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-Parliament-House I declared that in King Henry the 8th's days after this there was no Bishop that did practise Superiority over the Inferior Brethren And in King Edward's days the said Bishops obtained a Statute whereby they were Authorized to keep their Courts in the Kings Name the which Statute was repealed in Queen Maries days and was not revived in her Majesties time that now is whereupon it was doubtful to me by what Authority the Bishops do keep their Courts now in their own Names because it is against the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England that any should keep a Court without sufficient Warrant from the Crown Whereupon I was answered that the Bishops do keep their Courts now by Prescriptions and it is true that the Bishops may Prescribe that King Henry the 8th gave them Authority by the Statute of the 25th of his Reign to have Authority and Rule over their Inferior Brethren as ample as they had in the Popes time For this was no special Warrant for them to keep their Courts by and that in their own Names And yet they have none other Warrant to keep their Courts as they do now in their own Names to my knowledg And this was the Cause that made them obtain a Statute in King Edward's days to keep their Courts by in the Kings Name Now it is a strange Allegation that the Bishops should claim Authority at this present to keep their Courts in their own Names as they do by Prescription because the Statute of 25. doth restrain them generally from offending of the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England and the Laws and Customs of the Realm And no man may justly keep a Court without out a special Warrant from the Crown of England as is aforesaid And the general Liberty given by King Henry the 8th to the Bishops to Rule and Govern as they did in the Popes time is no sufficient Warrant to the Bishops to keep their own Courts in their own Names by Prescription as I take it And therefore the Bishops had done wisely if they had sought a Warrant by Statute to keep their Courts in the Queens Name as the Bishops did in King Edward's days in which time Archbishop Cranmer did cause Peter Martyr and Bucer to come over into this Realm to be placed in the Two Universities for the better Instruction of the Universities in the Word of God And Bishop Cranmer did humbly prefer these Learned men without any challenge to himself of any Superior Rule in this behalf over his Inferior Brethren And the time hath been that no man could carry away any Grant from the Crown of England by general words but that he must have special words to carry the same by Therefore now the Bishops are Warranted to carry away the keeping of their Courts in their own Names by Prescription it passeth my understanding Moreover whereas your Lordship said unto me that the Bishops have forsaken their claim of Superiority over their inferior Brethren lately to be by Gods Ordinance and that now they do only claim Superiority from her Majesties Supreme Government If this be true then 't is requisite and necessary that my Lord of Canterbury that now is do recant and retract his saying in his Book of the great Volume against Cartwright where he saith in plain words by the name of Dr. Whitgift that the Superiority of Bishops is Gods own Institution which saying doth impugn her Majesties Supreme Government directly and therefore it is to be retracted plainly and truly For Christ truly and plainly confesses John 18.36 That his Kingdom was not of this world and therefore he gave no worldy Rule or Preheminence to his Apostles but the Heavenly Rule which was to Preach the Gospel saying Ite praedicate in omnem mundum Quicunque crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvus erit qui non crediderit condemnabitur Go and Preach in all the world whosoever shall believe and be baptized shall be saved but he that will not believe shall be condemned Mar. 16.16 But the Bishops do cry out saying That Cartwright and his Fellows would have no Government c. So belike the Bishops care for no Government but for worldly and forcible Government over their Brethren the which Christ never gave to his Disciples nor Apostles but made them subject to the Rule of Princes who ought not to be resisted saving that they might answer unto Princes that they must rather obey God than men Act. 5.29 And yet in no wise to resist the Prince but to take up the Cross and follow Christ So far Sir Francis Knolles Discourse in Parliament concerning the Episcopacy c. But to return I would fain know why we may not think honourably of good beginnings even when we cannot approve of such as put a stop thereunto Is the Episcopacy of King Edward so much the same in all respects with the present that whoever dissents from this must thereby cast a reproach on that Surely the Dean won't say so after so many Months consideration 6. There is an admirable distinction insisted on which will bring off the Dean without all doubt viz. There is a Popish and a Protestant Episcopacy But where lies the Difference What Difference is there between our present Episcopacy and that in Henry the 8ths time Is not the Episcopacy so far as 't is an Episcopacy the same What is there Intrinsecal to this Episcopal Constitution that differs from that Whence if that be Popish why may not this seeing 't is the same with that be in like manner so That Henry the 8ths Episcopacy was Popish Bishop Bramhall hath evinced in proving that the Papists begun the Separation from Rome In fine Let our Author tell me the Difference between Queen Maries Episcopacy and Queen Elizabeths Episcopacy on her first entring the Throne Is not the Episcopacy now the same with that at the Reforming the Liturgy by Act of Parliament and was not that Episcopacy the same with Queen Maries The only specifying Difference that can be suggested is that though the Episcopacy as such is the same and the Persons in both may be the same yea and their Principles for so it hath been in King Henry the 8th King Edward the 6th Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth yet the outward profession of the Bishops is not the same But is
belonging unto it from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop and his Successors King Ina's Charter to the Abbey of Glassenbury exemps them from the Bishops Jurisdiction The like did King Offa concerning the Monastry of St. Albans An. 793. Kenulph King of Mercia that at Abington Anno 821. and Knut that at St. Edmvndbury An. 1020. Yea and there are several places at this very time exempt from Episcopal Jurisdiction Whatever our Princes in after Ages might lose as to the Exercise of their just Power 't is certain that Henry 8th reassumed it as appears by his dismembring some Diocesses and by his removing some Churches from one Jurisdiction to another For this Consult Dr. Burnets History of Reformation part 1. lib. 3. page 301. where you 'l find the Complaint of the Roman party beyond the Sea concerning the Kings encroaching on the Jurisdiction of the Church c. to which 't was answered That the Division of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whether of Patriarchs Primates Metropolitanes or Bishops was according to the Roman Law Regulated by the Emperours Of which the Antient Councils always approv'd And in England when the Bishoprick of Lincoln being judg'd of too great an extent the Bishoprick of Ely was taken out of it it was done only by the King with the consent of his Clergy and Nobles 'T is also evident out of Dr. Burnets Hist of the Ref. part 1. l. 3 p. 267. That this great Prince gave cut such a Commission to Bonner and it may be to others also as makes it most manifest that Diocesan Bishops were not of God's but only of the Magistrate's Institution Hence Bonner in his Commission from the King most gratefully acknowledges that he received it only from the King's bounty and must deliver it up again when it should please his Majesty to call for it even as Justices of the Peace c. whose Commission is ad Pacitum Moreover Lay-men had Ecclesiastical Dignities The E. of Hartford six Prebends promissed him as the Lord Cromwal in H. 8. was made Dean of Wells A thing very ordinary at that time Dr. Burnets Hist of the Refor part 2. Thus a Diocesane Episcopacy at best was judg'd but an humane Creature owing to the Magistrate alone for it's Rise and Conservation Secondly This seems to be the sense of the Reformers in Edward the 6th time who were under the Influence of that great Divine and Blessed Martyr Archbishop Cranmer In Henry 8th days Cranmer did his Utmost for the promoting a Reformation the which he did withal the Speed and Prudence the Ilness of the times would permit further attempt to carry on under King Edward and what he did was so highly approv'd of by all who were hearty for a Reformation that whoever considers how Unanimous the truly Protestans Bishops were in Concurring with this great Prelate Cranmer cannot but encline to think That their Principles in most things about Church Discipline were the same i. e. they were for the Divine Right of Bishops or Presbyters even when they judg'd the Superiority of a Bishop to a Presbyter to be but Humane That this may appear to be the sense of Cranmer I will only beseech my Reader to compare what was done under King Edw. 6th by this great Prelate with his Judgment concerning a Diocesan Episcopacy under Henry the 8th In Henry 8ths time Cranmer in answer to that Question Whether Bishops or Priests were first did assert That the Bishops and Priest were at one time and were no two things but both One Office in the beginning of Christs Religion That in the New Testament he that is appointed to be a BISHOP or PRIEST needeth no Cousecration by the Scripture for ELECTION or APPOINTING thereto is sufficient This was then Cranmers Judgment and I cannot understand that he did at any time in the least vary from it for in the Necessary Erudition which he subscribed there is nothing asserted but what is either Consistent with or an approbation of what was the Archbishops Opinion about these points 'T is true Cranmer was so Zealous an Asserter to the Kings Supremacy that he seem'd to be of that Opinion which doth now appear by the name of Erastianisme for he held That a Bishop or Priest by the Scripture is neither commanded nor forbidden to Excommunicate but where the Laws of any Region give him Authority to Excommunicate there he ought to use the same c. But from this he must be considered to have received because he subscribed the Necessary Erudition where 't is exprest That a part of the Priests or Bishops Office is according to the Scriptures to Excommunicate c. as well as Teach and Administer the Sacraments To all this add the Progress Cranmer made under Edw. 6. in the Reformation how far he went and how much farther he would have gone had not the Iniquity of those times been so exceeding great and the Reign of this worthy Prince so very short 'T is well known that he went so far as to tempt Dr. Heylin to conclude King Edwards death no Infelicity to the Church of England and to provoke Queen Elizabeth to say That they had stript the Church too much of its external Splendour and Magnificence That t was requisite to make some alteration in the Articles to the end a Compliance of the Roman Catholicks might be more easie What I have insisted on in this place about Cranmer is taken out of Dr. Burnets History and a Record in him ex M.SS. D. Stillingfleet 3. Such is the present Prerogative of his Majesty in Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Affairs that the asserting the Divine Right of a Diocesane Episcopacy is inconsistent with it The King is the Supream Head of the Church as well as of the State for which Reason he hath Power to appoint Officers to look after the management of Affairs in the One as in the Other But if the Diocesan Bishops depend not so much on the Prince for their Superiority and Power in making an Authoritative Inspection into Ecclesiasticalal Affairs as the Civil Magistrate who is it that is his Majesties Commissionated Officer about Ecclesiastical affairs T is either the Diocesane or None But if the Diocesane as such receives his Commission from Jesus Christ even as the Apostles did then they are Gods Officers and not the Kings And if so seeing the King doth nothing but by his Officers that is by such as act by a Commission received from him the King hath in this respect lost at least the Ezercise of his Prerogative But if they are the Kings Officers and depend as much on the King as the Civil then their Diocesan Episcopacy is not of Divine 't is but of Humane Right We acknowledge that 't is the sense of the Church of England that Princes are Ordain'd of God to Govern Ecclesiastical as well as other Persons and that therefore if we consider such as are appointed by the King to govern under him Circa Sacra as the
