Church of England detected His notion about the Government of the Catholick Church the same with that of the French Papist THAT our Author entertains notions about the nature of the Visible Church and of the Schismatical very different from what the old Queen Elizabeth Protestants did will appear with the greatest conviction to such as will but consult the famous Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field who do most expresly contradict what is asserted in the Dean's Defence The Dean's Defender doth extremely insist on the Unity of the Universal Church as what doth consist in more than in the Unity of the Faith though in combination of those other graces of Love and Charity and Peace to wit in an external communion Take his own words in answer to a supposed objection P. 183. But though Faith alone is not sufficient to Christian Unity yet Faith in combination with those other graces of Love and Charity and Peace make a firm and lasting union This I readily grant saith he but yet must add this one thing That Christian love and charity and peace in the language of the New Testament and of the ancient Fathers when they signifie Christian Unity signifie also one communion that is the unity of a Body and Society which is external and visible and doth not only signifie the union of souls and affections but the union of an external and visible communion P. 184. By the union of an external and visible communion he means the living in Christian communion and fellowship with each other that is a worshipping God together after one and the same external and visible manner P. 248. Moreover he adds That such as separate themselves from the external communion of any particular Church that is part of the Universal do separate themselves from the Universal visible Church All Schismaticks in his opinion cut themselves off from the visible Catholick Church even as all such as are excommunicated are cut off This is the notion of the Deans Substitute which is as agreeable to the sense of the Papist as 't is in it self grosly absurd and different from the doctrine of sound Church of England Protestants That 't is agreeable to the sense of the Papists you 'l find in a Conference between Dr. Peter Gunning and Dr. Pierson with two Disputants of the Romish Profession All Schismaticks say the Romish Disputants are out of the Church and quite separate from it as a part cut off is separate from the body Schismatick is a term contradistinct to Catholick No Schismaticks can be true members of the Catholick church for Schism as they define it is a voluntary separation of one part from the whole true visible church of Christ The correspondency that there is between the Author of the Deans Defence and those Papists about the formal reason of Schism is as much as if the Defender had fetcht his Definitition of Schism out of their Writings which notion as embrac'd by one that professes himself a Protestant is as grosly absurd as 't is contrary unto Protestant principles I say such a notion entertain'd by a professed Protestant is grosly absurd for it exposeth him to the triumph of the Roman-catholicks it being impossible that the Papists notwithstanding their Schismatical Impositions should be esteemed Schismatical by our Author For all such as are Schismatical are saith he cut off from the visible Catholick Church of which the Church of Rome is acknowledged to be a true part although from it these men as they are Protestants separate and so cut themselves off from the Catholick visible Church for such as separate from any true part of the Catholick church according unto him do cut themselves off from the Catholick church and are Schismaticks Take a view then of the admirable abilities of our Auther who must be considered to assert either that the Church of Rome is Schismatical or not If not Schismatical the church of England must be so or otherwise there may be a separation from the external communion of a particular Church that is a part of the Universal without being guilty of Schism or of separating from the Catholick church But if the Church of Rome be Schismatical 't is either cut off from the visible Catholick church or not if not then Schism consists not in a separating from the visible Catholick church that is a man may be a Schismatick and yet a member of the catholick church a thing that our Author denies But if the church of Rome be cut off from the visible Catholick church then the distressed Papist is in as sad a condition as the Dissenter he is cut off from the church of Christ and must be either damn'd or saved by another Name than that of Jesus Christ If the latter then farewell Christian Religion If the former Where shall we find any part of the Universal Church beside the Church of England All the Protestants beyond the Sea are in the same state with the Dissenter at home The Church of Rome and all such as are in Subjection to that See are cut off from the Visible Catholick Church and it may be all the Eastern Churches in the World too that is the Catholick Visible Church is confin'd within the Pale of the Church of England Pure Prelatical Donatism with a witness Where will not Considence when the attendant of Ignorance lead men Moreover This Notion as 't is grosly absurd in like manner 't is most contrary to the old Protestant Principles Consult Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity lib. 3. and you 'll find nothing more fully asserted than That the Visible Church of Jesus Christ is therefore One in outward Profession of those things which supernaturally appertain to the very essence of Christianity and are necessarily required in every particular Christian man But we speak now of the Visible Church whose Children are signed with this mark One Lord one Faith one Baptifm In whomsoever these things are the Church doth acknowledg them for her Children So far Hooker But you will it may be object That such as are Schismatical or Excommunicate may acknowledge One Lord hold One Faith and receive One Baptism And shall such be consider'd as Members of the Visible Church Take Mr. Hooker's own words for an Answer If by external Profession they be Christians then are they of the Visible Church of Christ and Christians by external Profession are they all whose mark of Recognizance hath in it those things which we have mentioned yea although they be impious Idolaters wicked Hereticks Persons Excommunicable yea and cast out for notorious Improbity Thus 't is evident that Mr. Hooker entertain'd apprehensions quite contrary to those of our Author yea and Mr. Hooker doth consider the very Notion asserted by our Author to be Popish which he doth as such most excellently expose As for the Act of Excommunication saith he it neither shuts out from the Mystical nor clean from the Visible but only from the Fellowship with the Visible in holy Duties
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
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
belonging unto it from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop and his Successors King Ina's Charter to the Abbey of Glassenbury exemps them from the Bishops Jurisdiction The like did King Offa concerning the Monastry of St. Albans An. 793. Kenulph King of Mercia that at Abington Anno 821. and Knut that at St. Edmvndbury An. 1020. Yea and there are several places at this very time exempt from Episcopal Jurisdiction Whatever our Princes in after Ages might lose as to the Exercise of their just Power 't is certain that Henry 8th reassumed it as appears by his dismembring some Diocesses and by his removing some Churches from one Jurisdiction to another For this Consult Dr. Burnets History of Reformation part 1. lib. 3. page 301. where you 'l find the Complaint of the Roman party beyond the Sea concerning the Kings encroaching on the Jurisdiction of the Church c. to which 't was answered That the Division of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whether of Patriarchs Primates Metropolitanes or Bishops was according to the Roman Law Regulated by the Emperours Of which the Antient Councils always approv'd And in England when the Bishoprick of Lincoln being judg'd of too great an extent the Bishoprick of Ely was taken out of it it was done only by the King with the consent of his Clergy and Nobles 'T is also evident out of Dr. Burnets Hist of the Ref. part 1. l. 3 p. 267. That this great Prince gave cut such a Commission to Bonner and it may be to others also as makes it most manifest that Diocesan Bishops were not of God's but only of the Magistrate's Institution Hence Bonner in his Commission from the King most gratefully acknowledges that he received it only from the King's bounty and must deliver it up again when it should please his Majesty to call for it even as Justices of the Peace c. whose Commission is ad Pacitum Moreover Lay-men had Ecclesiastical Dignities The E. of Hartford six Prebends promissed him as the Lord Cromwal in H. 8. was made Dean of Wells A thing very ordinary at that time Dr. Burnets Hist of the Refor part 2. Thus a Diocesane Episcopacy at best was judg'd but an humane Creature owing to the Magistrate alone for it's Rise and Conservation