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Bishops obtained a Statute whereby they were Authorized to keep their Courts in the Kings Name the which Statute was repealed in Queen Maries days and was not revived in her Majesties time that now is whereupon it was doubtful to me by what Authority the Bishops do keep their Courts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
in Ministring to the Bishops and Priests and in doing their duty in the Church Hereby 't is apparent that Deacons as they were not by Office Preachers nor Dispensers of the Sacraments neither were they Governours of the Church The Government of the Church being committed unto the Bishops or Presbyters onely The which being so 't will as I humbly apprehend follow That Church Government according to Christs Institution was seated in those Particular Societies which were under the care and conduct of Bishops or Elders every such society call it Parochial or Congregational being a Compleat Gospel Church i.e. a Church whose Elders or Bishops have as Entire a power for the Exercise of Discipline in their Congregations as for the Dispensing the word or Administring the Sacraments This is not onely to be found in the Necessary Erudition but moreover there are Intimations enough in other Discourses published in Henry the Eights time to incline a Judicious mind to conclude That the Office of a Priest and Bishop is One and the same and consequently that Particular Parochial or Congregational Churches are of Divine Institution I have observed in the Sum of Christianity compos'd by Francis Lambert of Avynyon a Treatise Published An. 1536. That the Notion of the Sameness of the Order of a Bishop or Elder appeared in the world with some kind of boldness For although this Lambert in his Epistle to Sebastian Prince of Lausane doth assert That there be MANY Bishops of ONE City for saith he every City hath so many Bishops as it hath true Evangelists or Preachers For every Preacher of the Truth c. is a true Bishop although he be not call'd so of many Bishops be only Prophets of Truth and there should be so many Bishops as the multitude of People requireth Verily Every Parish ought to have its proper Bishop And in the Treatise it self chap. 5. In every City Town and Village there ought to be many Bishops i. e. Evangelists or Preachers after the quantity of places and multitude of people If many Parishes be so great that one Bishop is not sufficient for them let them be divided and to every part a Bishop assigned This and much more in Lambert Notwithstanding which this Treatise is published by Tristram Rewell and dedicated to Queen Anne wife of Henry the 8th A thing that would not have been done but that this Opinion was very common at that time and within seven years after declar'd to be the sense of the Church of England as I have evinc'd out of the Necessary Erudition But 5. That the Superiority of one Bishop over another or of a Bishop over a Presbyter is of Humane not of Divine Right Diocesan Bishops Metropolitane or Patriarchal are not found in Sacred writings and concerning this the necessary Erudition is most express in these words And whereas we have thus summarily declar'd what is the Office and ministration which in Holy Scripture hath been committed to Bishops and Priests and in what things it consisteth as is before rehearsed lest peradventure it might be thought to some persons That such Authorities Powers and Jurisdictions as Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitanes now have or heretofore at any time have had Justly and Lawfully over other Bishops were given them by God in holy Scripture We think it expedient and necessary That all men should be advertis'd and taught That all such lawful Powers and Authorities of ANY one Bishop over another were and be given to them by the Consent Ordinance and Positive Laws of men ONELY AND NOT BY ANY ORDINANCE OF GOD IN HOLY SCRIPTURE And all other Power and Authority which and Bishop hath used or exercised over another which hath not been given to him by such consent and Ordinance of Men as is aforesaid is in very deed no LAWFULL POWER but PLAIN USURPATION AND TYRANNY So far the Christian Erudition From whence 't is manifest That according unto them Diocesan Episcopacy is of Humane Right onely i. e. Any one Bishops Ruling over another Bishop or Presbyter is what the Scriptures do not direct unto and consequently 't is not of Divine Right neither is it any further Lawful than according unto the Laws of the Land in which 't is Exercis'd Though the Power of Diocesane Bishops as 't is Circa Sacra may be called Ecclesiastical yet if we consider its Origine and Source we shall find it to be but Civil seated primarily in the Civil Magistrate that 't is of an humane make and so far but no farther Lawful than as Sanction'd by the Laws of the Land Diocesane Bishops as such are not immediately owing unto God but unto our Civil Governours for their Being 't is on them their sole dependance is and on them they relie for the Continuance of their Power The King Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament can as they see cause make what Alterations they please in the Episcopal or Diocesan Government Though they cannot alter any Divine Law yet they can change any Law that receives its Being from themselves Though they cannot alter the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop which receives its Being from the Institution or Ordinance of Jesus Christ yet they may correct or amend any thing in the Humane viz. The Diocesane Constitution They can enlarge or narrow any Diocess yea pull down one and Erect another They can add unto or take from the Episcopal Jurisdiction as they judge Expedient That this was the sense of the Church of England in Henry the 8ths time yea and in most ages since an Episcopal Government has been established in this Kingdome and consequently the Antient Constitution of our Government is not only manifest from what hath been already taken out of the Necessary Erudition but from other passages that are in that excellent treatise and some other Considerations that I will insist on As First The Power that hath ever been acknowledged to be seated in the Kings of this Realm concerning the exempting any particular Churches from an Episcopal Jurisdiction evinces it If Episcopal Jurisdiction be of Divine Right it lies not in the power of any Prince to alter it If every Parish Presbyter is according to the Scriptures an Officer inferiour to some Diocesane Bishop the exempting such a Presbyter from Episcopal Jurisdiction is out of the power of any man 'T was a known Rule in our Land even in the days of Popery That no Law of man can alter or disanul any Law of God If then our Princes ever thought themselves to have been invested with a Power of exempting any Presbyter from Episcopal Jurisdiction 't is evident that they look not on that Jurisdiction to be of Divine Right But that our Princes judg'd themselves to have such a Power is notorious from the many Instances that can be given of their exercising it Whosoever consults the Learned Dr. Burnets History of the Refor part 1. lib. 3. will find That Ethelbert exempted a Monastry at Canterbury with some Churches
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
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
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
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
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
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