enlighten the Reader concerning some momentous Instances I would have pass'd it by as deserving no farther Consideration 1. Every thing is said to be Misrepresented But how the Doctor 's own words should misrepresent his own sense is not overeasie to apprehend However Whether there be any Misreport I 'll leave it to the Impartial Reader and consider what Reply is made to what I offer'd in Answer to the Doctor 's Uncomely Accusation 2. He grants p. 38. That the Papists do not so much Envy and Malign the Episcopal Government Neither is it their Principle nor Interest to destroy it Why then should they be brought to act so contrary to their Principle and Interest as to destroy what they so much endeavour to preserve strengthen and establish But 3. He adds Though they are for Episcopacy yet they may design the destruction of a Protestant Episcopacy c. Reply I said That 't was not the Destruction of Episcopacy but the possessing themselves of our Bishopricks that they would be at which may be without any alteration of the Episcopal Constitution so far as 't is Episcopal His running then unto France is nothing to the purpose unless it may be looked on as an intimation of his good will to the Arbitrary proceedings of that Country However I 'le desire our Author to consider That a change of Persons without any alteration of the Episcopal Constitution may most effectually answer the end of the Jesuit For hereby they would be capacitated if ever a Popish Prince should come to the Crown to argue with the common people concerning the Unreasonableness of a separating from Rome from the same Topicks with the â—ean thus The Episcopacy is not pull'd down nor destroyed 't is rather strengthened and more firmly established There is not so vast a deference between the Church of England and the Church I do not say the Court of Râ—me as there is between the Romanist and the Factious Presbyterean behold you have your Bishops still in all their Glorious Vestments a Surpliced Clâ—rgy an Excellent English Liturgy for the Papists in Dublin have their Mass in English which is exactly correspondent to the terms the Papists made the English in the days of Archbishop Laud If you submit to the one when Authority command you why will you not to the other What is the difference For this reason I cannot but be pretty confident that the Jesuits acting according to their own Principles and Interest receive greatest satisfaction from such as are most deeply engag'd to represent the Episcopal Constitution as one most Excellent and Admirable Do not the whole Land know what 't is that gives life unto Jesuitical hopes What are their designs and expectations from a Popish Successor and consequently how mischievous the Destruction of Episcopacy would prove unto that sort of People especially at this Juncture But I must not insist on this lest I be censur'd as an Addresser to the Lords and Commons to pull down Episcopacy a thing the Jesuit would not be at he being more unwilling than by argument unable to oppose it for which reason as our learned Author says Episcopacy is most easily defended against a Roman Catholick i. e. against one that hath no heart to oppose it But 4. Our Author would by all means perswade the world that the Dissenters cast the greatest Reproaches on the first Reformation because they manifest some dissatisfaction with such as impede a further Reformation as if a good work was as soon consummated as begun or as if it had been either impossible in it self or contrary to the design of the first Reformers to carry on the Reformation or as if the present Constitution of Episcopacy had been in every momentous respect as excellent as that begun in King Edwards days whereas 't is well known unto wise men and fully prov'd in my Epistle to the Reverend Dean that 't was impossible the Reformation should be finished as soon as 't was entred on and that the first Reformers in King Edwards days did more in six years than all their successors have since done in almost six-score All which is prudently past over by our Author 5. They stick much on that great Agreement there is between the Present and King Edwards Reformation as if we could not complain on the latter without reproaching the former But this is so weakly urg'd that any Reader of an ordinary capacity may see the vanity of this way of arguing for there is a great difference between that and this time what was almost impossible then might since be easily done But 2. 't is easie to demonstrate that the begun Reformation in King Edward the 6ths days was more excellent than the Present and that instead of carrying on the Reformation it hath been carried back to the great grief of sound Protestants This hath been in part prov'd when I did shew the Propension of Queen Elizabeth to favour Popery out of Dr. Burnet and Dr. Heylin two Sons of the Church though I fear the mentioning of the latter in Conjunction with the former may not be so meet the former being a through Protestant a man of great Worth but the heart of the latter towards Rome for which reason as their Principles are vastly different so should they be kept at a distance by me if Heylin had not acknowledged that to be a truth which I rather believe because found in the incomparable Dr. Burnet He now take notice of another considerable difference between the very Constitution of Episcopacy in King Edward the 6th's time and that in Queen Elizabeths The former was such as was inconsistent with the Popes Supremacy for they were to hold all their Courts in the Kings Name but the latter such as is most easily reduc'd to the exalting the Court of Rome The Government of the Church being taken from the Prince 't is not so difficult to fix it on the Pope Thus there is a difference between King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths Episcopacies I may also add That there is a great difference between the present Constitution and that in Queen Elizabeths if we may believe the Lord Treasurer Cecil who suggests that the Bishops did not look on their Superiority above their Brethren to be of Divine Right as the Dean of Pauls and his Substitute now do For this I will give you an account we have of the Speeches used in the Parliament by Sir Francis Knolles and after Written to my Lord Treasurer Sir William Cecil as I find it in the end of the Assertion To the end I may inform your Lordship of my dealing in this Parliament-time against the undue claimed Superiority of the Bishops over their Inferior Brethren Thus it was Because I was in the Parliament-time in the 25th year of King Henry the 8th in which time first all the Clergy as well Bishops as others made an humble Submission to King Henry the 8th acknowledging his Supremacy and detesting the Usurpation of the Bishop
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
Officers of God Fundamentally and not Formally it may be granted But when we speak of the Officers of Christ in Contradistinction to the Officers of the King we mean such whose Authority is from God and remains good though the Prince should oppose it as in the case of the Primitive Officers of Divine Institution who being forbidden to Preach in Christs name could reply Whether we shall obey God or Man Judge ye The Office of a Presbyter or Congregational Bishop is so much of God that what right soever the Magistrate may have concerning Nomination Election or Presentation or Appointing of any such Ecclesiastical Ministers his Prohibition cannot make void that Commission he hath received from Jesus Christ But such as are Officers of the King whether about the matters of the Lord or about the King i. e. whether Circa sacra or about Civil Affairs 't is in the Power of the Supream Magistrate to give or take his Commission as it pleaseth him yea to direct to the Number of such Officers appointing them their peculiar work and to alter and change as the necessity of Affairs and State of the National Constitution shall require There must be a regard had unto the present temper and state of the Kingdom in which the Church is and a suiting the Ecclesiastical Affairs so far as they may have an influence on the State after such a manner as is most conducive to the more firm establishment of the Fundamental Constitution and consequently Peace of the State to which end the Civil Magistrate must still firmly adhere to that known Rule by which King Henry professed to walk which is expressed in the necessary Erudition viz. The Scripture doth teach That all Christian People as well as Priests and Bishops as all other should be obedient unto Princes and Potestates of the World For the Truth is that God Constituted and Ordained the Authority of Christian Kings and Princes to be the most High and Supream above all other Powers and Officers in this World in the Regiment and Government of their People and committed to them as unto the chief leads of their Commonwealths the Cure and Oversight of all the People which be in their Realms and Dominions without any exception and to them of Right and by Gods Commandment belongeth not only to prohibit Unlawfull Violence to correct Offenders by Corporal Death or other punishment to Censure Moral Honesty among their Subjects according to the Laws of their Realms to defend Justice and to procure the Publick Weal and Common Peace and Tranquility in Outward and Earthly things But Especially and Principally to Defend the Faith of Christ and his Religion to conserve and maintain the true Doctrine of Christ and all such as be true Preachers and Setters forth thereof and to abolish all Abuses Heresies and Idolatries and to punish with Corporal Pain such as of malice be the occasion of the same And Finally to Oversee and cause that the said Bishops and Priests do execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully and especially in those points which by Christ and his Apostles were given and committed unto them and in case they shall be negligent in any part thereof or would not diligently execute the same to cause them to redouble and supply their lack And if they obstinately withstand their Princes kind monition and will not mend their Faults then and in such case to put others in their rooms and places And God hath also commanded the said Bishops and Priests to obey with all humbleness and Reverence both Kings and Princes and Governours and all their Laws not being contrary to the Laws of God whatsoever they be and that not only propter iram but also propter Conscientiam that is to say not only for fear of punishment but also for discharge of Conscience Thus the Power of the Magistrate over all Persons to wit Ecclesiastical and Civil is according to the Ordinance of God and that 't is a Part of the Magistrates Office to Defend the Faith of Christ to maintain the true Doctrine and the Preachers thereof and to Abolish all Abuses c. the which must be done not only by keeping to the Rule of the Gospel but in conjunction therewith by taking a special care that no unnecessary thing be suffered that in its Tendency is destructive of the Peace of the State If the present constitution of the Government of the Church as it is National and of humane Right onely be in any Respects Inconsistent with the Publick Weal of the Kingdom t is necessary that it be alter'd especially when an Alteration in some little things may abundantly contribute unto the Lasting Peace both of Church and State But if the Church Government as Diocesane or National be of Divine Right there can be no Alteration of it and consequently seeing the setting up any of the Kings Officers to Inspect Ecclesiastical Affairs is an Altering the Diocesan Constitution the Prince durst not though encouraged by an Act of Parliament enter on it What is of Divine Right is Sacred and must not be touch'd 't is dangerous to come too near that Mount For which Reason how mischeivous soever the Ecclesiastical-National-Government may in Process of time be unto the Civil the Civil not the Ecclesiastical must be Altered That there may be an Adjusting matters in debate between the Diocesane and the State the State must submit unto the Diocesane For the King according to this Hypothesis hath nothing to do with Church Affairs which are wholly by the word of God confined to Churchmen among whose number the King cannot be justly mention'd neither may the King take any Cognizance of what is done among them nor may they hold their Courts in his but only in their own Name or rather in Jesus Christs A Notion so inconsistent with his Majesties just Prerogative and the Powers of Parliaments that as it doth destroy the Former in like manner it doth so very much limit the Latter as to Alter the Fundamental Constitution of our Government By this time I presume it may appear with some Conviction to the Reader 1. That a Parochial or Congregational Church Government is according to the Church of England Jure Divino 2. That the Diocesane or National Government as such is Jure Humano and for its particular Form must be such in all ages as our Civil Governours Judge most meet as a Means for the Preservation of Parochial Discipline and the great Ends of the Civil Constitution These things being so A Declaring this true Church of England Principle to be still according to the Sentiments of our Governours will Relieve tender Consciences among Dissenters and sufficiently gratifie any moderate Conformist to the Ending all our Divisions without an Embasing his Majesties Prerogative 1. The Establishing a Parochial or Congregational-Church-Discipline by Law is the great thing the Dissenters desire and what may be done consistently with the Antient Constitution of the Government of this
