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
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
Christian world Let us have but such Churches and such Bishops with Presbyters and Deacons as were in the Churches of Corinth Jâ—râ—â—lem and Antioch in the days of Clemens James and Ignatius and the Countrey Conformist is satisfied and so would Mr. B. and most Nonconformists in England besides Whether this kind of Episcopacy be a new name for Presbytery and whether this Author have proved it I leave to such Readers to judg as can consider as well as read his Book But how comes this Gentleman to know that the Countrey Conformist is such a one as those that raised a Civil War some years ago and pulled down Church and State to set up a Presbytery Can a man oppose nothing that is defended by some Church-men but he must immediately be reported a secret Traytor or Rebel Is this becoming Christianity or the Preachers of it Do these men believe the Gospel that dare slander and traduce their brethren in such a villanous manner 'T is a word I received from him I hope he will take it agen Tho' it should be granted the Miter supports the Crown yet surely the Errors and Vices of Church-men give no support unto it and I am of opinion that a man may speak for peace and against the opinions and corruption of Churches and Church-men and yet be a very good subject to his Prince notwithstanding that perpetual buz of Rebellion that is suggested by some Huffs in the prejudice of such men and their discourses But why did I enquire how this Monsieur came to know that the Countrey Conformist was such another as those that raised the Rebellion in forty three The nature of the assertion betrays the Author of the Information and there needs no great skill in Magick to find him yet lest he should be ignorant of him I will be so kind as to tell his name he is called Beclzebub the Father of lyes and I hope when he writes agen he will beware of him and hold better correspondencies for his information Pag. 7. he adds Our Conformist doth plainly deride the Dean for thinking he can justifie our present Episcopacy and then quotes his words as followeth But the Dr. makes no question but he shall confute this fanciful man and make it appear that our present Episcopacy which Mr. B. opposes is agreeable to the institution of Christ and the best and most flourishing Churches And easily he may if Mr. B. be such a pitiful Antagonist But what is there in these words that savour of derision I have read and considered them agen and agen and I cannot find it by all the search that I can make The Learned Dr. had pitied Mr. B. and given sufficient evidence of the mean opinion he had of his performances in his late Books and particularly in his Treatise of Episcopacy and is it to deride the Dean to say he may easily confute so contemptible an Adversary This I confess I cannot understand And yet after all I am not satisfied that the Learned Dr. or his Defender hath confuted what Mr. B. hath said in prejudice to our present Diocesan Episcopacy he says that the enlargement of Diocesses hath varied the species of Episcopacy and gives many arguments for the proof of it which neither the Dr. nor this Gentleman hath attempted to answer I know the latter of them says that the enlargement of Diocesses doth not vary the species of Bishops and that a great and a little King are specifically the same Governours But I can by no means believe this to be true of Bishops whatever it be of Kings For the Diocess of the Pope is only bigger than that of the Bishop of London or Worcester or Lincoln and yet I think they are Governours specifically distinct and I hope this Gentleman thinks so too Yea give me leave to suppose that there were but two Bishops in England there would be only a gradual difference in their Diocess and yet I suspect some men would think that the Government were specifically altered but let not our Author infer that this supposition is my desire for he is apt to pervert mens words for I will assure him that I do not desire it but would have many more Bishops not less In fine 't is my opinion that the needs of the Church and the abilities of Bishops to perform the work of the Episcopal Office ought to determine the extent of their Diocess Let their Diocesses be as big as they can manage and no bugger and if so I am sure they must be reduced to smaller limits than now they are No Bishop can discharge the proper work of his Office in a thousand or five hundred Parishes nay I will say That there are many single Parishes in England that will employ the most industrious Bishops on earth If it be said that they do perform the proper work of their Office in many Parishes I utterly deny it that the work is not done and thence proceeds the prophaness and wickedness of particular Churches and thence follows the Schisms and Separations that have and do vex this Church at this day Pag. ib. Our Author proceeds He pleads i. e. the Countrey Conformist for taking off the Impositions in general without any limitation to receive the Presbyterians again into our Church which before he told us were Subscriptions Declarations c. and some few Alterations besides That is faith our Commentator either a form of Prayer or at least our present Liturgy Ceremonies and Administration of religious Offices Now he is an admirable Conformist indeed who at once grants away the Episcopal Office and instead of it setteth up a Bishop in every Parish or either an Anti-Christian Bishop of Bishops or an Ecclesiastical Minister of State to head and govern them and alters the whole frame of our Worship and into the bargain leaves every man to do as he saith and all this without injuring our present Constitution Nay he concludes That all those that hinder the Union of Presbyterians with this Church by continuing the Impositions are Factors for the Pope In this paragraph are a great many falshoods He charges the Countrey Conformist with pleading for the Admission of the Presbyterians into the Church without any Impositions Subscriptions or Declarations This was very ill done of him if it be true which I do a little suspect because this Gentleman is so apt to misunderstand and misrepresent the words and meaning of his Adversaries The Country Conformist hath declared in several places of his Books That he pleads the Cause of none but tolerable Dissenters and for the Admission of none into the Church but such as can Officiate in our Parochial Assemblies but how this difference can be made without Impositions or Subscriptions is not imaginable And therefore to say no more I think this Author hath injur'd and wronged him in this report of his judgment And wheras by those few Alterations besides that the Country-Conformist speaks of he understands either a Form of
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
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