Secondly This seems to be the sense of the Reformers in Edward the 6th time who were under the Influence of that great Divine and Blessed Martyr Archbishop Cranmer In Henry 8th days Cranmer did his Utmost for the promoting a Reformation the which he did withal the Speed and Prudence the Ilness of the times would permit further attempt to carry on under King Edward and what he did was so highly approv'd of by all who were hearty for a Reformation that whoever considers how Unanimous the truly Protestans Bishops were in Concurring with this great Prelate Cranmer cannot but encline to think That their Principles in most things about Church Discipline were the same i. e. they were for the Divine Right of Bishops or Presbyters even when they judg'd the Superiority of a Bishop to a Presbyter to be but Humane That this may appear to be the sense of Cranmer I will only beseech my Reader to compare what was done under King Edw. 6th by this great Prelate with his Judgment concerning a Diocesan Episcopacy under Henry the 8th In Henry 8ths time Cranmer in answer to that Question Whether Bishops or Priests were first did assert That the Bishops and Priest were at one time and were no two things but both One Office in the beginning of Christs Religion That in the New Testament he that is appointed to be a BISHOP or PRIEST needeth no Cousecration by the Scripture for ELECTION or APPOINTING thereto is sufficient This was then Cranmers Judgment and I cannot understand that he did at any time in the least vary from it for in the Necessary Erudition which he subscribed there is nothing asserted but what is either Consistent with or an approbation of what was the Archbishops Opinion about these points 'T is true Cranmer was so Zealous an Asserter to the Kings Supremacy that he seem'd to be of that Opinion which doth now appear by the name of Erastianisme for he held That a Bishop or Priest by the Scripture is neither commanded nor forbidden to Excommunicate but where the Laws of any Region give him Authority to Excommunicate there he ought to use the same c. But from this he must be considered to have received because he subscribed the Necessary Erudition where 't is exprest That a part of the Priests or Bishops Office is according to the Scriptures to Excommunicate c. as well as Teach and Administer the Sacraments To all this add the Progress Cranmer made under Edw. 6. in the Reformation how far he went and how much farther he would have gone had not the Iniquity of those times been so exceeding great and the Reign of this worthy Prince so very short 'T is well known that he went so far as to tempt Dr. Heylin to conclude King Edwards death no Infelicity to the Church of England and to provoke Queen Elizabeth to say That they had stript the Church too much of its external Splendour and Magnificence That t was requisite to make some alteration in the Articles to the end a Compliance of the Roman Catholicks might be more easie What I have insisted on in this place about Cranmer is taken out of Dr. Burnets History and a Record in him ex M.SS. D. Stillingfleet 3. Such is the present Prerogative of his Majesty in Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Affairs that the asserting the Divine Right of a Diocesane Episcopacy is inconsistent with it The King is the Supream Head of the Church as well as of the State for which Reason he hath Power to appoint Officers to look after the management of Affairs in the One as in the Other But if the Diocesan Bishops depend not so much on the Prince for their Superiority and Power in making an Authoritative Inspection into Ecclesiasticalal Affairs as the Civil Magistrate who is it that is his Majesties Commissionated Officer about Ecclesiastical affairs T is either the Diocesane or None But if the Diocesane as such receives his Commission from Jesus Christ even as the Apostles did then they are Gods Officers and not the Kings And if so seeing the King doth nothing but by his Officers that is by such as act by a Commission received from him the King hath in this respect lost at least the Ezercise of his Prerogative But if they are the Kings Officers and depend as much on the King as the Civil then their Diocesan Episcopacy is not of Divine 't is but of Humane Right We acknowledge that 't is the sense of the Church of England that Princes are Ordain'd of God to Govern Ecclesiastical as well as other Persons and that therefore if we consider such as are appointed by the King to govern under him Circa Sacra as the
within their allotted Precincts discharge their Duty not only in leading Godly Lives but in Preaching the word administring the Sacraments and exercising Discipline according to the Rule of the Gospel We are far from pulling down such Bishops for we rather wish that whereas there is now one there might be five nor are we for the alienating Church Land any more than we are for the taking from his Majesties other Civil Officers those Pensions are allowed them for their great services A thing we esteem as necessary and highly expedient as what doth not only conduce very much to the Encouragement of all sorts of Learning the equal Administration of Justice but as what advanceth the Honour and Grandeur of the State But 3. This doth no way Embase his Majesties Prerogative in matters Ecclesiastical It doth rather make it the more Grand and August His Majesty is hereby acknowledged to be the Supream Head of the Church All Officers Circa Sacra depend as much on his Majesties Pleasure for their Places as any other Civil Officers 'T is in the Kings Name they must act by vertue of a Commission received from him whereby the King is Recognized as the sole Governour of the Kingdom and hath no Competitors with him nor is he in danger of Forreign Usurpations To summe up all Let all such Particular Congregational or Parochial Churches that are of Divine Institution according to the sense of the Old and most true Church of England be by Act of Patliament declar'd to be so and taken under the Protection of the Laws and the Dissenters are satisfied The which as hath been prov'd may be done without any wrong to the consciences of the Conformist This is the utmost I shall propose leaving it to the Wisdom of the Nation to Regulate and Order the Constitution so far as it is National and of Humane Make as they Judge most Expedient The States-men know best how to alter correct or amend any thing in the present Frame for which reason Modesty doth best become Divines whonever succeed in any undertakements beyond their Sphere If no encroachments be made on what is of Divine Institution no wrong can be done us I desire the Dean and his Substitute to consider this Proposal which is but a Revival of what was on our first leaving Rome strenuously asserted as the Onely way to break all the Designs of the Papists about Church Discipline From the corruptions of which did proceed all the Popes Tyranous Usurpations Certainly the Establishing this Notion cannot but be of extraordinary use as it Erects a Partition Wall between the Reformation and the Corruptions of the Roman Church as it is adjusted for the silencing all Differences among our selves the healing our Breaches and the fixing a firm and lasting Union among all sound Protestants whether Episcopal Presbyterian Congregational or meer Anabaptist I humbly apprehend this to be enough to evince That the Dissenters are not such Enemies to Union as some have Asserted nor are they for the destroying a National Church Government They are onely against Unaccountable Innovations even such as tend to the Ruine of the Old Protestant National Church which as such is but of Humane Institution and in all ages must be of such a Peculiar Form as is best suited to those great Ends viz. Gods Glory in the Flourishing of particular Parochial or Congregational Churches and the Peace of the State The Dissenters do know that as One Particular Church is not to depend on another as to be Accountable thereunto when at any time she may abuse her Power yet All are accountable unto the Magistrate of that Land in which they Live and that such is the state of things with us that what person soever is griev'd either by a Presbyter or Bishop or by any Inferiour Officer Circa Sacra he may make his Appeal to the Supream Magistrate with whom all Appeals on Earth are finally Lodg'd Whatever the Deans Substitute may assert 't is most undoubtedly true that no Appeal can be justly made from our King unto the Pope or any Colledge of Catholick Bishops whatsoever That herein as our Author dissents from the Church of England we do heartily agree with her That the sound Protestant Party among the Sons of the Church of England do accord with the Dissenters about this great Point is not only evident from what a Conformist hath written in the following Treatise but from what is asserted by the Judicious Dr. Burnet in the History of the Reformation The which I do the more chearfully insist on that the world may see How the Dissenters have been misrepresented and How clear they are from any Seditious or Factious Principles concerning Church Discipline In Dr. Burnets Preface to the History of the Reformation p. 1. for which