Spirit Seditious and Phanatical Having thus so fully shewn How easy t is to put an end to the mischevous Divisions which have for some years past prov'd very dangerous to this Kingdome I will not inlarge on every little thing that our Authour may think deserves our Animadversions The Rude and slovenly methods he hath taken to asperse his Adversaries are such as do rather evince the Feebleness of his cause than deserve the the Regard of any sober Person His talk about the Impossibility of Union between the Church of England and the Dissenter because of the many Important Differences there are among our selves is confuted by the Present Union of the Authours of the Ensuing Treatices who though they differ in little things as much as any the One being a Confor the other a Nonconformist the third of a Uniting Spirit in the middle between us both yet are we all heartily agreed in the things that would Unite us Moreover it were easy to make it appear that the differences among the Dissenters in General about Worship and Discipline are rather Nominal than Real and that their Union is in a manner already accomplish'd The Notions we insist on in opposing the Deans Substitute are truly Protestant such as are owned and embraced by the Famous Hooker Dr. Feild Mr. Chilliggworth and Dr. Burnet and after a Signal manner by the Country Conformist who hath exprest himself in these Sheets with Gravity and Candor He is aware of the design of this Author as well as we as its Tendencie is towards Rome and is sensible that the methods taken in the opposition some of the Clergy make against the Peaceable Dissenter do Justifie the French in their Rigorous and most cruel Persecutions There is to the letter of Mr. Humfrey to me at the end his late Paper added Entitled Materials for Union which together with this Preface if we offer'd no more will prove the things I have said to be Feasible and alone serve to that Firm and Lasting Union which is chiefly aim'd at in these our joint endeavours To conclude The peace of the Church of England and the Greatness of the King who is head of it being things most desireable to every good Protestant and true Subject we have in these Papers shewn our good will to doe something towards the advance thereof Which being submitted to the Superiour thoughts of some one who is in a higher Sphere of Ability for the cultivation of it and of place for the representing it without prejudice to our Sovereign we do hope it may both be well accepted by him and take with every body else who do truly honour the King seek Concord and love good men Sep. 16. 1681. Stephen Lobb The Author not being able to attend the Press desires the Candid Reader before be peruses the ensuing Discourse to Correct these momentous Errata Pag. 11. l. 9. r. is to have a Right p 17. l. 14. dele them p. 29. l. 38. for chain r. chair p. 36. l. 37. for Catholick Colledge r. Supream Governing Heads p. 74. before l. 18. r. I 'le now consider the Deans third Argument which is p. 76. before l. 4. r. The Deans fourth Argument which at this time only deserves Animadversions is our Divisions give great Advantage to the Papists and the Dissenters by their Separation have caused the Devision Rep. p. ib. l. 5. for the 2. r. 2d the l. 7. r. not p. 78. l. 28. for Form r. Term. A Reply to the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness c. CHAP. I. A Reply to the Reflections on the Title of the Enquiry SECT I. The Introduction The Acts of the Enquirers pretended Immodesty Examined The Dissenter vindicated from the Reproach of ruining King and Kingdom The Civil War the product of Jesuitical Councels as is confess'd by Dr. Heylin The VVar begun by the Episcopal on both sides The tendency of the Deans Defence towards Popery as 't is a revival of the Grotian Design THE Defence of the Reverend Dean of Pauls Unreasonableness of Separation containing little in it of Argument more than what we find in the Dean's own Treatise might pass unanswered had not the Author by a fuller Discovery of the Design of his Party which are but a few made it necessary to shew to the world whither it leads For in this Defence there are hints enough given to tempt an Unprejudiced and Impartial Reader to fear he hath engag'd himself too deeply in that Design that was seemingly but begun by the Dean For which Reason I will in this with as much modesty as the subject-matter will admit and this Author will let me enjoy shew That as I did not abuse the Dean of Pauls when in the Modest and peaceable Enquiry I detected some of his Mistakes even so if we must pass a Judgment on the Doctor answerable to the Character that is to be found of his Substitute in the Defence 't is apparent that they are conspiring in a Design which the Learned and Conformable Clergy will give him little
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