Realm to the fixing the desired Firm and lasting Union among all sorts of sound Protestants These Assemblies once established as so many Compleat Particular Churches whose Pastors have full Power for the Administring all Ordinances and the exercising Discipline over those who do freely and of choice submit thereunto may notwithstanding lesser Differences be considered as United unto one another in that they Profess the same Faith Preach the same Word and Administer the same Sacraments For the Proof hereof consult the Necessary Erudition where t is said That the Unity of the Holy Church of Christ is not divided by Distance of Place nor by Diversity of Traditions and Ceremonies diversesly observed in divers Churches for good Order of the same And though in Traditions Opinions and Policies there was some Diversity among them i.e. the Churches of Corinth of Ephese c. likewise as the Church of England Spain Italy Pole be not separate from the Unity but be one Church in God notwithstanding that among them there is great distance of Place Diversity of Traditions not in all things Unity of Opinions Alteration in Rites Ceremonies and Ordinances or Estimation of the same such Diversity in Opinions and other outward Manners and Customes of Policy doth not dissolve and break the Unity which is in One God One Faith One Doctrine of Christ and his Sacraments preserv'd and kept in these several Churches without any Superiority or Preheminence that one Church by Gods Law may or ought to Challenge over another Thus Particular Parochial or Congregational Churches may be United in One God One Faith One Doctrine of Christ and his Sacraments even where there is some difference between them in lesser matters What though in one Parish there is a Liturgy in another a Directory shall this hinder Union Don't even the Papists themselves acknowledge that the Church of England was very closely United even among themselves notwithstanding the several different Offices there were in use among us in the times of Popery One Office after the use of Sarum another after the use of York of Bangor c. and yet all United Moreover what more common than to observe many little differences in Civil Corporations even where they are all United in one head A consideration sufficient to evince the Union of Parochial Churches to be Possible notwithstanding some Remaining Differences in Customs c. In these Kingdoms there are a multitude of Particular Corporations and little Policies whose Customs and modes of Government within themselves are very Different The particular Laws by which they are govern'd as a Particular Body Corporate are of as many different kinds as there are Cities Towns or Parishes but yet All United in that they swear Alleigance to his Majesty and submit themselves to the General Laws of the Land The different Customs of different places do not in the least break the Union of the Nation And why may it not be so in the Church What Reason can there be given why the Union of many a Civil Society or Association may be notwithstanding the different Customes are among them but the Union of many Particular-Parochial-Churches cannot be unless they all agree in every little thing Methinks it is as Reasonable to plead for a destroying the Particular Customes and Charters of Burroughs Corporations and Cities as the only way to Union in the Civil Government as 't is to assert That nothing but an Uniformity among every Parochial or Congregational Church can Unite us in the Ecclesiastical What though there are some differences among Parochial Churches as to their Customes and modes of Worship so long as they agree in One Faith One Lord One Baptism So long as they all Profess the same Faith Preach the same Word Administer the same Sacraments and submit unto the same Civil Government So long as they all Swear Allegiance to to their Prince and Subscribe any Test to assure the World they are sound Protestants the which being so what hinders a firm and lasting Union Certainly This is enough to shew that their Union if no more is as much as that between One City and another One Corporation and another and that their differences are no greater if so great than those between one City and another The which being so An Altering the Present Laws about Conformity and an Establishing such New ones as shall be Judged necessary by our Governours for the defence and safety of a Parochial or Congregational Church-Discipline as well as for the Regulating his Majesties Officers Circa Sacra will Unite us and put an end to that Horrid sin of Schism that hath these many years abounded in the midst of us Let the Dissenters be permitted to Embrace the Laws and Customes of their Fore-fathers in the Apostles days about Church-Discipline and the Mode of Worship and they are Relieved the which may be done without any Injury to the Conscience of any sound Protestant of the Episcopal Perswasion I say 2. This cannot but satisfie any moderate Episcoparian who may if he please firmly abide by those Ceremonies he now doth He may still Read the same Prayers among such as are of his own Opinion He may wear the same Vestments and address himself to his Majesties Officer the Lord Bishop as unto his Ordinary for Councel and Advice And if his Ordinary or Diocesan be an Elder for that is left to the Supream Magistrate to appoint he may look on him though in truth as such he being only the Kings Officer Circa Sacra as a Bishop who is of an Order Superiour to that of a Presbyter and so exercise Disciplene as he Receives Encouragement from him If there be any entring on the Ministry who think a Diocesane Episcopacy to be Jure Divino and is called unto a Parish or Congregation of the same Judgment This Candidate may if the Kings Officer be an Elder and of the same mind with him apply himself unto him as unto his Diocesane and receive Orders from him and do all things as now unless our Governours Judge meet to make any Alteration as to the use of some Ceremonies Only let none be by Law compelled to do so Let those that are so weak as to think a Diocesane Episcopacy to be of Divine Right enjoy the Liberty of their Consciences the which being attended but with the vouchsafing the like Liberty unto others I know not why they may not be satisfied We are not for the Pulling down Lord Bishops nor for an Alienating Church Lands If it seem good to our Governours to continue them we only desire that the Nature of their Office be declared to be no other than what it was Antiently in this Kingdom which is That they are meerly the Kings Creatures That all they do must be in the Kings Name and by vertue of a Commission receiv'd from him That as such they are only the Kings Magistrates that act Circa Sacra That their work is only to see that the Bishops or Presbyters
within their allotted Precincts discharge their Duty not only in leading Godly Lives but in Preaching the word administring the Sacraments and exercising Discipline according to the Rule of the Gospel We are far from pulling down such Bishops for we rather wish that whereas there is now one there might be five nor are we for the alienating Church Land any more than we are for the taking from his Majesties other Civil Officers those Pensions are allowed them for their great services A thing we esteem as necessary and highly expedient as what doth not only conduce very much to the Encouragement of all sorts of Learning the equal Administration of Justice but as what advanceth the Honour and Grandeur of the State But 3. This doth no way Embase his Majesties Prerogative in matters Ecclesiastical It doth rather make it the more Grand and August His Majesty is hereby acknowledged to be the Supream Head of the Church All Officers Circa Sacra depend as much on his Majesties Pleasure for their Places as any other Civil Officers 'T is in the Kings Name they must act by vertue of a Commission received from him whereby the King is Recognized as the sole Governour of the Kingdom and hath no Competitors with him nor is he in danger of Forreign Usurpations To summe up all Let all such Particular Congregational or Parochial Churches that are of Divine Institution according to the sense of the Old and most true Church of England be by Act of Patliament declar'd to be so and taken under the Protection of the Laws and the Dissenters are satisfied The which as hath been prov'd may be done without any wrong to the consciences of the Conformist This is the utmost I shall propose leaving it to the Wisdom of the Nation to Regulate and Order the Constitution so far as it is National and of Humane Make as they Judge most Expedient The States-men know best how to alter correct or amend any thing in the present Frame for which reason Modesty doth best become Divines whonever succeed in any undertakements beyond their Sphere If no encroachments be made on what is of Divine Institution no wrong can be done us I desire the Dean and his Substitute to consider this Proposal which is but a Revival of what was on our first leaving Rome strenuously asserted as the Onely way to break all the Designs of the Papists about Church Discipline From the corruptions of which did proceed all the Popes Tyranous Usurpations Certainly the Establishing this Notion cannot but be of extraordinary use as it Erects a Partition Wall between the Reformation and the Corruptions of the Roman Church as it is adjusted for the silencing all Differences among our selves the healing our Breaches and the fixing a firm and lasting Union among all sound Protestants whether Episcopal Presbyterian Congregational or meer Anabaptist I humbly apprehend this to be enough to evince That the Dissenters are not such Enemies to Union as some have Asserted nor are they for the destroying a National Church Government They are onely against Unaccountable Innovations even such as tend to the Ruine of the Old Protestant National Church which as such is but of Humane Institution and in all ages must be of such a Peculiar Form as is best suited to those great Ends viz. Gods Glory in the Flourishing of particular Parochial or Congregational Churches and the Peace of the State The Dissenters do know that as One Particular Church is not to depend on another as to be Accountable thereunto when at any time she may abuse her Power yet All are accountable unto the Magistrate of that Land in which they Live and that such is the state of things with us that what person soever is griev'd either by a Presbyter or Bishop or by any Inferiour Officer Circa