the whole Kingdom have given the Dr. thanks 't is asserted That in Henry the 8ths time 't was an Establish'd Principle That every National Church is a compleat Body within it self so that the Church of England with the Authority and Concurrence of their Head and King might examine or Reform all Errors or Corruptions whether in Doctrine or Worship Moreover in the Preamble of that Act by which this Principle was fix'd 't is declared That the Crown of England was Imperial and that the Nation was a Compleat Body within it self with a full Power to give Justice in all Cases Spiritual as well as Temporal And that in the Spiritualty as there had been at all times so there were then men of that Sufficiency and Integrity that they might Declare and Determine all Doubts within the Kingdom And that several Kings as Ed. 1. Edw. 3. Ric. 2. and Hen. 4. had by several Laws Preserv'd the Liberties of the Realm both Spiritual and Temporal from the Annoyance of the See of Rome and other Forreign Potentates Hist Ref. p. 1. p. 127. Furthermore the same Judicious Author by an Extract out of the Necessary Erudition and out of the Kings Book de Differentia Regiae Ecclesiasticae Potestatis out of Gardiners de vera Obedientia and Bonners Prefix'd Epistle and out of a Letter written by Stokesly Bishop of London and Tonstall Bishop of Duresm hath made it evident that the Church in Henry 8. did not only assert the Kings Supremacy but as a Truth in Conjunction therewith held That in the Primitive Church the Bishops in their Councels made Rules for Ordering their Diocesses which they only called CANONS or RULES nor had they any Compulsive Authority but what was deriv'd from the Civil Sanction A sufficient evincement that they did not believe General Councils to be by Jesus Christ made the Regent part of the Catholick Church neither did they believe their Determinations or Decrees to lay any Obligation on the Conscience unless Sanction'd by the Magistrates command To this Dr. Burnet speaks excellently well in his Preface to the Second Part of the Hist Refor The Jurisdiction of Synods or Councils is founded either on the Rules
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
I design to enlarge on this Subject but only to give the Reader a Taste of the Modesty of our Author who accuses others so much of Immodesty 1. As for his usage of Mr. Baxter 't is such that how immodest soever I may be esteem'd I must solemnly profess that I cannot without defiling my Pen express it aright I will not therefore take any other notice of it than to say It becomes not a Man much less a Christian much less a Presbyter of the Church of England to treat the unworthiest of men after such a rate as he has treated Mr. B. I am sure 't is recorded in the Sacred Scriptures that Michael the Archangel durst not bring a railing Accusation against the Devil And Oh How unmeet then is it for this man of inferiour Dignity to rail at one so eminent in Piety and Learning Methinks 't is a pitiful shift when men have nothing but hard words to answer hard Arguments with A way the most ineffectual to the desired End viz. the confuting a Learned Adversary but the best perhaps that can be to come off For really when there is so little of solid Answer to what Mr. Baxter hath urged against the Dean this Gentlemans Treatise is beneath Mr. B's notice and his hard words deserving no other Reply than The Lord rebuke thee 2. Mr. Humfrey and the Country-Conformist must come next under the Gentleman's Pen They must be Immodest too as I am and who can help it But what is the matter what is it that occasions all this stir Really I cannot imagine unless Mr. Humphrey's Faithfulness to the Dean express'd in a way suitable to his wonted Freedom be the cause 'T is true the Countrey Conformist takes notice of Mr. H's late Book giving him thanks for that judicious Tracâ—ate saying That he had modestly and plainly rebuk'd the pride of the Dr. and given Mr. Baxter his due praise From whence our Author takes occasion to run into a Discourse on the Modesty of Mr. Humphrey and produces several of his expressions which in the apprehension of some others who it may be do more impartially yea and more agreeably to the Christian Rule weigh the nature of the Dean's Discourse c. are not so lyable to exception as our Author suggests 'T is well known that the Reverend Mr. H. is a grave Minister it may be twenty years elder than Dr. Stillingfleet for which reason a reproof though plain and open may be proper in him which would not become me or this Author especially considering that this Mr. H. is one whose inclinations to conformity are such that there can be nothing of humour to keep him from a closure with the Dean or to provoke him to an unnecessary quarrel which is enough to engage a judicious person to conclude That if such a man as Mr. H. treats the Dean severely there is somewhat extraordinary in the Dr. that call'd for it In this opinion I am abundantly confirmed when I remember what Mr. Baxter in the Preface of his Second Defence sayes of him which is That he handles the Dr. somewhat freely that is as the Countrey Conformist interprets it very honestly as the Dr. deserv'd and for this reason though our Author who it may be hath not that sense of Conscientious duties upon him as these others have does blame it yet it may be worthy commendation For what should tempt so Learned and Judicious a person as the Countrey Conformist is to be so full in approving it unless the very subject-matter of the Drs. Discourse or the mode of managing it did suggest that the greatest kindness could be shewn the Dr. was to deal plainly and uprightly in discovering unto him his sin But this is enough to expose the Countrey conformist presently to the same lash He is also immodest and why surely for no other reason that I can imagine but because he is not afraid to speak the Truth and to give to the world an assurance That the Dean's Discourse was not grateful unto every Conformist and that therefore whoever would insinuate as if the Dr. had given us the sense of all his Conforming Brethren in that great Book would abuse and injure some of the most judicious and godly among the Conforming Clergy He hath really done the true Church of England great right in making not only his Reflections on the Deans Preface but also his Remarks on the Book it self a Treatise worthy the observation of the Dean seeing the answering that as appears by our Authors silence is beyond his strength that is it is so candidly wrote as he should be ashamed to except against it I need not say any thing concerning the Reverend Dr. Owen because as our Author had spoken little of his person though more than became him but less by way of answer to his Book However it must be remembred That seeing our Author found himself necessitated to run unto the Tents of the French Papist for Armour to batter down the Notion Dr. O. hath established in proving a particular Church to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church-Government the Drs. notion abides in its strength and his Book unanswered in the sense of any sound Protestant and therefore this Feeble Defence of the Dean of Pauls is unworthy of so great a persons Animadversions And that the Dean himself is no way reliev'd by this Defender but as much oblig'd to attempt it himself as if this Defence had never been published CHAP. II. A Reply to what the Deans Substitute suggests in his censuring the Enquirers Design THIS Gentleman not being able to satisfie himself with his tedious Essay to evince the Enquirer to be a person neither very Modest nor very Peaceable gives himself the liberty of censuring the Design as if it had been rather to reproach the Dr. than to vindicate and clear up the innocency of the Dissenter Thus he suggests that Mr. Lobb wrote what he wrote to expose the Dean to popular odium and fury to persuade the people never to look into the Deans book or to stone him as an implacable enemy to all Loyal Dissenters Pref. p. 30. Book p. 6. What reply is necessary to be made unto this charge is not easie to imagine for what though I should solemnly declare That the casting reproach on Dr. Stillingfleet or any other person is what I perfectly hate will he believe me I can and hereby do declare so much but is it possible our Author should give credit to any such protestation so long as 't is almost natural for a man of his complexiâ—n to judg of others according to those over-strong propensions he finds in himself to such exposing practises However let me ask the Author what 't is that provokes him to talk so confidently of the most secret motions of my soul Why must exposing the Dean to popular edium and fury be my end What overt-acts were there of such a design Did I misrepresent the Dean in