of the Universal Church and be sav'd they will not part with any of those things that are in their own judgment little though it be to save the Dissenters souls If they would remove what is in their own judgment but little and what may be done without their sin but what cannot be complied with by the Dissenter without his great sin the Controversie is ended the Schisâ—â— lost and the Dissenter restor'd to the Catholick Church and may be sav'd Let the World judg then who is in the fault There remaineth nothing more that is worthy our consideration unless the many slips of our Author may be esteem'd as such by the Authors insisting on my parallelling Dr. Stillingfleet and Bellarmine not only in their Dividing Principles but also in that even when by their Impositions they make the greatest rents in the Church imaginable they speak well of Union but this is only an overt-act of his inadvertency For the reason why I mentioned this was to obviate a common Objection viz. How can you parallel the Doctor and Bellarmine in this seeing the Doctor cries up Union so much as the designe of his great Book as well as of his Sermon To which I reply That though the Principles of Bellarmine were Dividing yet he cries up Union for which reason though the Doctor applauds Union yet in doing so doth no more than Bellarmine and therefore may be as much a Divider as Bellarmine notwithstanding those many plausible Discourses concerning the excellency of Union for Union is a lovely name in the judgment of such as will do nothing to obtain the thing His passing over the most momentous parts of the Enquiry without saying any thing considerable unto 'em makes a further Defence at present unnecessary I say for the present because he seems to threaten as if I should hear more of it in DUE TIME To close then this discourse it only remains that in Charity to our Author whose Affections to Dr. Stillingfleet have so abundantly blinded his Judgment that he cannot though in searching till he hath wearied himself find out any Mistake in the Dr's Preface I 'll give him an Account of a few among many and then shew what little Reason such of the Church of England who are for the Grotian or Bishop Laud's Model have to reproach Dissenters as a People carrying on Popish Designs in blasting the honour of the first Reformation § 1. An Account of some of those Mistakes which are found in Dr. Stilling fleet 's Preface to his Unreasonableness of Separation not to mention any thing of the Parallel between the Dean and the Jesuit so much insisted on in the Enquiry 1. THE Dean asserted p. 14. a suitableness between the Dissenters Pretences and the Jesuits Doctrines about Spiritual Prayer whereas I have evinced the contrary 2. That the Grounds and Reasons of the first Separation of the old Nonconformist from the Church of England are said to be the Jesuits crying down all Forms of Prayer and setting up Spiritual Prayer in the room thereof But I have proved that the first who separated did keep to a Form of Prayer 3. That the Dissenters do blast the honour of the first Reformation but they so far countenance it as to endeavour the carrying it on 4. That the Dissenters are the best Proctors the Papists could meet with their fittest and aptest Instruments that they were made the Engins of the Roman Conclave p. 16. All which the Doctor takes out of Archbishop Whitgift But an unjust Censure if not a great Mistake 5. That the Episcopacy now and in King Edward's days was the same whereas in King Edward's days they held all their Courts in the King's name but now in their own 6. That there is no considerable difference between the Reformation begun in Edward the 6ths and that carried on in Queen Elizabeths time Whereas 't is most apparent that in King Edward's time they judged the Pope to be Antichrist but in Queen Elizabeths not a word of it and many other differences All which relate unto matter of fact and therefore may be rightly called Historical Mistakes Many more might be insisted on but these are sufficient to help our Author to see that if his eyes had been good he needed not to weary himself in making a search after them without effect If this will not satisfie our Author if he will call for a larger list of the Dean's Mistakes I do assure him 't is easie enough to add a multitude more although I delight not in a detecting the Weaknesses of any § 2. Thus having given an hint of some of Dr. Stillingfleet's Mistakes found in his Preface I shall conclude by shewing what little Reason such as our Author have to make such a prodigious noise about the Dissenters subserviency to Popish Designs in blasting the honour of the Reformation Sir If the case be narrowly searched into you will find that in all times since the first Reformation those call'd Puritans were a block in the way to the Church of Englands passing over towards Rome Had it not been for the Industry of the Nonconformist as all the forreign Protestant Churches beyond the Seas are Unchurched by our high-flown Episcopal men even so they should have been abandon'd as Heretical but that the Dissenter makes such a clamour on all occasions about Popery You have very ingeniously distinguish'd between the Church and the Court of Rome and have taken the most effectual care to endeavour that favour might be shewn the Church of Rome even when you cry down Popery as if the common People had understood by Popery no more than your self namely the Court of Rome whereas they think that when you cry down Popery you are enemies to the Church of Rome A pretty juggle Popery is an odious thing even when to be a Roman Catholick is worthy of all applause Laud was no Papist he was an enemy to Popery when a cordial Friend to the Church of Rome Popery is detestable when all the care imaginable must be taken that nothing be done to the disgust of the Roman Church Consult Bramhall and Heylin to mention no more to see whether these be not their Sentiments You boast strangely of King Edwards Reformaton not considering how short of it in some things you are fall'n You represent us as blasters of the Reformation begun in his days not duely minding what one of your own Faction Dr. Heylin hath said on 't in his Preface to the History of the Reformation Take the Character he gives of Edward the 6th and make the most of it 't is this Scarce had they saith he brought it viz. the Reformation to pass when Edward died whose death I cannot reckon for an Infelicity to the Church of England For being ill-principled in himself and easily inclin'd to embrace such Counsels as were offered to him it is not to be thought but that the rest of the Bishopricks before sufficiently impoverished must have followed Durham