Sacra he may make his Appeal to the Supream Magistrate with whom all Appeals on Earth are finally Lodg'd Whatever the Deans Substitute may assert 't is most undoubtedly true that no Appeal can be justly made from our King unto the Pope or any Colledge of Catholick Bishops whatsoever That herein as our Author dissents from the Church of England we do heartily agree with her That the sound Protestant Party among the Sons of the Church of England do accord with the Dissenters about this great Point is not only evident from what a Conformist hath written in the following Treatise but from what is asserted by the Judicious Dr. Burnet in the History of the Reformation The which I do the more chearfully insist on that the world may see How the Dissenters have been misrepresented and How clear they are from any Seditious or Factious Principles concerning Church Discipline In Dr. Burnets Preface to the History of the Reformation p. 1. for which the whole Kingdom have given the Dr. thanks 't is asserted That in Henry the 8ths time 't was an Establish'd Principle That every National Church is a compleat Body within it self so that the Church of England with the Authority and Concurrence of their Head and King might examine or Reform all Errors or Corruptions whether in Doctrine or Worship Moreover in the Preamble of that Act by which this Principle was fix'd 't is declared That the Crown of England was Imperial and that the Nation was a Compleat Body within it self with a full Power to give Justice in all Cases Spiritual as well as Temporal And that in the Spiritualty as there had been at all times so there were then men of that Sufficiency and Integrity that they might Declare and Determine all Doubts within the Kingdom And that several Kings as Ed. 1. Edw. 3. Ric. 2. and Hen. 4. had by several Laws Preserv'd the Liberties of the Realm both Spiritual and Temporal from the Annoyance of the See of Rome and other Forreign Potentates Hist Ref. p. 1. p. 127. Furthermore the same Judicious Author by an Extract out of the Necessary Erudition and out of the Kings Book de Differentia Regiae Ecclesiasticae Potestatis out of Gardiners de vera Obedientia and Bonners Prefix'd Epistle and out of a Letter written by Stokesly Bishop of London and Tonstall Bishop of Duresm hath made it evident that the Church in Henry 8. did not only assert the Kings Supremacy but as a Truth in Conjunction therewith held That in the Primitive Church the Bishops in their Councels made Rules for Ordering their Diocesses which they only called CANONS or RULES nor had they any Compulsive Authority but what was deriv'd from the Civil Sanction A sufficient evincement that they did not believe General Councils to be by Jesus Christ made the Regent part of the Catholick Church neither did they believe their Determinations or Decrees to lay any Obligation on the Conscience unless Sanction'd by the Magistrates command To this Dr. Burnet speaks excellently well in his Preface to the Second Part of the Hist Refor The Jurisdiction of Synods or Councils is founded either on the Rules
thanks for The Doctor 's Substitute as hereafter I will from his own words prove doth sufficiently declare what his party would be at which is a point I 'm sure that will meet with opposition from such as are true Sons of the Church whereby the Controversie if closely followed must cease to be between Conformist and Noncormist it must be between Conformist and Conformist It looks as if there were among our Church-men some resolv'd to revive Laud's Design as 't is well known there are many others among them who highly value the Principles and Temper of that great Protestant Prelate Abbot Laud's Predecessor in the See of Canterbury between whom the Scussle must at last end That this may with the greater Conviction be evinc'd I will in this Reply to the Defence of the Dean c. confine my self to the Author 's own words as compared with what is more than suggested in the Writings of Bishop Bramhall and some other Sons of the Church of England the which with due clearness I shall not be able to compass if I follow our Author in his disorderly way of Writing For which reason I must keep to the Method I took in the Modest and Peaceable Enquiry and bring what calls for my observation into its proper place The whole then he hath offered in Answer to the Enquiry may be reduced to these Heads 1. His Reflections on the Title of the Enquiry 2. His Censure of the Author's Design 3. The Defence of the Dean I 'll begin with the First The Author reflects on the Title as if the Discourse notwithstanding the specious pretences of the Title had not been as Modest nor as Peaceable as suggested in doing which he spends one whole Chapter it may be not fâ—nding matter enough in the Discourse it self to enlarge so far as to write any thing that might deserve the name of an Answer or countenance the Title given his Great Book I could very easily therefore as one unconcern'd pass by this first Chapter if there had not been more in it than the representing me as a person who deserve not the Character of being either Modest or Peaceable But the Overt acts of Immodesty which are insisted on by this Author being such as cannot but be of an ill Tendency I must consider ' em The first instance of Immodesty is thus express'd He begins his Epistle to the Dean with observing how industrious the Papists have been ever since the Reformation to ruine England and the Churches of Christ in it which he sufficiently proves from their Rebellions and Insurrections in King Edward's days the Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeths the Gun-Powder Treason in King James's c. and the late Hellish Conspiracy which was designed for the utter Extirpation of the Protestant Religion and the universal Destruction of all the Professors thereof whether Episcopal or Dissenter But this modest man saies our Author takes no notice That King and Kingdom Church and State have been once ruined already by such Modest Dissenters and may be in a fair way for it again if we suffer our selves to be Charmed and Lulled asleep by such modest Inquirers We are aware Sir what a Popish Zeal would do and what a Factious Zeal has done and think our selves concern'd as much as we can to countermine the Designs of both But however I confess it was very modestly done to pass over this that while men are zealous against Popery they may fear no danger from any other quarter Rep. Whether the mentioning the Rebellions and Insurrections of the Papists in King Edw. the 6th days the Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeths the Gunpowder-Treason in King James's the Hellish Plot of late discovered be an extraordinary act of Immodesty or Unpeaceableness let any temperate man among the Church of England judge that please Is it an Act of Immodesty to relate such notorious Truths or of Unpeaceableness to mention the Dangers we are in on the account of Popish bloody Plots This it may be is not the Crime but what follows which is This modest man saith our Author takes no notice That King and Kingdom Church and State have been once ruin'd already by such modest Dissenters and may be in a fair way for it again if we suffer our selves to be Charm'd and Lull'd asleep by such Modest Inquirers Rep. Hereby we know what the Authour would be at 't is as if he had said This Modest Enquirer is very immodest and quarrelsome for not imitating the Jesuitical Clubs who are contrary to the Act of Oblivion raking in old sores calling us to the remembrance of 41. to make us look back on the actings of Archb. Laud and his Faction the steps they made towards Rome the bones of contention they cast in between a Protestant Prince and a Church of England Parliament the Civil War begun by the Episcâ—pal who were Chief in each Army 'T was this the Enquirer indeed past over in silence wishing with his very Soul that the Episcopal Clergy had been either so wise or honest as to have done their utmost to have prevented those Ruins which their own Divisions brought on these Nations For 't is well known to many hundreds now alive who they were that had an Influence on those Unnatural Broils and Intestine Quarrels and whoever will consult Mr. Baxter against Hinekley or rather Mr. Rushworth and Dr. Heylin will see That the Sons of the Church of England more on both sides the active persons concern'd in the very beginning of those Troubles But those things the Inquirer was loath to mention it being as Unnecessary as Unsuitable to his Peaceable Design However seeing our Author will not be satisfied unless some notice be taken of those that once already Ruin'd King and Kingdom c. I will out of Dr. Heylin's Life of Laud a good Record at least in the sense of the Dean's Defender shew who they were that did it In a perusal of which 't will appear That 't was the Papists who had a sole hand in the Plot no Protestant I verily believe ever design'd what was the unhappy product of the Hellish Conspiracies of the bloody Papist This hath been long ago discover'd by Dr. Du Moulm and since by Dr. Oates and here most exactly related by Dr. Heylin a Son of the Church in these words viz. A Confederacy was formed amongst them i. e. the Papists consisting of some of the most subtle heads in the whole fesuitical Party by whom it was concluded to foment the Broils began in Scotland and to heighten the Combustions there that the King being drawn into a War might give them the opportunity to effect their Enterprize for sending Him and the Archbishop to the other World Which being by one of the party on Compunction of Conscience made known to Andreas ab Habernsfield who had been Chaplain as some said to the Queen of Bohemia they both together gave intimation of it to Sir William Boswell his Majesties Resident at
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
that one Bishop should have so many Cities underneath him Unto whom I answered That I could no farther go than to St. Paul's text which set in every City a Bishop Then asked he me If I thought it now unright seeing the Ordinance of the Church that one Bishop should have so many Cities I answered That I knew none Ordinance of the Church as concerning this thing but St. Paul's saying only Nevertheless I did see a contrary custom and practise in the world but I know not the Original thereof Then said he That in the Apostles time there were divers Cities some seven miles some six miles long and over them was there set but one Bishop and of their Suburbs also so likewise now a Bishop hath also but One City to his Cathedral Church and the Countrey about it as Suburbs unto it Methought this was far-fetcht but I durst not deny it because it was so great Authority and of so holy a Father and of so great a Divine But this I dare say that his Holiness could never prove it by Scripture nor yet by any Authority of Doctors nor yet by any practise of the Apostles and yet it must be true because a Pillar of the Church hath spoken it But let us see what the Doctors say to mine Article Athanasius doth declare this Text of the Apostle I have left thee behind c. He would not commit unto one Bishop a whole Ylde but he did injoyn that every City should have his proper Pastor supposing that by this means they should more diligently oversee the people and also that the labour should be more easie to bear c. Also Chrysostome on that same Text He would not that a whole Countrey should be permitted unto one man but he enjoined to every man his Cure by that means he knew that his labour should be more easie and the subjects should be with more diligence govern'd if the Teachers were not distract with the governing of many Churches but had cure and charge of one Church only c. Methinks these be plain words and able to move a man to speak as much as I did But grant that you may have all these Cities yet can you make it none Heresie For my Lord Cardinal granted that it was but against him and against you which be no Gods But I poor man must be an Heretick there is no remedy You will have it so and who is able to say nay Not all Scripture nor yet God himself By this time the Reader cannot but be well satisfied that the great thing aim'd at by the first great Lights England had in Henry the 8ths days as a most effectual way to carry on a Reformation was the reducing the Popish Hierarchy to an Apostolical Presbytery