any one instance Or did I make it my business to carp at every little thing in his Preface Did I insist on far-fetcht consequences or force any undue sense on his words Did I speak all I could to shew the Tendency of his Preface or whole Book Or did I take notice of any thing more than what was necessary for the clearing up the innocency of the Dissenter As to these particulars you cannot fasten your Accusation But yet my aim must be exposing the Dean and why exposing him What was the Dean expos'd because the charge with which he would load Dissenters was such that the very repeating and confuting it tends to his Reproach If so whose fault is that I do freely confess That I believe the Deans charge against Dissenters to be so indecent that thereby he hath lost very much of that Esteem he formerly had among Judicious Gentlemen of the Church of England but this is not my fault nor an Argument that what I wrote in the Defence of the Dissenter was with a design of exposing the Dean A thing I could have easily done without either wresting his words or imposing a forreign sense on ' em How easily could I have imitated the famous Bishop Jewel and have pick'd such passages out of the Dean's Discourses as that Great Prelate did out of Harding and have shewed how unlike himself the Dean acted in contemning and pitying the Reverend Mr. Baxter in comparing the judicious Mr. Alsop's Discourse to the Bird of Athens made up of Face and Feathers and representing Mr. Alsop himself so as if all things had not been right that is as if he had been mad Of this I the rather take notice because a very serious person on the reading the Dean's Book came to me on purpose to enquire whether Mr. Alsop was never mad If not said he Why did Dr. Stillingfleet write as if he had Many other things of a more uncomely aspect I could have taken out of the Dean's Writings but I wav'd it it not being my work in that Enquiry or this Reply to acquaint the World with the naevi of the Reverend Doctor and therefore notwithstanding the many provocations you have given me in your Defence of the Dean I 'm resolved to treat the Dean more civilly than he did Mr. B. or Mr. A. or than you have Mr. B. or Mr. H. and the Country Conformist The exposing men to Popular Odium and Fury becomes only such who hate Persons more than their Opinions and who have little to offer against their Adversaries besides hard words It becomes not men who pretend to act suitably to the Christian Rule to use railing Expressions instead of pungent Arguments nor to expose the Person instead of confuting his Opinion For this Reason I did in the Mâ—dest and Peaceable Enquiry on a second perusal expunge all such words as might seem hard or unmeet treating the Dean with the greatest Candour and Respect not suffering one passage to go to the Press that might tend to his reproach unless rehearsing the charge lain in against the Dissenter as cloath'd with his own words and the confuting him must be esteem'd as such 'T is true I shew'd the Tendency of his Discourse which I thought to be for the advancing the Papal Interest The very thing the Dean's Substitute drives at in the Dean's Defence wherein our Author goes much further than the Dean or at least hath expressed his sentiments more freely and with less caution But shall this be considered as an exposing you to popular odium and fury You assert That the Universal Church is a governed Society That the Bishops in their Colledg are the governing part That the Bishops conven'd in their Assembly do not meet only for mutual Help and Concord but for Regiment The Assembly of Bishops in Council is not such as that of Princes of several distinct Territories who meet together in order to the maintaining and conserving a general Union and Peace in the World for instance that at Nimmegen at which Convention the Princes come freely and when there the One is not under the Regiment of the Assembly but each one free to Consent or Dissent to any thing proposed for Peace their Territories being as so many distinct Independent Governments whose Governours are not accountable to any General Council of Princes in the World Such an Assembly of Bishops you are not for For this say you p. 601. makes Christian Communion as Arbitrary a thing as the Confederacies of Princes whereas the Episcopal Office is but One and therefore ought to be administred by the mutual Advice and Consent of Bishops who all equally share in it that is the whole World must be considered as of One and the same Government that the many particular Princes of diâ—tinct Territories such as England France Spain Denmark c. are not Independent in their Government but are accountable either unto One Universal Emperour or Diâ—â— c. This is what you assert as to Church-Government 't is One all the World ever Though lesser Societies are variously dispersed yet are all under one and the same Government the Bishops of the one and of the other are oblig'd to meet together in their Colledge or Diâ—â— where they are all bound to submit unto the Caâ—â—â— Dâ—â—â—â— or Determinations of the Colledge that whoever dissents from the Body of the Colledge is Schismatical This is your Notion and for ought I know the Deans a Notion that is the same with that of the French Papacy that doth but fairly lead us to Rome But must the mentioning so much expose you to the rage and fury of the people If so whom can you blame but your self The like may be said to the Dean to whom I add this one request which is to consider the Tendency of his great Book as well as of this your Defence of him and if his Aimes and the Tendency of either of these Discourses be different 't will be apparent that I was not mistaken in my Charity of the Author when I pass'd my censure on his Treatise However 't is sufficient that the utmost I did was to expose the evil Tendency of the Book endeavouring as much as possibly I could to save the Dean from lying under Reproaeh distinguishing between the Author and his Work This much may serve as more than enough to our Author's Censure of invisible and unknown Designs CHAP. III. A Reply to the Defence of the Dean of Paul's so far as it concerns the Modest and Peaceable Enquiry SECT I. The Answer to what the Enquirer insisted on in shewing the Deans Mistakes about the Jesuits Doctrine concerning Spiritual Prayer Examined § 1. The present Aids of the Spirit in enabling Ministers in the Exercise of their Function agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England Dr. Burnet's most Christian Reproof to such Ministers as neglect the inward Motions of the Spirit § 2. The Ground of the first Separation in Queen Elizabeths
days the very same with that of the first Reformation from Popery beginning in Henry the 8th's time and Sealed after with the Blood of our Martyrs THE Deans Substitute doth at last apply himself to the Defence of the Doctor in doing which he considers the Reasons I collected out of the Dean's Preface which the Dean urges to engage the Reader to believe that the Dissenters are a people carrying on the Popish Designs 1. The Dissenters have embraced the Jesuits Principles about Spiritual Prayer and a more pure way of Worship This is what I observ'd out of Dr. Still But our Author who hath read over the Doctors Preface very carefully can find no such thing urged against the Dissenters and adds All that Mr. Lobb founds this Accusation on is That the Dean says It is not improbable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of Spiritual Prayer in England And then goes on to a very decent Censure saying That this is mighty falsely and imperfectly represented Sir If I had insisted on no more than what you here mention as the foundation of my Charge I must acknowledg that 't would not only be imperfectly but impertinently related For what connexion is there between the Jesuits Practises and their Principles Is it not well known that the Principles they profess the Doctrines they embrace concerning many a point in Divinity are one thing even when their Practice is another May they not then in order to the carrying on a further Design set on Practices contrary to their Doctrines Yea surely they may and this is the whole Defence you make in behalf of the Dean with which after an unnecessary Harangue you dismiss the Subject But is this fair to misrepresent an Adversary and then confute what needs no Confutation Doth this redound to the Honour of a Presbyter of the Church of England Was this all on which Mr. Lobb founded his Accusation Did he not add somewhat more than what you relate You say all that Mr. Lobb founds this accusation on is that the Dean says It is not improbable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of Spiritual Prayer in England which is mighty falsely and imperfectly repesented p. 6. Yet whoever will consult the Enguiry will find that I do out of the Dean add That there is no improbality of the thing if we consider the Dissenters pretences about Spiritual Prayer to the Doctrine and Practice of the Jesuits The Dean suggests that Spiritual and Free Prayer even that Spiritual and Free Prayer about which there is such a Pother is suited to the Doctrines of the Jesuits to the Doctrine that is to their Principles What difference is there between the Doctrine and the Principles of the Church of England In like manner I Query What difference is there between the Doctrines and Principles of the Jesuits Doth the Dean then assert such an Agreement to be between the Pretences of the Dissenter about Spiritual Prayer and the Doctrines or Principles of the Jesuits not only the Practices but