your Younger years were seasoned with such kind of Authors as they appear to have been I 'll instance only in two Irenaeus Philadelphus and Robert Parker unless Martin Mar-Prelate be adjoyned Men so unplacably seditious and revengeful against our Church especially since you are to this day of an Opinion That you served the Church of England in writing your Irenicum An Erynnicum is more likely to be an effect of such studies And I wish that Book had made less heart-burnings and contentions among us and you had less promoted them by so many Impressions In fine if such a procedure as I have in part made yours already appear to be and shall more fully declare in this Epistle be the way to re-establish the Church of England and your Zeal and Affections be thus only indicated then they were for the Succession of the Crown who still attended the Earl of Shaftsbury and dined twice a Week with the Lord Russel making the rest of that Conspiracy their daily Associates and Confidents who kept the Green-Ribbon Clubb sided all along with Ignoramus Jury-men and abhorr'd all Mankind besides That supplyed Johnson's courses that he might with more Dispatch answer Dr. Hicks and defend his Julian lest the Party complain and grow weary of their tedious carryings on or be discouraged and beat off by the Strength of the Doctors reasonings and demonstrations against it who had West for their standing Council and Rumball for their Malt-Man and bought their Tables and Wainscot of the Protestant Joiner as we know he declared at the Gallows at Oxford of whom he had some of his Doctrines Thirdly You take all Power out of the hands of the Church Officers for determining Indifferencies and making occasional Laws for the better Ruling and Governing their Body and ending Controversies as they arise and place it wholly and solely in the Magistrate or Secular Governor as the only Power and Person that can make Church-Laws binding the Conscience And this you have done deliberately upon full thoughts and after a thorow enquiry and debate in order as you tell us to the laying a Foundation for Peace and Vnion Part I. c. 2. § 6 7. and c. 6. § 7. pag. 106 127 131. I 'll recite these principal passages for the satisfaction of the Reader You place in him the external Imperative Power of Jurisdiction concerning matters of the Church or as you explain your self the Nomothetical Legislative Power as it is distinguished from that which is properly called Politicial And you say the same again in matters undetermined by the word concerning the external Polity of the Church of God the Magistrate hath Power of determining things so they be agreeable to the Word of God. That no other Persons have power to make Laws binding Men to obedience but only the Civil Magistrate with-holding nothing from him but Preaching the Gospel and Administring the Sacraments in which two things you say consists the Authoritative Exercise of the Ministerial Function derived by Christ unto his Ministers making the Magistrate his own Guide according to the Word of God in the Administration of his Function and by consequence his own Preacher not subject to the Power of the Ministers that is he is to interpret the Scriptures to himself which comes very near to that of Mr. Hobbs in his Leviathan Part III. c. 4. p. 252. No Man ought in the Interpretation of Scripture to proceed farther than the bounds that are set by their several Sovereigns As also p. 295. c. 42. That the right of judging what Doctrines are fit for Peace and to be taught by Subjects is in all Commonwealths inseparably annexed to the Sovereign Power Civil whether it be in one Man or in one Assembly of Men. You go on at the same rate and say The Power of declaring the Obligation of former Laws and of consulting and advising the Magistrate for setling of new Laws for the Polity of the Church belongs to the Pastors and Governors of the Church of God but they have no more Authority to make any new Laws or Constitutions binding Mens Consciences than a command from the Supreme Authority that inferior Magistrates should be obeyed doth imply in them any Power to make new Laws to bind them Power arising from mutual compact and consent of parties is most agreeable to the nature of Church-Power being not coactive but directive And such was the confederate discipline of the Primitive Church before they had any Christian Magistrate thence the decrees of Councils were called Canons and not Laws The great use of Synods and Assemblies of Pastors of Churches is to be as the Council of the Church to the King in matters belonging to the Church as the Parliament is in matters of Civil Concernment Elective Synods substituted in the place of Authoritative Power to determine Controversies are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will never be soveraign enough to cure the distemper it is brought for that is reserved for your Weapon-Salve and bind no farther than the party concern'd doth judge the Sentence equal and just So that they help us with no ways to end Controversies in the Church any farther than the Persons engaged are willing to account that just which shall be judged in their Case they having no juridical Power The Church Power as to divine Law is only directive and declarative but being confirmed by a Civil Sanction is juridical and obligatory As for that time when the Church was without Magistrates ruling in it in those things undetermined by the Word of God they acted out of principles of Christian Prudence and from the principles of the Law of Nature And the reasons that you give for all this are many I 'll instance in but two First Because Church-men have no Authority but are bound up to the commands of Christ already laid down in his Word and why may not the same be said of the Magistrates and that they are equally tied up to the Laws of Christ For a Power to bind Mens Consciences to their determinations lodged in the Officers of the Church must be derived either from a Law of God giving them this Right or else from consent of Parties For any Law of God there is none produced with probability of reason but that Obey those that are over you in the Lord. But that implies no more than submitting to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Gospel and to those whom Christ hath constituted as Pastors of his Church wherein the Law of Christ doth require Obedience to them that is looking upon them and owning them in their Relations to them as Pastors but that gives no Authority to make Laws c. Secondly He who can null and declare all other Obligations void done without his Power hath the only Power to oblige for whatsoever destroys a former Obligation must of necessity imply a Power to oblige because I am bound to obey him in the abstaining from that I was formerly obliged to But this Power belongs