The Presbyterian Discipline that is The Government of Gospel-Churches by Presbyters and Deacons being of Divine Institution is most admirably suited to the designed End of promoting the Glory of God the Power of Religion c. A Discipline the truth of which hath been sealed by the blood of blessed Protestant Martyrs a thing in which our Episcoparians cannot make theâ—r boast Moreover 't is manifest that this was not only the apprehension of Tindall Barnes and Lambert but that all the Clergy in Henry the 8ths time denied a Diocesan Episcopacy to be of Divine Institution asserting that in the New Testament there is no mention made but of Deacons or Ministers and Priests or Bishops This is in a Paper sign'd by Cromwell and many others Yea and in the necessary Erudition of a Christian man as is acknowledged by the Judicious Dr. Burnet who in his Addenda to the first part of the Reformation doth say That both in this Writing and in the necessary Erudition of a Christian man Bishops and Priests are spoken of as one and the same Office Though I must confess that the Dr. doth differ from those Divines and although he gives us not satisfaction in his Reply yet he speaks more ingenuously and more to the purpose than either this Gentleman or Dr. Stillingfleet himself 4. The old Nonconformists in Queen Elizabeths days agreeing with those worthy Martyrs Tyndall Lambert and Barnes concerning the most effectual way of carrying on the Reformation applied themselves seriously to the Work The Viciousness of some of the Clergy in Queen Elizabeths days was as grievous unto the Nonconformist as unto those glorious Martyrs a Reformation in Manners and in order thereunto in Church-Discipline was what they aim'd at 'T is very evident That a further Reformation than was carried on by Queen Elezabeth was very desirable for in some respects she carried it not so far as King Edward himself had done ' For Queen Elizabeth as Dr. Burnet most admirably expresseth it though she had been bred up from her Infancy with a Hatred to the Papacy and a Love to the Reformation yet as her first Impressions in her Fathers Reign were in favour of such old Rites as he had still retained so in her nature she loved State and some Magnificence in Religion as well as in every thing else She thought that in her Brothers Reign they had stript it too much of external Ornaments and had made their Doctrine too narrow in some Points Therefore she intended to have some things explain'd in more general Terms that so all Parties might be comprehended by them She inclin'd to keep up Images in Churches and to have the manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament left in some general words that those who believe a Corporal Presence might not be driven away from the Church by too nice an explanation of it History of Reform part 2. l. 3. As to this last Particular the Rubrick that explain'd the Reason for the kneeling at the Sacrament That thereby no Adoration is intended to any corporal presence of Christs flesh and blood because that is only in Heaven which had been in King Edwards Liturgy is left out and kneeling at the Sacrament to many a Protestant much more offensive than formerly The great Propension in Queen Elizabeth's days to gain over the Popish party to her Communion by those Alterations made in the Liturgy in favour of the Papist the ordering the Sacramental Bread to be made round in the fashion of the Wafers used in the time of Queen Mary the requiring the Table to be placed where the Altar stood c. was attended with the Conformity of many who were cordially affected to the Interest of the Church of Rome at which time there was not a sufficient number of learned men to supply the Cures which filled the Church as Heylin saith with an Ignorant and Illiterate Clergy whose learning went no further than the Liturgy or Book of Homilies though otherwise conformable unto the Rules of the Church The Old Nonconformists still desiring a further Reformation than was carried on in King Edwards days but â—â—â—â—ing rather a turning toward Rome could not but be greatly grieved They in their places
of the Universal Church and be sav'd they will not part with any of those things that are in their own judgment little though it be to save the Dissenters souls If they would remove what is in their own judgment but little and what may be done without their sin but what cannot be complied with by the Dissenter without his great sin the Controversie is ended the Schisâ—â— lost and the Dissenter restor'd to the Catholick Church and may be sav'd Let the World judg then who is in the fault There remaineth nothing more that is worthy our consideration unless the many slips of our Author may be esteem'd as such by the Authors insisting on my parallelling Dr. Stillingfleet and Bellarmine not only in their Dividing Principles but also in that even when by their Impositions they make the greatest rents in the Church imaginable they speak well of Union but this is only an overt-act of his inadvertency For the reason why I mentioned this was to obviate a common Objection viz. How can you parallel the Doctor and Bellarmine in this seeing the Doctor cries up Union so much as the designe of his great Book as well as of his Sermon To which I reply That though the Principles of Bellarmine were Dividing yet he cries up Union for which reason though the Doctor applauds Union yet in doing so doth no more than Bellarmine and therefore may be as much a Divider as Bellarmine notwithstanding those many plausible Discourses concerning the excellency of Union for Union is a lovely name in the judgment of such as will do nothing to obtain the thing His passing over the most momentous parts of the Enquiry without saying any thing considerable unto 'em makes a further Defence at present unnecessary I say for the present because he seems to threaten as if I should hear more of it in DUE TIME To close then this discourse it only remains that in Charity to our Author whose Affections to Dr. Stillingfleet have so abundantly blinded his Judgment that he cannot though in searching till he hath wearied himself find out any Mistake in the Dr's Preface I 'll give him an Account of a few among many and then shew what little Reason such of the Church of England who are for the Grotian or Bishop Laud's Model have to reproach Dissenters as a People carrying on Popish Designs in blasting the honour of the first Reformation § 1. An Account of some of those Mistakes which are found in Dr. Stilling fleet 's Preface to his Unreasonableness of Separation not to mention any thing of the Parallel between the Dean and the Jesuit so much insisted on in the Enquiry 1. THE Dean asserted p. 14. a suitableness between the Dissenters Pretences and the Jesuits Doctrines about Spiritual Prayer whereas I have evinced the contrary 2. That the Grounds and Reasons of the first Separation of the old Nonconformist from the Church of England are said to be the Jesuits crying down all Forms of Prayer and setting up Spiritual Prayer in the room thereof But I have proved that the first who separated did keep to a Form of Prayer 3. That the Dissenters do blast the honour of the first Reformation but they so far countenance it as to endeavour the carrying it on 4. That the Dissenters are the best Proctors the Papists could meet with their fittest and aptest Instruments that they were made the Engins of the Roman Conclave p. 16. All which the Doctor takes out of Archbishop Whitgift But an unjust Censure if not a great Mistake 5. That the Episcopacy now and in King Edward's days was the same whereas in King Edward's days they held all their Courts in the King's name but now in their own 6. That there is no considerable difference between the Reformation begun in Edward the 6ths and that carried on in Queen Elizabeths time Whereas 't is most apparent that in King Edward's time they judged the Pope to be Antichrist but in Queen Elizabeths not a word of it and many other differences All which relate unto matter of fact and therefore may be rightly called Historical Mistakes Many more might be insisted on but these are sufficient to help our Author to see that if his eyes had been good he needed not to weary himself in making a search after them without effect If this will not satisfie our Author if he will call for a larger list of the Dean's Mistakes I do assure him 't is easie enough to add a multitude more although I delight not in a detecting the Weaknesses of any § 2. Thus having given an hint of some of Dr. Stillingfleet's Mistakes found in his Preface I shall conclude by shewing what little Reason such as our Author have to make such a prodigious noise about the Dissenters subserviency to Popish Designs in blasting the honour of the Reformation Sir If the case be narrowly searched into you will find that in all times since the first Reformation those call'd Puritans were a block in the way to the Church of Englands passing over towards Rome Had it not been for the Industry of the Nonconformist as all the forreign Protestant Churches beyond the Seas are Unchurched by our high-flown Episcopal men even so they should have been abandon'd as Heretical but that the Dissenter makes such a clamour on all occasions about Popery You have very ingeniously distinguish'd between the Church and the Court of Rome and have taken the most effectual care to endeavour that favour might be shewn the Church of Rome even when you cry down Popery as if the common People had understood by Popery no more than your self namely the Court of Rome whereas they think that when you cry down Popery you are enemies to the Church of Rome A pretty juggle Popery is an odious thing even when to be a Roman Catholick is worthy of all applause Laud was no Papist he was an enemy to Popery when a cordial Friend to the Church of Rome Popery is detestable when all the care imaginable must be taken that nothing be done to the disgust of the Roman Church Consult Bramhall and Heylin to mention no more to see whether these be not their Sentiments You boast strangely of King Edwards Reformaton not considering how short of it in some things you are fall'n You represent us as blasters of the Reformation begun in his days not duely minding what one of your own Faction Dr. Heylin hath said on 't in his Preface to the History of the Reformation Take the Character he gives of Edward the 6th and make the most of it 't is this Scarce had they saith he brought it viz. the Reformation to pass when Edward died whose death I cannot reckon for an Infelicity to the Church of England For being ill-principled in himself and easily inclin'd to embrace such Counsels as were offered to him it is not to be thought but that the rest of the Bishopricks before sufficiently impoverished must have followed Durham