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
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
formed of an Independent National Church Political but not to be held as the Congregationalist supposes his Particular Independent One and They their Catholick to be of Divine but of Humane Institution for it is manifestly a thing Accidental to the Church of Christ that the Supream Magistrate and the whole Body of a Nation are Christian It should be declared then in such a Bill of Act of Parliament that the Church of England consists of the King as the Head and all the several Assemblies of the Protestants as the Body A Discrimination between the Tolerable and Intolerable is never to be gain-said by any Wise Man It is not for me or any One persons but a Convocation or Parliament to prescribe the Terms of National Communion but I would have all our Assemblies that are Tolerable to be made Legal by such an Act and thereby parts of the National Church as well as the Parochial Congregations That the Bishops should be declared Ecclesiastical Officers under the KING acting Circa Sacra only by Vertue of His Authority and Commission As Jehoshophat appointed Officers for Government in the Matters of God and the Kings Matters So should the Bishops be in Our Ecclesiastical as the Judges are in Civil Matters the Substitutes of his Majesty and Execute His Jurisdiction Upon this Account if any of the Eminent among the Non-conformists were Chosen to be Bishops they could not refuse it Let two or three the most fit of those Parties be the next that are called to this Function upon such an Act an commanded to Hold it and then would UNION indeed Commence Their Work in general should be to Supervise the Churches of both sorts in their Diocesses that they all Walk according to their own Order agreeable to the Gospel and the Peace of one another I am sensible unto what Distress a Congregational Minister may be brought in the exercise of Discipline over some potent turbulent and refractory Members and what Relief he might find in such a 〈…〉 al Ecclesiastical Officer as this I am sensible how the many inconveniences supposed of Congregational Episcopacy by this one onely means may be salved This shall Advance and not Lessen the outward Power and Honour of the Bishops I humbly Motion a Third Clerk for the Convocation to be added to the Two in every Diocess and chose out of the Non-conformists for the Unanimous prosecution of Holiness and Concord throughout all the Churches And the two Provinces of Canterbury and York should Unite in this Convocation for the making them one National Church and not two Provincial ones in a diverse Assembly By this means should one Organ more be added to this great Political Society for deriving an influence from this Head to these parts of the Body as well as Others which now seem neglected and to have no care taken of them It were the part of such a Convocation to Decree that neither Church should Unchurch one another That no members of Either should depart from One Church to the Other without a sufficient peaceable reason That when a man hath his choice to be of One Church which he will in regard to Fixed Communion he should Occasionally come also to the Other for maintaining this National Union There are these and other things of such a nature as these I should expect then would be moulded into Canons that kindly preventing all our scruples would render the Nation happy in the satisfaction of both Parties An Act of Parliament to this purpose would make the Church of England to be in Earnest such a Church as the Church-men would have us still think it the Best Constituted the most Exemplary and the most Glorious of any that is or indeed that well can be in this World But is not all this at last too Erastian I answer No. We suppose that every Parish where there is a Pastor and a Flock does contain in it such a Particular Church as is of Christs Institution That Christ committed to every such Church a compleat power of Doctrine Worship and Discipline That what Christ hath committed to his Church cannot be taken away by any That the Authority of the Magistrate is for care and oversight and so to protect and maintain this power but not to destroy it That the Church as National and Diocesan as part of the National and Parochial qua Parochial as part of the Diocesan are of Humane institution and owe their power and preservation of it to the Supream Magistrate That as the Magistrate does not take away or invade but preserve the power of the Keys invested in the Miinster but given with the Pastor himself to the Church No more can the Diocesans that Derive from him assume it to themselves and deprive the Particular Churches of it That so long as this Power is preserved there is no Erastianism maintained as to a Particular Church and as to the National there is no danger of it And thus I have offered my Mite to the Sanctuary that is so much as I have and what I think fit for Cultivation by Others whom GOD shall make Wise-hearted and Concern'd for the Welfare of Sion There is Room also here left for the farther Invention of Such in regard to many the like things as or greater then these For they that will may see something more in a few Sheets in part Entituled Animadversions upon the Debate between Dr. Stillingfleet and Mr. Baxter Concerning the National Church and Head of it J. H. THE END