Doctrines of the Jesuits Who then is the impersect or mistaken Reporter The Dean's Charge against Dissenters is That the Dissenters pretences about Spiritual Prayer are suited with the Doctrines of the Jesuits And 't is our concern to enquire after the truth of this Charge I say of this charge to wit about the Agreeableness that is between our Pretences and their Doctrines For it is no way momentous to enquire after the practice of a company of Villains who can transform themselves into a thousand shapes whenever their Interest obliges them to do so Was it never known that a Papist crept into some great Preferment in the Church of England at which time they did both Assent and Consent to the doctrines of the Church of England What think you of a quondam Bishop of Glocester to mention no more did he not speak well of the Church of England yea even of the Protestant Religion Is it therefore Popery For this Reafon it concerns me not to enquire after those Stories insisted on by the Doctor or to be found in that Pamphlet called Foxes and Firebrands The great Enquiry must be after the Doctrines of the Jesuit whether there is any suitableness between the Dissenters pretences and the Jesuits Doctrines For which Reason the Jesuits Writings were consulted and the Doctor 's Charge found untrue the Dr. being mistaken as to matter of fact He represented the Jesuits Doctrines to be other than indeed they are which to speak softly was a Mistake If the Deans Defender would have spoke to the purpose He should have searched those places I insisted on in Azorius Filiucius and Bellarmine and have shewed wherein I had either made a false report of their sayings or misinterpreted ' em But this was impossible There being nothing else of moment in the Reply to what I offered against the Dean about Spiritual Prayer I might fairly without saying any thing more proceed to the next particular But seeing some have spoken contemptibly of the Spirit of prayer which is said to assist such as use free or extempore prayer as if those who spake of receiv'd help from the Spirit in prayer were Enthusiastical c. and because our Author talks as if the Jesuits had the first hand in the Separation of the old Nonconformists from the Church of England crying down the Common-prayers as a dull formal superstitious Worship and the setting up free prayer in the room of it I will shew 1. The sense of the first Reformers about the aid of the Spirit And 2. What was the great and chief ground of the First Separation § 1. Concerning the Aid of the Holy Spirit by which many are enabled to pray freely or spiritually it hath been by some of the conforming Ministers asserted That such as pretend to receive the aid of the Spirit may as well pretend to inspiration c. That then they 'l believe that persons can pray by the Spirit when they hear the unlearned can pray in Latin Greek or in some other unknown language as if the aids the Spirit affords unto such as pray freely had been extraordinary c. This I cannot but consider as what doth very much reflect on the Dispensation of the Spirit to the great dishonour of true Christian Religion For such is the present state of true Religion that whoever speaks contemptibly of the Spirits Aid must be esteemed not only a Despiser of the first Reformers but of that part of the present Constitution to which our Clergy on their entrance into their Function are principally concern'd 1. T is well known that what the first Reformers did in the Reforming the Liturgy was by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled in Parliament recorded to have been done by the Aid of the Holy Ghost The Parliament in K. Edward's days passing an Act for the confirmation of the Publick Liturgy in the preamble thereof declare That those who drew up that Order
Bishops made them Substitutes under them to help them which they called Priests and kept the name of Bishops to themselves But out of the Deacons sprang all the Mischief For through their hands went all things they ministred unto the Clergy they ministred unto the Poor they were in favour with great and small And when the Bishops Office began to have rest and be Honourable then the Deacons through Favour and Gifts climbed up thereunto as lightly as he that hath the old Abbots Treasure succeedeth with us And by the means of their practice and acquaintance in the world they were more subtle and worldly wise than the old Bishops and less learned in Gods word as our Prelates are when they come from Stewardships in Gentlemens Houses and from surveying of great mens Lands c. Then while they that had the Plow by the tail looked back the Plow went awry Faith waxed feeble and faint Love waxed cold the Scripture waxed dark Christ was no more seen He was in the Mount with Moses and therefore the Bishops would have a God upon the earth whom they might see and thereupon they began to dispute who should be greatest So far Mr. Tyndal in his Practice of Popish Prelates 3. The Malady and Disease of those times with their Causes were no sooner understood but several Worthy Persons applied themselves to a diligent search after the most proper Remedy and found that a Reformation must begin among the Clergy that all things must be reduc'd to the Apostolical Institution Discipline must be strictly exercised the which could not with effect be accomplished but by bringing all things to the first Institution For which reason Mr. Tyndall makes his enquiry after those Officers the Apostles ordain'd in Christs Church and what their Offices were concerning which take Mr. Tyndal's own sense in his discourse of the Practice of Popish Prelates Wherefore the Apostles saith he following and obeying the Rule Doctrine and Commandment of our Saviour Jesus Christ ordained in his Kingdom and Congregation Two Officers One called after the Greek word Bishop in English an Overseer which same was called Priest after the Greek Elder in English because of his Age Discretion and sadness for he was as nigh as could be always an Elderly man And this Overseer hath put his hands unto the Plow of Gods Word and sed Christs Flock and tended them only without looking unto any other business in the world Another Officer they chose and called him Deacon after the Greek a Minister in English to minister the alms of the people unto the poor and needy For in the Congregation of Christ love maketh every mans gifts and goods common unto the necessity of his neighbour Wherefore the love of God being yet hot in the hearts of men the rich that had the substance of this worlds goods brought of their abundance great plenty unto the sustentation of the poor and delivered it unto the hands of the Deacons Mr. Tyndall judg'd that according to the Apostolical Institution there were no other Officers in the Church but Elders and Deacons The Elders being of the same Office and Order with the Bishops they being two names belonging to one and the same person There is saith he Presbuteros called an Elder by Birth which same called immediately a Bishop or Overseer to declare what Persons are meant they were called Elders because of their Age Gravity c. and Bishops and Overseers by reason of their Offices And all that were called Elders or Priests if they so will were called Bishops also though they have divided the names now which thing thou mayest evidently see by the first Chap. of Titus and the 20th of the Acts Those Overseers which we now call Bishops after the Greek word were alway biding in one place to Govern the Congregation there Tyndal of the word Elder But Deacons were Overseers of the Poor and crept not into Orders till the Church grew Rich. Tyndal was not alone in this opinion it being also the sense of Famous Lambert and Dr. Barns who strenuously defended and at the last sealed this Truth with their blood One of the Articles for which they were burnt being about the Order of Priesthood I 'le give you in the first place Lambert's own answer to the ninth Article as I find it in Acts and Mon. Vol. 2. As touching Priesthood saith Lambert in the Primitive Church when virtue bare as ancient Doctors do deem and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same the most room there were no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishops and Deacons that is to say Ministers as witnesseth beside Scripture full apertly Hierome in his Commentaries upon the Epistles of Paul whereas he saith That those that we call Priests were all one and no other but Bishops and the Bishops none other but Priests men ancient both in Age and Learning so near as they could be chosen Neither were they institute and chosen as they be now-adays with small regard of a Bishop or his Officer only apposing them if they can coâ—â—â—e a Collect but they were chosen not only of the Bishop but also with the consent of the people among whom they should have their living as sheweth Saint Cyprian and the people as he saith ought to have power to chuse their priests that be men of good Learning of good and honest report but alack for pity such Elections are now banished and new fashions brought in which if we should confer with the form of the Election shewed of Christ by his Apostle Paul we should find no small diversity but all turned upside down To conclude I say the Order or state of Priests and Deacons was ordained by God but Subdeacons and Conjurers otherwise called Exorcistae or Acolitae which we call Benet and Collect were instituted by the invention of men and this you may find in the Law Dist 21. and other places where it is written Subdiaconatus tempore Apostâ—lorum non fuit sacer Subdeaconship in the time of the Apostles was no holy Order Dr. Barns in like manner had the same objected against him in the Articles for which he was burned I 'le give you the Article and his own sentiments concerning it as Mr. Fox relates in a Discourse set forth with Mr. Tyndal and John Frith's Works Article 6. I will never believe nor yet I can never believe that one man may be by the Law of Ood a Bishop of two or three Cities yea of an whole Countrey for it is contrary to Saint Paul which saith I have left thee behind to set in every City a Bishop And if you find in one place of Scripture that they be called Episcopi you shall find in many that they be called Presbyteri I was brought before my Lord Cardinal into his Gallery and there he read all my Articles till he came to this and there he stopped and said That this touched him and therefore he asked me if I thought it wrong