Christian world Let us have but such Churches and such Bishops with Presbyters and Deacons as were in the Churches of Corinth Jâ—râ—â—lem and Antioch in the days of Clemens James and Ignatius and the Countrey Conformist is satisfied and so would Mr. B. and most Nonconformists in England besides Whether this kind of Episcopacy be a new name for Presbytery and whether this Author have proved it I leave to such Readers to judg as can consider as well as read his Book But how comes this Gentleman to know that the Countrey Conformist is such a one as those that raised a Civil War some years ago and pulled down Church and State to set up a Presbytery Can a man oppose nothing that is defended by some Church-men but he must immediately be reported a secret Traytor or Rebel Is this becoming Christianity or the Preachers of it Do these men believe the Gospel that dare slander and traduce their brethren in such a villanous manner 'T is a word I received from him I hope he will take it agen Tho' it should be granted the Miter supports the Crown yet surely the Errors and Vices of Church-men give no support unto it and I am of opinion that a man may speak for peace and against the opinions and corruption of Churches and Church-men and yet be a very good subject to his Prince notwithstanding that perpetual buz of Rebellion that is suggested by some Huffs in the prejudice of such men and their discourses But why did I enquire how this Monsieur came to know that the Countrey Conformist was such another as those that raised the Rebellion in forty three The nature of the assertion betrays the Author of the Information and there needs no great skill in Magick to find him yet lest he should be ignorant of him I will be so kind as to tell his name he is called Beclzebub the Father of lyes and I hope when he writes agen he will beware of him and hold better correspondencies for his information Pag. 7. he adds Our Conformist doth plainly deride the Dean for thinking he can justifie our present Episcopacy and then quotes his words as followeth But the Dr. makes no question but he shall confute this fanciful man and make it appear that our present Episcopacy which Mr. B. opposes is agreeable to the institution of Christ and the best and most flourishing Churches And easily he may if Mr. B. be such a pitiful Antagonist But what is there in these words that savour of derision I have read and considered them agen and agen and I cannot find it by all the search that I can make The Learned Dr. had pitied Mr. B. and given sufficient evidence of the mean opinion he had of his performances in his late Books and particularly in his Treatise of Episcopacy and is it to deride the Dean to say he may easily confute so contemptible an Adversary This I confess I cannot understand And yet after all I am not satisfied that the Learned Dr. or his Defender hath confuted what Mr. B. hath said in prejudice to our present Diocesan Episcopacy he says that the enlargement of Diocesses hath varied the species of Episcopacy and gives many arguments for the proof of it which neither the Dr. nor this Gentleman hath attempted to answer I know the latter of them says that the enlargement of Diocesses doth not vary the species of Bishops and that a great and a little King are specifically the same Governours But I can by no means believe this to be true of Bishops whatever it be of Kings For the Diocess of the Pope is only bigger than that of the Bishop of London or Worcester or Lincoln and yet I think they are Governours specifically distinct and I hope this Gentleman thinks so too Yea give me leave to suppose that there were but two Bishops in England there would be only a gradual difference in their Diocess and yet I suspect some men would think that the Government were specifically altered but let not our Author infer that this supposition is my desire for he is apt to pervert mens words for I will assure him that I do not desire it but would have many more Bishops not less In fine 't is my opinion that the needs of the Church and the abilities of Bishops to perform the work of the Episcopal Office ought to determine the extent of their Diocess Let their Diocesses be as big as they can manage and no bugger and if so I am sure they must be reduced to smaller limits than now they are No Bishop can discharge the proper work of his Office in a thousand or five hundred Parishes nay I will say That there are many single Parishes in England that will employ the most industrious Bishops on earth If it be said that they do perform the proper work of their Office in many Parishes I utterly deny it that the work is not done and thence proceeds the prophaness and wickedness of particular Churches and thence follows the Schisms and Separations that have and do vex this Church at this day Pag. ib. Our Author proceeds He pleads i. e. the Countrey Conformist for taking off the Impositions in general without any limitation to receive the Presbyterians again into our Church which before he told us were Subscriptions Declarations c. and some few Alterations besides That is faith our Commentator either a form of Prayer or at least our present Liturgy Ceremonies and Administration of religious Offices Now he is an admirable Conformist indeed who at once grants away the Episcopal Office and instead of it setteth up a Bishop in every Parish or either an Anti-Christian Bishop of Bishops or an Ecclesiastical Minister of State to head and govern them and alters the whole frame of our Worship and into the bargain leaves every man to do as he saith and all this without injuring our present Constitution Nay he concludes That all those that hinder the Union of Presbyterians with this Church by continuing the Impositions are Factors for the Pope In this paragraph are a great many falshoods He charges the Countrey Conformist with pleading for the Admission of the Presbyterians into the Church without any Impositions Subscriptions or Declarations This was very ill done of him if it be true which I do a little suspect because this Gentleman is so apt to misunderstand and misrepresent the words and meaning of his Adversaries The Country Conformist hath declared in several places of his Books That he pleads the Cause of none but tolerable Dissenters and for the Admission of none into the Church but such as can Officiate in our Parochial Assemblies but how this difference can be made without Impositions or Subscriptions is not imaginable And therefore to say no more I think this Author hath injur'd and wronged him in this report of his judgment And wheras by those few Alterations besides that the Country-Conformist speaks of he understands either a Form of
Prayer or the present Liturgy Ceremonies and Administration of Religious Offices 't is his own Comment and he is not obliged to confute it Yet thus much I will say on his behalf that upon my knowledg he is in his judgment for a Form of Prayer in Publique-Offices and Administrations and hath a very hearty esteem for that of our Church but I cannot say so of the Ceremonies I think he might be easily perswaded to part with them and if some exceptionable passages in the Liturgy and Rubricks were altered I believe he would make no opposition to it But he charges this admirable Conformist as he is pleased to call him with giving away at once the Episcopal Office and instead of it sets up a Bishop in every Parish and either an Antichristian Bishop of Bishops or an Ecclesiastical Minister of State to govern them How little there is of truth in this charge may be collected from what I have said already The Conformist sets up no more Bishops than the necessities of the Church and the duty and work of the Episcopal-Office requires and I understand not that this is giving away the Episcopal Office And if this Author can free Metropolitan Bishops from Antichristianism which he says some do derive from the very days of the Apostles and that not without some good appearance of Reason I hope the Conformist will defend the Episcopi Episcoporum from that appellation As to what he says of an Ecclesiastical Minister of State the Conformist hath no more to reply than this He hopes this Gentleman will not plead an Exemption for the Clergy from under the Civil Magistrates Power and Government and if this be granted I know not what can be matter of Controversie between him and this Author For he supposes him to exercise no Power over the Bishops but what is inherent in the King and in this Minister of State by Delegation that is in few words to see that they do their own Duty carefully reprove their Negligence and Male-administrations and preserve peace among them And what is there in this Doctrine that our Author should take such offence at I am yet to seek He addes And alters the whole frame of our Worship leaves every man to do as he lists and all this without injury to our present Constitution In these Lines to speak plainly there is not one word of truth as any man may easily collect from what I have said already And this Gentleman himself confesses in the next page That the Conformist will not indeed allow of universal Toleration How this can be reconciled with Leaving all men to do as they list I am not able to tell That the Conformist said That those that hinder the Union of Presbyterians with the Church of England by continuing the Impositions are Factors for the Pope I do easily acknowledg and I believe he is still of the same minde and as I remember he gave some Reasons for it too which this Gentleman takes no notice of When he confutes them perhaps he may hear of a Vindication if there be just reason for it Pag. the 8th he proceeds thus He i.e. the Conform pleads for the Indulgence of others particularly the Independents who he says will be content with their own Congregations and is mightily taken with Mr. Humfreys Project That the tolerated Churches such as Independents be declared parts of the National Church whereof the King to be the Head The Countrey-Conformist is so great a Lover of Peace that I do easily suppose he might be pleased with Mr. H's Project as he calls it and I do assure him that I my self am much more pleased with it since I read his Book than I was before though I had always a value for it For I think the Design of uniting the Dissenting Protestants in this Nation is into one National Church whereof the King to be the Head more laudable than the design of uniting Protestants in a General Council or in a Pope Primate or Metropolitan which seems to be the design of our Author though he hath not Courage or Instruction enough as yet to speak it out For he affirms 1. That the Episcopal Office and Power is but one and not resident in the Bishops of the Universal Church p. 212. 2. That the Independency of Bishops is inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity p. 115. And 3. that although equals have no Authority over one the other yet a Collegue hath Authority over any one of his Collegues p. 213. 4. That the Bonds and Combinations of Churches are of Divine Right though the ordering and determination of them be of Humane Prudence p. 258. 5. That the Unity of the Church is as much of Divine Right as any Form of Government in it and that the whole Church may be divided into greater or lesser parts as may best serve the ends of Peace and Unity And that it seems strange to him that a National or Patriarchal Church should not be thought as much a Divine Institution as any particular Church p. 259. And further he adds When Christ and his Apostles have instituted one Form of Government for all particular Churches and commanded them all to live in Unity Peace Communion and amicable Correspondency with each other the Union and Combination of Churches into one according to this Institution to serve the ends of Catholick Communion must be thought as much a Divine Institution as the bounds of particular Churches For if we will not allow those Churches to be of Divine Institution which have Officers of Divine Appointment and are formed according to the general Directions of Christ and his Apostles so as may serve the ends of Church-Government I know not where to find a Church of Divine Institution in the world pag. 259 260. These are the words of our Author from whence we may collect many things for our Information 1. That the Bishops of the Catholique Church are the regent part thereof in the same sense that the Bishops of any National Church are the regent part of that Church For although there be no Superiority among Bishops their Power and Office being the same yet Independency among them being inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity both in the National and in the Universal Church they are bound to unite for the Government of both and this by Divine Command Authority and Obligation 2. That whatsoever is determined by the Bishops of the Catholick Church doth oblige all particular Bishops and all Christians all the world over provided they determine nothing contrary to the Word of God 3. That whatever Bishop shall refuse their Canons and Determinations and govern his particular Church by other Laws than they shall appoint is a Schismatick and they may Depose and Excommunicate him yea if a whole combination of Bishops do refuse to govern their National Church by their Laws Appointments and Constitutions they are all Schismaticks and if the Nation refuse to forsake such Bishops they are all Schismaticks