In contradiction to which the Dean's Substitute's Assertion is p. 226. That Excommunication casts a man out of the visible Society of Christ's Church not of this or that particular Church only but of the Whole Christian Church He that is cast out of one Church is thereby cast out of all and separated from the Body of Christ which is but One. And therefore such are out of a state of Salvation As if it had been said in opposition to Mr. Hooker Such as are Excommunicate are shut out clean from the Visible Church yea and from the Mystical Church A Notion that Mr. Hooker considers as held by none but Papists for he immediatly addresseth himself to the Church of Rome thus With what congruity then saith he doth the Church of Rome deny that her enemies whom she holds always for Hereticks do at all appertain to the Church of Christ How exclude they us from being any part of the Church of Christ under the colour and pretence of Heresie when they cannot but grant it possible even for him i. e. the Pope to be as touching his own personal perswasion Heretical who in their opinion not only is of the Church but holdeth the chief place of Authority over the same The like may be said by way of Answer unto our Author Moreover the Learned and Judicious Dr. Field Son of the Church is as full in contradicting what is asserted by our Author For this Dr. of the Church discoursing about the Schismatick says lib. 1. c. 13. That their departure is not such but that notwithstanding their Schisme they are and remain parts of the Church of God Schismaticks notwithstanding their Separation remain still conjoyn'd with the rest of God's people in respect of the profession of the whole saving Truth of God all outward acts of Religion and Divine Worship Power of Order and Holy Sacraments which they by vertue thereof administer and so still are and remain parts of the Church of God The like is asserted of such as are cast out by Excommunication c. 15. But I 'll not enlarge any further having sufficiently evinc'd that the Opinions of this man who treats the Dissenters with so much scorn and contempt are such as were antiently by Queen Elizabeths Protestants exploded as Popish and at this very time I verily believe rejected by the greatest part of the Episcopal Clergy and that the Contest now is not so much between Dissenters and the Church of England as between a few under the name of the Church of England on the one part and the greater number of the Church of England with the Dissenter on the other The former under the notion of running down Dissenters are preparing materials to meet the Papist The other to the end they may the more effectually prevent the Designs of Rome have sent forth their Plea for the Nonconformist finding themselves concern'd to check the Insolence of those who in this day of common Calamity would ruine the conscientious Protestant Dissenter This being so I must beseech the Reader not to misapprehend me in what follows as if I had been speaking reproachfully of the Church of England because I cannot but discover how agreeable the Sentunents of the Deans Substitute about Church-Government are unto those embrac'd by the French Papist That I may the more clearly shew what are the mischievous Tendencies of our Author's Notion about Church-Government I will give in short the most distinct and truest state of the Controversie I can shewing what is granted by sound Protestants and what not What are the Doctrines of the Papists How far the French and Italian Papist agree and wherein they differ and in what respects the Dean's Substitute concurs with the French § 1. All are so far agreed as to conclude That God hath had a Church at all times in every Age of the World We might be very particular in considering the divers Denominations under which the Church falls answerable to the divers capacities of the Members thereof and the divers states in which it is and hath been which I shall at this time pass by § 2. That the Church is but One one Body united to one Head § 3. That this One Church must be considered as the Members thereof are scattered up and down the World c. and as they are joyned together in particular Societies The former is call'd the Church Universal the other a Particular Church The Papists themselves do acknowledge That the Church must be considered as Universal and as Particular though they look'd on the Universal to be such whose whole existence was in Particulars as Universale est unum in multis singularibus Whence it follows That such as are not members of a Particular Church they belong not unto the Catholick Visible Church This very Notion hath been embrac'd by some to wit the Old Independents but of late it hath been generally exploded by Divines of that name they leaving it to entertain such as the Dean's Substitute § 4. That the Church of Christ is under Government There is such a thing as Church-Government Jure divino The Papists both French and Italian The Protestants whether Episcopal Presbyterian Congregational or Anabaptist heartily agree in Thesi about this § 5. The great difference is concerning what that Church-Government is which is of Divine Institution Where 't is seated whether in a Particular or in the Universal Church and whether it be Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical or mixt § 6. The Papists with whom the Doctor 's Substitute doth agree assert That the Universal Church is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church-Government That all Church-Officers belong to the Universal Church and have an Original Right to govern the whole Universal Church Take the notion as found in the Defence We must saith he consider that all the Apostles had relation to the whole Church and therefore though being finite creatures they could not be every where at a time but betook themselves to different places and planted Churches in several Countreys and did more peculiarly apply themselves to the government of those Churches which they themselves had planted and ordained Bishops to succeed them in their care and charge yet their Original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church did still remain which they might re-assume when they saw occasion for it and which did oblige them to take care as far as possibly they could that the Church of Christ suffer'd no injury by the heresie or evil practises of any of their Colleagues P. 212. § 7. The Protestants excepting some obscure Writers assert particular Churches to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church-Government among whom there are these differences 1. The Episcopal and Presbyterian differ from the Congregational and Anabaptistical about the extent of particular Churches e. g. the latter concluding that their number must be no more than are capable of personal communion the former contrarily judg That a company of a greater extent may be
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
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