this Extrinsecal Consideration sufficient to occasion a Difference that is Intrinsecal Moreover to return to his French Monarch Hath not the Experience of many a year assured us That when Monarchs design not the enlarging their own Monarchies they have done all they could to preserve other Monarchies An Aristocracy or a Democracy being things detestable in their eye 7. His answering the Letter of the Council by transcribing part of Sir Francis Walsingham's Letter as recorded in Dr. Burnet bing little to the purpose might have escaped my Consideration had it not been very necessary to suggest How prudently he overlook'd the great Principles on which the Queen grounded her proceedings the one being That Consciences cannot be forced but to be won and reduced by force of Truth with the aid of time and use of all good means of Instruction and Perswasion A Principle unto which if our Clergy would adhere it might have conduced very much to the Peace of the Church This I suppose is a sufficient Reply to the Dean's Substitute The Dissenters oppose Episcopacy and Ceremonies notwithstanding their Antiquity c. The Doctor 's Argument was here set forth to the greatest advantage of his Cause in his own words To which I reply'd That our not embracing Episcopacy c. does not advantage the Papist neither doth our rejecting it even when it pretends to so much Antiquity I having shewn that there was no such strength in their Argument of Antiquity if it fell short of an Absolutely Primitive or an Apostolical Antiquity as theirs really doth they not being able to shew in what part of the Scriptures their Dioâ—san Episcopacy is found it being consider'd as a Creature of Human make by many a Son of the Church yea and once by our great Doctor himself and it hath been prov'd by other hands unanswerably That there is no evidence for such an Episcopacy in the Church the first two hundred years for which reason Mr. Chillingworth's Argument shewing the vanity of such mens pretences about Antiquity that can ascend no higher than the fifth or fourth or third or second Age is it may be as pertinently urg'd as the little intimation of Mr. Ch's sense of the Antiquity of Episcopacy 'T is pleasant then to see with what pertness our Author hopes that our Enquirer will now grow so modest as not to cite Mr. Chil. any more against an Argument from Antiquity The other part of his Reply is as little to the purpose unless a declaiming against Protestant Arguments such as are too strong to receive an Answer be the most effectual way to ruine Popery 'T is true we reject the Popish pretences about Antiquity as futilous many Protestants in the number of which some Nonconformists may be listed having unanswerably proved Popery to be a Novelty However If Popery or Episcopacy be not agreeable to the Scriptures whatever their pretences are to Antiquity they will be found unworthy the consideration of a solid Divine and therefore because he sends me to Bishop Jâ—wel Part 1. p. mihi 539 c. I 'll give the Reader an account of his sense against Harding The Truth of God saith the Bishop is neither further'd by the Face of Antiquity nor hinder'd by the Opinion of Novelty For oftentimes the thing that is New is condemned as Old and the thing that is indeed Old is condemned as New If Newness in Religion in all respects and every way were ill Christ would not have resembled his Doctrine to New Wine c. Arnobius saith The Authority of Religion must be weighed by God and not by Time It behoveth us to consider not upon what day but what things we begin to Worship The thing that is true is never too late Saint Augustine saies The Heathen say The Religion that was First cannot be False as if Antiquity and old Custom could prevail against the Truth The old Learned Father Tertullian saies Whatsoever thing savoureth against the Truth the same is an Heresie yea although it be a Custom never so Old c. This surely is the Protestant Doctrine whence to talk of Antiquity in order to the countenancing that in Religion which finds no favour from the Scriptures is but to advance the Papal Interest who have but little beside the pretence of Antiquity to support their Abominations SECT III. A search for the Schismatick A true state of the Difference between the Church of England and the Protestant Dissenter The Dissenter according to our Author's Notion clear'd from Schisme The Church of England found Guilty Some Remarks on several other passages in the Dean's Defence An Account of some of the Dean's Mistakes The Dissenter no friend to Popery The Conclusion 1. THAT our Divisions advance the Popish Designs is acknowledged But the 2. Enquiry is Who is the Faulty Divider It being the Faulty Divider alone who gives the Papist the advantage The great Enquiry then must be after the Faulty Divider Whether the Conformist or the Nonconformist be the Divider The state of the Case was given in the Enquiry p. 23. where the Principle on which the Dissenters proceed was laid down and improv'd this should have been consider'd by our Author but he was so prudent as to pass it by For which Reason without any Reflections on my Learned Adversary I must mind him of the state of the Controversie and shew wherein he hath exercised his Wisdom in leaping over what he could not handsomly remove out of the way In the Enquiry after the Faulty Divider I shewed wherein the Parties at variance agreed and wherein they differ'd 1. They agreed in those Points commonly called Docirinal or Substantial in contradistinction to lesser things about Worship and Church-Discipline c. They differ'd about what was in the Judgment of the Dissenter Sinful but in the Opinion of the Episcopal only Indifferent 'T is true the Episcopal represent us as a weak People whose Consciences as to those particulars are Erreneous that therefore we must cast off these erring Consciences and submit Our Reply is We seek Heaven for Counsel we study hard for the Truth read with the greatest Impartiality and Freedom the Discourses the Episcopal have written For we can solemnly and with much sincerity declare as in the presence of an Heart-searching God We would with the greatest chearfulness Conform to all the Impositions if we thought we could do it without sin That we are so peevish as to lose the Comforts of a good Benefice merely to gratifie an obstinate Humour if we are in danger of being biass'd one way more than another by carnal considerations 't is towards Conformity For if we conform we are freed from the reproaches and contempt of many from the continued fear of Imprisonment and other uncomfortable severities and in a fair way of abounding with the good things of this life for the supporting our selves and Families But if we conform not we are represented as Factious and Seditious expos'd to the Rage of every vile