also both they and their Bishops are liable to the same Censure 4. That the external Union of the Catholick Church consists in their Union to and with the Bishops thereof that is with a General Council See pag. 595. where he makes Catholick Communion to consist in two things 1. In the Agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholick Church among themselves 2. In the Communion of particular Churches and Christians with each other And he adds That Catholick Communion is no arbitrary thing but essential to the Church and whoever violates it by an unreasonable Dissent he is a Schismatick whoever he be and no Member of the Catholick Church pag. 601. 5. That Metrapolitan Patriarchal Churches are of Divine Appointment as much as any other Churches must govern their Churches by such Laws as are advised by a General Council or by the Bishops of the Church Universal For although they be not founded on any express Divine Law yet they are warranted by our obligations to Catholick Unity p. 293. And for my part I am not able to see any reason why the same obligations to Unity may not warrant one Papal Church as well as three or four Patriarchal Churches in all the Christian world For the Papists think it the most effectual way to preserve Unity and for ought that I know they may think as wisely as this Gentleman I envy neither him nor them the pleasure of their Dreams but I hope there are but few Church-of England-men that do think the same thoughts with him these were the thoughts of Hugo Grotius whom Bishop Bramhal commends and defends Unitas antistuis optimum est adversus Schisma remedium quod Christus monstravit Experientia comprobavit Vid. Annot. In consultat de Religione ad Art Sept. I have quoted the words of this Author and I am not conscious to my self that I have perverted them or made any ill deductions from them and if it be his design to unite all Pretestants in the Decrees of General Councils and in the Intervals of Councils in the Pope or three or four Patriarchs who are to govern according to their Canons I do assure him that I prefer Mr. Humfry's design far before it For I am of opinion 't is a more Christian Design to untie Protestants together and among themselves than to unite them with the Papists Mr. Humfry's Design I will transcribe from his Book that those that shall read these few Sheets may compare it with that of our Author Archbishop Usher hath left us his Model for an Accommodation And it hath been upon the hearts generally of all moderate persons that a reduction of such a Government into our Church as was in the Primitive Times when there was a Consessus Presbyterorum joyn'd with the Bishop in all his Acts of Ordination and Jurisdiction were the way and only effectual way to our true Happiness and Reformation Unto which if one thing more might be added that is If the Common-Prayer might be new cast it being fit that such a vessel for the Sanctuary should be all of pure Gold so as the whole of it were composed of Scripture-Phrase altogether leaving nothing at all liable any more to exception unless the Imposition of a Form only which I doubt not but is also justifiable by Scripture-Instances as well as sound Reason it might go near to put an end to all Dissention among the Sober and Peaceable of the Nation It is this I know is apt to recur into the Imaginations of good men and forasmuch as there was lately two Bills prepared for Comprehension or Uniting the Pootestants and for Indulgence or repealing the Penal Statutes I shall not I hope incur any blame if I apprehend that such men who are most considerate and intent upon the Interest of God in what they seek do or did look upon either of such Bills as no other than an English Interim preparative to this higher Concord and Union of the Bishop with his Presbyters according to the Primitive Pattern mentioned assoon as more mellow Opportunity and well-advised Piety should administer unto such farther Perâ—ection Nevertheless in regard there is no Uniting of a Nation can be supposed by any Model but such as is of Human Contrivance and there are multitudes of Holy and Learned Men in this Kingdom that do believe the way of their Gathered Congregations is after a higher Pattern than this of Primitive Episcopacy it self if there were any hope of the return of it it is manifest that there is no Society which is National in England could be formed on these terms because these Congregational-men can never recede from that which is of Divine Appointment for the sake of any Antiquity whatsoever They do hold Particular Churches to be of Christ's Institution and Diocesan of Ecclesiastical Consent only and under the Notion of Divine Right it is Sin to them to submit to any Bishop There is another Notion then that must be advanced to take in these good Men of This Way as well as those of the Parochial and Diocesan Way into one Political Body for the making up the National Church of England whereof the King is Head as I have been speaking and that is by an Act of Parliament Legitimating these Meetings of the Nonconformists so as to become thereby immediately Parts of the Church as National no less than Parochial Assemblies It was a good thing in the House of Commons that they were about to free many Innocent Men from the danger of the Penal Statutes but the making such Meetings to be Legal is a Design of another Nature of a far greater nobler and vast Importance See page 28 29 30 31. To which add what he says pag. 36. ' If these Separate Assemblies were made Legal the Schism presently in reference to the National Church were at an end Schism in a Separation from that Church whereof we ought or are bound to be Members If the Supreme Authority then loose our Obligation to the Parish-Meeting so that we are bound no longer the Iniquity upon that account is not to be found and the Schism gone It is one Act of Parliament would give a full Answer to all mens Arguments Mr. H.'s design may be easily gathered from these words which I have thus largely transcribed and should our Superiors favour and promote it it would restore peace and quiet to a Church and State almost broken to pieces by divisions animosities fears and jealousies By this means the sons of the Church might enjoy their Dignities Preferments and Livings and believe their Government and Discipline to be of Divine right and exercise it on all that are of the same apprehension and judgment The Separate Congregations may enjoy their own opinions concerning their own Government and Churches and all might live together in love and every one sit under his vine and fig-tree and none make him afraid A closer union I do easily grant were desirable but I am
Church which he himself takes to be such a Union But he cannot tell he says p. 561. why it is Accidental to the Church of Christ to be National any more then to be Universal or Patriarchal and Metropolitical any more then Universal but when I tell him that the Body of Christ which is his Church may subsist though there were never a Patriarch or Metropolitan in the Earth I hope he can see if he will how the consideration of the Church as Patriarchal or Metropolitical and so National must be Accidental to it And as for Christs command of planting Churches p. 16. in the whole world and so in Nations and Cities and Towns requiring Unity and Communion every where among Christians it may warrant the Combinations of Patriarchal Metropolitical National Diocesan and Parochial Churches to this end if he please provided only that these forms be held Accidental forms according to humane prudence and not the Essential form of the Church of Christ according to divine institution To the question whether a National Church be Political he offers something p. 562. and says the Dean in his Opinion hath answered with great Judgment in his denying any necessity of a Constitutive Regent part to be Essential to a National Church But I will make it appear that either the Dean or his Defender do speak here with little Judgment It is the Notion this Author hath proposed to publick consideration that the Bishops in every Nation are to Govern the Church by consent that is as Colleagues per litteras formatas when they convene not and when they do by their Canons in a Convocation This he makes throughout his Book to be of Christs appointment holding Episcopacy to be Jure Divino with others of his party If this then be true this Author hath found out a Constitutive Regent part yea an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Regent part of the Church in every Nation where there are Christians and Bishops And when he hath found out a Head for the Doctor how can he thus applaud the Doctors answer that denies the Church to have one or sayes there is no necessity of any When he does prove it to be a Church Political and the Doctors answer includes a denyal of it to be so how comes this man to be so full of reverence here with these words in his mouth To this the Dean answers in my poor Opinion with great Judgment and Consideration It is with great Judgment indeed is it not that the Dean hath given up the Cause of the Bishops And with great Judgment is it not that this man hath assumed the Prerogative of the King to their Colledge Let him take heed least he bring himself into question Many Churches Associated for mutual help and concord are a Church only in a loose sense but those that are constituted of one Regent and subdite part are Churches in a Political proper sense It is no body Political without one common Governour Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical Thus says Mr. Baxter p. 563. Unto which says this Author Herein does his strength p. 564. consist Answ I acknowledge it does and what hath he to weaken it I will Transcribe what he says If we deny this that though a National Church be one body yet it is not such a Political body as he describes which differs from secular forms of Government by that ancient Canon of our Saviour It shall not be so among you the controversie may be at an end and a National Church may be one body in an Ecclesiastical though not in a Civil Political sense This is the help the Dean must expect from his Defender and if the Doctor be not ashamed of his own answer for this desense sake I know not what should put any man to shame This man tells me in his Preface he will interpose between the Dean and shame in this Controversie Upon this account therefore I will take leave to tell him that he does here manifestly betray a raw ignorance which ought to shame him He understands the term Political to be Commensurate with Civil as if a Government Ecclesiastical could not be Political as well as a Government Civil that is as if a Church could not be Political as well as other Societies He does yet discover the same more then by words for he hath found out a Head for the Church which is Aristocratical and yet thinks the Church cannot be Political unless it have some Head that is Personal or as if a Head Collective were not One Head as vvell as one that is Monarchical This man vvho hath interposed betvveen shame and the Doctor must take shame upon him seeing he calls upon me to do my part honestly in the same place I say this man hath found an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Head of the Church and that of Christs own Institution if he understands what he drives at and yet he and the Doctor will not allow the Church of England to be Political I will advise him to consult with Bishop Gunning and the excellently learned and yet humble Mr. Dodwell who are living seeing he hath not taken his Notions from Bramhal or any other who are dead as I conjecture that he may be instructed better before we hear any more from him Mr. Baxter indeed understands himself throughly and tells us Association of Churches for Concord gratia Unitatis are no proper Churches But an United Colledg of Bishops for government gratia Regiminis is a formal Ecclesiastical Head about which was the Original Question And this this bold and herein but half informed Author who will interpose between shame and the Doctor doth not understand neither and as soon as he hath read this will he own the shame he hath taken upon him Above all is there any man unless so forward a one would ever have produced that saying of our Saviour If shall not be so among you for the proving a National Church to have no Head or that the Churches of Christ must not therefore be Political I shall not be blamed I hope therefore if I say now again what I said to the Doctor That if this man be not ashamed for himself and the Doctor I must be ashamed for them both If we deny this says he the Controversie were at an end Well but when it cannot be denyed we must look farther P. 565. We grant says he a National Church is a Political Society for Government by consent without Superiority is Government I grant too Church Governours united and governing by consent are the Pars Imperans and the people submitting to such Government in obedience to the Commands of our Saviour are the Pars Subdita and all this is true without a constitutive Kegent Head I Answer if he grants or rather asserts thus much a Government by consent understanding by it the Episcopal Colledg or Cyprians One Episcopacy as the Governing part and the People by the Law of Christ subdite to it then hath he found