afraid this is all that is attainaable in this Nation yea and in the Christian world whatever our Author may say to the contrary and that those that will have more shall have less 'T is with Christian Churches as 't is with some weakly constituted bodies if no violent remedies be used they may drill out for many years but if you will be tampering and nothing will satisfie you but a perfect health you will soon destroy them If Churches that have some defects may be endured God may have some worship and we may see some peace among Christians but if like Ecclesiastical Mountebanks we will be perpetually trying experiments upon sickly and diseased Churches we may disturb the peace of Christians destroy the Churches and leave few to call upon the name of God in the world What I have discoursed I think may with some probability be expected from Mr. H.'s design But can we expect so much from the design of this Gentleman Or is there the least shadow for it For my part I can see no such thing he must have better eyes or worse than I have that can see any advantage like to betide Protestants by uniting in a General Council or in a Patriarch or Pope ruling by the Canons thereof And yet I think this is that our Author would be at For he affirms That it is not enough or sufficient to Christian Unity that the Christians of one Nation or one Congregation be united among themselves unless they be united to the Catholique Church For if there be but one Church a whole Nation may be Schismatical as well as single persons c. Well then I am past all doubt that Protestants will never agree to the Canons of a General Council nor to the Government of a Patriarch or Pope according to those Canons and then they are all Schismaticks and if the Princes in whose Dominions they live can be prevailed withal to do it they are to be Proscribed Banished sent to the Galleys and Mines or be chastised at home by Axes and Halters And I think this is a very pious and charitable Design and becoming a Protestant Doctor and Son of the Church of England But by the way give me leave to add that whereas this Gentleman hath undertaken to vindicate the Learned Dean of St. Pauls from what Mr. Humfrey hath said against him concerning the Constitutive Head of this National Church I am shrewdly afraid that he has given up the Doctor 's Cause and left it to shift for it self as well as it can or rather asserted that of his Adversary The Doctor had said That we deny any need of a Constitutive Regent part or one Formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church This Mr. H. confutes and this Author affirms and defends but grants a pars imperans subdita or a ruling and ruled part p. 567. Church-Governours united and governing by consent says he are the governing part Christian people in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour submitting to such Government are the ruled part and all this is true without a Constitutive Regent Head pag. ibid. This methinks looks strange That the Bishops by consent which consent they are obliged to by the Laws of Christ should be the pars imperans and yet not the Constitutive Regent Head is in my opinion a Paradox For I would fain learn what it is that makes a Constitutive Regent Head to any Body Is it not Right and Obligation to Rule Doth not this make Kings and Princes Constitutive Heads of their Principalities and Kingdoms And doth not this make Aristocracies and Democracies the essential Regent part of those Commonwealths over which they do preside Have the Bishops of this Nation Right and Obligation to rule all the Christian People in it This I think our Author will grant And how he will deny them to be the Constitutive Head of the National Church with any consistency of Reason I do not yet understand This Gentleman indeed says That though a National Church be one body yet ' t is not such a body as he Mr. B. describes nor can be according to its Original Constitution which differs from Secular Forms of Government by that ancient Church-Canon of our Saviour It shall not be so among you And then adds A National Church as governed by consent may be one body in an Ecclesiastical though not in a Civil Political sense That it cannot be a Body consisting of Head and Members in a Political sense according to Mr. B's description I do not find proved by that Church-Canon of our Saviour That the Ecclesiastical and Civil Forms of Government do differ I readily grant but are there no other Differences but such as are essential A Regent formal Head and Members is of the essence of political bodies and that is no body that is without them whatever ever this Gentleman says to the contrary Many other defects are consistent with the being of Political bodies but if they want a Head they are no Body The Church differs in many things from Civil Political bodies and particularly in this that it is not armed with civil power and jurisdiction p. 566. by which I suppose this Author means Coercive power But what then Hath the Church no Constitutive Head because it hath no Coercive power or because it cannot imprison fine and destroy its members Masters and Parents and Tutors can't do these things and yet most men think they are the Regent formal Heads of their Families children and pupils Well then against that marvellous Oracle of our Author That a National Church governed by consent may be a body in an Ecclesiastical tho' not in a civil political sense i. e. tho' it may be a Church yet it cannot be a Commonwealth or Kingdom I will advance this proposition That a National Church is a body in a political sense as well as in an Ecclesiastical or else it is no body at all and that according to his own doctrine And if he will defend the Deans cause he must write a book in his own confutation which I think he ought to do in revenge on himself that he hath hitherunto betrayed it as the Dr. has the Church of England's Our Author I remember somewhere calls Mr. Humfrey Mr. Baxter's Eccho when yet Mr. Humfrey's Answer to the Drs. Book came out before Mr. Baxter's When the Eccho now can be proved to go before the Voice or the Voice to follow the Eccho then shall the Deans determination of the question between him and them concerning the Constitutive Head of the National Church be held as unanswerable as this Gentleman affirms it in one place and as admirable as he cryes it up in another Having said thus much on the behalf of Mr. H. I shall add a few lines more before I return to the vindication of the Countrey Conformist The learned D. of St. Pauls had charged the Nonconformists with joining with the Papists for a general Toleration and
out a Constitutive Head and an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Head by Christs Institution and to say that all this is true without one is to me a perfect contradiction When he goes on then p. 566. to prove that this is all that is or can be required to make a National Church One by two Arguments I answer If there be so much as this indeed required his two Arguments must prove it not onely to be One but one Political proper Church with an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Regent part to it The Bishops he says have equal power by Christs appointment and rule not by Superiority but by Consent that is not by Superiority over one another but they do rule by a Superiority I hope over the people and that is an Aristocratical Government and when the People do consent to Unite in Communion with them this makes them Members he says of that Political body And these are his two reasons p. 566 and 567. which need no other Animadversion but this notice of them The great questions onely are whether this indeed be the will of Christ that the Catholick and so every National Church as he states the matter should be ruled by these Bishops as Colleagues that is by a Government as he calls it by consent and if it be how it should come to pass that we have not in England such a Government where there is for certain no such Rule by consent of the Colledg without a Superiority but by a Superiority or a Supremacy of the King who is the Head of these Bishops themselves as well as the Nation This I make not my Province P. 568. He hath four things for the strengthning the Government of his Mintage and then concludes that if Mr. Baxter can give him one reason why this may not be called one Church or Ecclesiastical Body Politick without a Constitutive Regent part he will think farther of it To which I answer and tell him presently why this cannot be called one Church or Ecclesiastical Body Politick without a Constitutive Regent part the reason is because it is a Body Politick Ecclesiastical with a Constitutive Regent part and so he need think no farther of it And this Answer being of another nature then that which he fancies like to be made him in the next page p. 569. I need say nothing to that nor the next p. 570. but come on to p. 571. for now he hath prepared the way as he says to justify the Doctor Well where there is a Political Church says Mr. Baxter there must be a Constitutive Head The Doctor answers there may be the true notion of a Church without one I Reply This is a coming off but the question indeed at the bottome is whether it be the true notion of the Church of England The Doctor argues If it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick Visible Head to the Church Catholick Visible This Argument the Deans Defender thinks unanswerable But we reply the Argument is such as needs no Answer and it may easily be Answered In the first place it needs no Answer because the thing it would prove is but what we can grant him that is a Visible Head to the Catholick Church Christ is that Head we say and he is Visible When he was on earth he gave Laws for his Church and Commissionated Officers which are Rights of a Head He after appeared to Paul and Commissionated him and is now Visible in Heaven This is plain proof in Reason Sense and Scripture and not to be jeered off and therefore in the first place the Doctors Argument needs no Answer In the next place we say farther it is easily Answered for we deny the Argument If it be necessary for a Church to have a Constitutive Head it follows that the Catholick Church must have a Constitutive one but it follows not that