to appear above board and to let us know whether he will set up also for that notion and defend his Defender Mr. Baxter is a man who understood Politicks and stated what he understood but the Doctor was at the present raw and put into his arguing he did not know well what that is the truth on 't and forasmuch as this man hath undertaken to interpose between shame and the Doctor I will tell them both plainly the Doctor may be ashamed to put in a fourth Term into his Argument and this man truly takes the shame on him by bringing in a fifth also That which Mr. Baxter said was this That every proper Political Church must have a Constitutive Head and the Doctor both leaves out the words Proper Political and brings in the term Visible Therefore the Catholick Church says he must have a Constitutive Visible Head The Interposer now to take off this shame from the Doctor hath taken the right course I say for he comes and does worse and that is puts in a fifth term also into the Argument If every Church when he should say every Proper Political Church only if he speaks to Mr. Baxter must have a Visible Subordinate Constitutive Head then must the Catholick Church have such a one But that having no such a one a National Church as well as the Catholick may be without a Constitutive Head This is the Reasoning in the summ I say in the sum for it is no matter for more of his words that puts me and Mr. Baxter as he says at such a loss as is irrecoverable And does he not indeed take off the shame from the Doctor by taking it thus upon himself Suppose another should put a sixth term into the Argument and argue If no Church can be a true Visible Church without a Visible Subordinate Monarchical Constitutive Head then cannot the Catholick Church visible be a true Church without a Visible Subordinate Monarchical Constitutive Head Who could doubt now any longer but Mr. Baxter must yield to a plain Confutation or bring in the Pope presently without remedy But did Mr. Baxter I pray lay down the Proposition from which this Consequence by this means is indeed made unavoidable No you will say this were to wrong Mr. Baxter to put in the term Monarchical and would spoil this mans Goverment by Consent quite I say likewise that this Author wrongs him to put in this term Subordinate and the Doctor by putting in the term Visible Mr. Baxter hath neither of these terms in his Assertion and if you cannot argue from what he hath said that the Pope is Head of the Catholick Church Visible you cnanot argue from him that it hath any Subordinate Head or Visible but a Constitutive Head only whether Visible or Invisible It is nothing else but the Fallacy whereby the Opponent puts in more into the Argument then is granted by the Respondent which I think we called at the University Fallacia plurium interrogationum vel dictionum for whether the diverse things are interrogated or argued the Paralogism is the same that hath made all this pother as this man phrases it which seeing it is on their side I will give over any farther persuit of this Chapter There is one thing only and that is the main thing not to be omitted The Dean in his Determination of this point does hold that Consent is sufficient to the making a National Church understanding by that Consent a Consent to be of it The Deans Defender holds the Church to be a Government by Consent meaning by it the Consent of the Bishops These are two contrary things the one making the Church not Political and the other makes it an Aristocracy and yet intends to justifie the former But neither of them are in the right The Church of England is not a Church by Consent onely without a Head nor a Government by Consent by the Colledge of Bishops but it is a Political Church with a Constitutive Regent part which is the King according to my Papers That the King is the Head of it appears by the Statute that declares him Head of the Church as it is called the Church of England It appears by other Acts that give him the same Supremacy the Pope usurped It appears by the First Fruits and Tenths of all Benefices given him as the Supream Head of the Church It appears by Cromwell who was made Henry the Eigths Vicar General and Vicegerent and sate in the Convocation as Personating the Head of it It appears by this Reason of my Book Where the Rights of Majesty are there must the Headship be placed Legislation and the Last appeal belong to him It is the King gives Authority to the Canons in so much as when a Law cannot pass without a Parliament the Canons becomes valid by the Kings own Ratification And there can be no Appeal in any Ecclesiastical cause from the King Again it appears most unanimously by the Ministers Prayers every Sunday giving him the Title of Supream Head and by the Oaths of Supremacy and Alleigance If the King be not the Head accordingly then must the Clergy generally be both Lyars and Perjured Persons From this truth then which is beyond opposition it follows that a National Church is of Humane appointment and not of Divine right that is indispensible It follows that it belongs not to the Essence of the Church of Christ to be National but that this is a consideration accidental to it It follows that such a Church may receive its Constitution at first and a new form or mould at any time as is most convenient to the State and most conducive to the glory of God in the good of the People It follows that a Reformation of the Government of our Church by the introducing some such new form into it as shall be more conducive to the ends of Holiness and Peace than the present Form does were a most desireable thing and fit to be tendred to the Wisdom of Parliament It follows finally that seeing the model that is hammering by this Author is proposed as strictly of Divine Right which is therefore the most direfull Schismatical Scheme that can be proposed in regard to Dissenters excluding them thereby out of the body of Christ and consequently from salvation besides dangerous to the Supremacy of the Magistrate and unanswerably faulty in many respects so that it cannot be received or indured it is fit that a model more agreeable to the power which is proper to Kings and less exceptionable in regard to the Conscience of the Subject were exhibited in the room of it and if it be such as would make the Prelates onely the Kings Officers to execute under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings as this Author so well expresses it p. 275. so as the Nonconformist and Conformist may share I shall not for the dislike of any one or two men or party who are designing an Antipodes
formed of an Independent National Church Political but not to be held as the Congregationalist supposes his Particular Independent One and They their Catholick to be of Divine but of Humane Institution for it is manifestly a thing Accidental to the Church of Christ that the Supream Magistrate and the whole Body of a Nation are Christian It should be declared then in such a Bill of Act of Parliament that the Church of England consists of the King as the Head and all the several Assemblies of the Protestants as the Body A Discrimination between the Tolerable and Intolerable is never to be gain-said by any Wise Man It is not for me or any One persons but a Convocation or Parliament to prescribe the Terms of National Communion but I would have all our Assemblies that are Tolerable to be made Legal by such an Act and thereby parts of the National Church as well as the Parochial Congregations That the Bishops should be declared Ecclesiastical Officers under the KING acting Circa Sacra only by Vertue of His Authority and Commission As Jehoshophat appointed Officers for Government in the Matters of God and the Kings Matters So should the Bishops be in Our Ecclesiastical as the Judges are in Civil Matters the Substitutes of his Majesty and Execute His Jurisdiction Upon this Account if any of the Eminent among the Non-conformists were Chosen to be Bishops they could not refuse it Let two or three the most fit of those Parties be the next that are called to this Function upon such an Act an commanded to Hold it and then would UNION indeed Commence Their Work in general should be to Supervise the Churches of both sorts in their Diocesses that they all Walk according to their own Order agreeable to the Gospel and the Peace of one another I am sensible unto what Distress a Congregational Minister may be brought in the exercise of Discipline over some potent turbulent and refractory Members and what Relief he might find in such a 〈…〉 al Ecclesiastical Officer as this I am sensible how the many inconveniences supposed of Congregational Episcopacy by this one onely means may be salved This shall Advance and not Lessen the outward Power and Honour of the Bishops I humbly Motion a Third Clerk for the Convocation to be added to the Two in every Diocess and chose out of the Non-conformists for the Unanimous prosecution of Holiness and Concord throughout all the Churches And the two Provinces of Canterbury and York should Unite in this Convocation for the making them one National Church and not two Provincial ones in a diverse Assembly By this means should one Organ more be added to this great Political Society for deriving an influence from this Head to these parts of the Body as well as Others which now seem neglected and to have no care taken of them It were the part of such a Convocation to Decree that neither Church should Unchurch one another That no members of Either should depart from One Church to the Other without a sufficient peaceable reason That when a man hath his choice to be of One Church which he will in regard to Fixed Communion he should Occasionally come also to the Other for maintaining this National Union There are these and other things of such a nature as these I should expect then would be moulded into Canons that kindly preventing all our scruples would render the Nation happy in the satisfaction of both Parties An Act of Parliament to this purpose would make the Church of England to be in Earnest such a Church as the Church-men would have us still think it the Best Constituted the most Exemplary and the most Glorious of any that is or indeed that well can be in this World But is not all this at last too Erastian I answer No. We suppose that every Parish where there is a Pastor and a Flock does contain in it such a Particular Church as is of Christs Institution That Christ committed to every such Church a compleat power of Doctrine Worship and Discipline That what Christ hath committed to his Church cannot be taken away by any That the Authority of the Magistrate is for care and oversight and so to protect and maintain this power but not to destroy it That the Church as National and Diocesan as part of the National and Parochial qua Parochial as part of the Diocesan are of Humane institution and owe their power and preservation of it to the Supream Magistrate That as the Magistrate does not take away or invade but preserve the power of the Keys invested in the Miinster but given with the Pastor himself to the Church No more can the Diocesans that Derive from him assume it to themselves and deprive the Particular Churches of it That so long as this Power is preserved there is no Erastianism maintained as to a Particular Church and as to the National there is no danger of it And thus I have offered my Mite to the Sanctuary that is so much as I have and what I think fit for Cultivation by Others whom GOD shall make Wise-hearted and Concern'd for the Welfare of Sion There is Room also here left for the farther Invention of Such in regard to many the like things as or greater then these For they that will may see something more in a few Sheets in part Entituled Animadversions upon the Debate between Dr. Stillingfleet and Mr. Baxter Concerning the National Church and Head of it J. H. THE END