it must have a Catholick Visible Head or that that Constitutive Head must be Visible This in truth is introducing four Terms into the Argument which we know is false Arguing When there is put more into the thing Asserted in the Consequence then there is to prove it in the Antecedent in an Hypothetical Syllogisme it is all one as to argue with four terms in a Syllogism that is Categorical But the Doctor says he puts more strength in it The question is about the Catholick Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being Visible do require the Constitutive Regent part to be Visible I Answer though here be more words here is no more strength put into the Argument I still deny the Consequence For though the Catholick Church consists of Particular Churches which are Visible it consists also of that society in heaven which is not Visible Christs Body is but one Body whereof part is in Heaven and part on Earth and while the Head is in Heaven it follows not that because part of the Body is Visible therefore the Head must be Visible It is all one as if he should argue thus Particular Churches are on Earth and if Christ be Head of the Catholick Church whereof they are parts he must not be in Heaven And when indeed this is one and the same Argument and we know it to be false we do justly deny the Doctors Argument Suppose a man so high as that his head reached above the clouds will you argue that this person hath no head because his head is not visible I deny the Argument There is really nothing hard in the Doctors Argument but to understand why his Defender whom I value for his Parts should come to think it unanswerable It may be the Doctors confident word at first it undenyably follows drew on this apprehension and he hath fetcht the Argument over so long till he hath put enough in it to make himself believe it We are far says he from asserting that the Universal Head must be Visible if the Subordinate be so he should be as far from asserting the Head to be Visible because Particular Churches or the Members are so but this we assert that if no Church can be a true Visible Church without a Subordinate Visible Head then the Universal Church cannot be a Visible Church without a Subordinate Catholick Visible Head p. 574 575 576. This he takes to be the Doctors Argument and he will make the consequence hold before he has done with it But against whom does the Doctor and this man argue Is it not against Mr. Bexter and did Mr. Baxter ever say this that there can be no true Church without a Subordinate Head under Christ Is not Mr. Baxter a Protestant as well as the Doctor and do they not both maintain the Catholick Church to have one onely Supreme Head and no Subordinate one in Earth If his Defender hath found out one who is not the Pope but the Colledge of Bishops I desire Doctor Stillingfleet
summe or substance of the Apostle in his Epistles altogether I say also that this is manifestly here destitute of reason The Apostle requires that all Christians should walk by the same rule in things whereto they have attained Therefore they must walk by the same rule in things whereto they have not attained Such is his force This walking by the same rule I am perswaded is a phrase or expression onely signifying the doing as others doe Now because they that had the knowledg of their liberty might doe as others did and were to use it must those that had not that knowledg do so likewise The contrary is apparent for they shall sin against their consciences if they doe The like case is here The Conformist among us looks upon all and every of those things that are injoyned about Uniformity in the Church to be lawfull and he values himself for perfect in this discerning indifferent things but the Nonconformist thinks these things unlawfull and that he shall sin if he yields to them and what if herein he be weak must the weak and perfect must both these here now walk by the same rule or do as one another do Nay must there be a Rule made on purpose by Authority about these very things wherein the difference lies to force them to act both alike when one of them if they do cannot possibly act in faith and so must needs sin Nothing more contrary to what I have laid down Nothing more contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostle I will add if by this Rule there be more meant then a Phrase and some Rule he will account there must be I would fain know why this Rule should be any other then that of the same Apostle otherwhere As many as walk according to this rule peace be upon them and the Israel of God And what is that Rule but Christianity it self the great Rule of the Christian Religion or Doctrine of the Gospel And what then will follow from thence The Doctor I remember reflects upon my Peaceable Design for being called an Answer to his Sermon I will undertake now upon this Supposition that that Title was as fit for my Book as this Text was for his Sermon Because we must walk according to the general rule of the Christian Religion in all things that are required of us as we attain to the knowledg thereof Therefore we must Conform to the Canons and Liturgy of the Church of England This is the Doctors Sermon upon that Text and I will tell you the Inference now of his Defender upon that Sermon Therefore must all that Conform not in the excluding themselves from Communion with the Church of England be excluded also out of the Catholick Church and consequently out of the Kingdome of Heaven By the way since I wrote this I was reading Doctor Owen and I find that he falls in with the last Interpretation of the Rule and he hath these words upon it Let the Apostles rule be produced says he with any probability of proof to be his and we are ready to subscribe and conform to it To which Doctor Stillingfleet Replies This is the Apostles rule to go as far as they can and if they can go no farther to sit down and not to break the peace of the Church Unto this Dr. Owen Answers The Apostles rule is not that we should go as far as we can but that so far as we have attained we must walk by the same rule I interpose here and say to the Doctor This is this must be the rule of the Apostle supposing that rule be meant as he understands it that is of the great rule of faith and love or law of the Gospel For this is part of that Rule It is part of that love we owe the Magistrate and our Conforming Brethren to go as far as we can or to come as near as we can to them But I answer then to the Dean It is part also of the same Rule to go no farther then we can Our duty of love requires the one Our duty of faith requires the other We may not doe any thing which we cannot doe in faith but we break the rule as it is the rule of faith as well as if we do not doe what we can we shall break the rule as it is the rule of love Whatsoever is not of faith is sin Now when the Dean hereupon goes on and teaches us that we must sit down and not break the peace of the Church when we can go no farther I Reply there is a breaking the peace of the Church in his sense or in òurs If we understand breaking the peace of the Church in his sense which is going from the Church to our Meetings I say he is out and that we must break the peace of the Church if this be the breaking it for this is that which is required of us in that branch of the Rule that we must go no farther then we can But when we go to private Meetings and leave the Church in this case where we suppose a man cannot act in faith or with perswasion in his conscience that it is lawful for him to go thither it is no breaking the peace of the Church in our sense but a part of our duty wee say of going no farther then we can We go as far as we can with them in holding the same Doctrine and Sacraments in acknowledging them as true Churches maintaining a Communion in love with them and doing all the good offices we can to them and when we can go no farther in this lyes our duty of going no farther then we can that we meet for worship otherwhere To assemble I say for worship is one part of the rule Not to assemble but to forbear any thing when we cannot act in faith is another part of the rule Put them both together and it comes to this that To go to other meetings when we cannot go to Church must be walking by the rule if this rule be the great rule of faith and of love out of question This I speak in the person of Doctor Owen who can and do go to Church my self but there is one eminent thing said by that eminent great man and very much accomplished Doctor We do and shall abide by this Principle p. 250. that Communion in faith and love with the administration of the same Sacraments is sufficient to preserve all Christians from the guilt of Schism though they cannot communicate together in some rites and rules of Worship and Order If the Doctor makes good this he does our work and till the Dean debates this he says nothing To return I observe in the fourth place for the Digression it self does but lead me hither that this Authour does industriously endeavour to bring the Controversie between Conformist and Nonconformist to this issue If the Church requires of us any things as necessary to her Communion which are sinful the schism is