so may Princes and Governors also and that by the Authority of God committed unto them and the People also by their Election For as we read that Bishops have done it so Christian Emperors and Princes usually have done it And the People before Christian Princes were commonly did elect their Bishops and Priests In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture for Election or appointing thereunto is sufficient If it fortuned a Prince Christian learned to Conquer certain Dominions of Infidels having none but the Temporal learned Men with him it is not against God's Law that he and they should Preach and Teach the Word of God there And also to make and constitute Bishops and Priests that the Word of God should be there Preached and the Sacrament of Baptism and others be administred But contrary they ought indeed so to do and there be Histories that witness That some Christian Princes and Lay-men unconsecrate have done the same A Bishop or Priest by the Scripture is neither commanded nor forbidden to Excommunicate But where the Law of any Region giveth him Authority to Excommunicate there they ought to use the same in such Crimes as the Laws have Authority in And where the Laws of the Region forbid them there they have no Authority at all And they that be no Priests may also Excommunicate if the Law allow thereunto Leviathan pag. 295 c. Christian Kings are still the Supream Pastors of their People and have power to Ordain what Pastors they please to Teach the Church that is to Teach the People committed to their Charge Again let the Right of choosing them be in the Church for so it was in the time of the Apostles themselves even so also the Right will be in the Civil Sovereign Christian For in that he is a Christian he allows the Teaching and in that he is a Sovereign which is as much as to say the Church by representation the Teachers he Elects are Elected by the Church And when an Assembly of Christians choose their Pastor in a Christian Common-wealth it is the Soveraign that Elects him because it is done by his Authority in the same manner as when a Town choose their Mayor it is the act of him that hath the Sovereign Power For every act done is the act of him without whose consent it is invalid Seeing then in every Christian Commonwealth the Civil Sovereign is the Supreme Pastor to whose charge the Flock of his Subjects is committed and consequently that it is by his Authority that all other Pastors are made and have Power to teach and perform all other Pastoral Offices It follows also that it is from the Civil Sovereign That all other Pastors derive their Right of Teaching Preaching and other Functions pertaining to that Office and that they are but his Ministers in the same manner as Magistrates of Towns Judges in Courts of Justice and Commanders of Armies are all but Ministers of him that is the Magistrate of the whole Commonwealth Judge of all Causes and Commander of the whole Militia which is always the Civil Sovereign If a Man therefore should ask a Pastor in the execution of his Office as the Chief Priests and Elders of the People Matth. 21.23 asked our Saviour By what Authority dost thou these things and who gave thee this Authority he can make no other just answer but That he doth it by the Authority of the Commonwealth given him by the King or Assembly that representeth it All Pastors except the Supreme execute their charges in the Right that is to say by the Authority of the Civil Sovereign that is Jure Civili But the King and every other Sovereign executeth his Office of Supreme Pastor by immediate Authority from God that is to say in God's Right or Jure Divino But if every Christian Sovereign be the Supreme Pastor of his own Subjects it seemeth that he hath also Authority not only to Preach which perhaps no Man will deny but also to Baptize and to Administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and to Consecrate both Temples and Pastors to God's Service There is no doubt but any King in case he were skilful in the Sciences might by the same Right of his Office read Lectures of them himself by which he authorizeth others to read them in the University And lastly concludes That Imposition of Hands is not needful for the authorizing a King to Baptize and Consecrate or Exercise any part of the Pastoral Function every Sovereign before Christianity having the Power of Teaching and Ordaining Teachers but it only directed them in the way of Teaching Truth And consequently they needed no Imposition of Hands besides that which is done in Baptism to authorize them to exercise any part of the Pastoral Function as namely to Baptize and Consecrate So that upon the whole matter whereas before you only contended that the sole Power of making Laws relating to Religion was subjected in the Magistrate taking it quite out of the hands of Church-Men now you place in him the whole Priesthood and allow its Offices to have no force excepting by the Power which is derived from him and the dispute is brought to this issue not that the King may govern the Church by a parity or imparity of Officers but that he may govern it without any or consecrate whom he please And this you deliver not only as your own Sense but as the Synodical Resolution of the Church of England in the days of Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth Fifthly After that you have thus invested the Magistrate with all Church-Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the full latitude and extent of it You at length abdicate the Magistrate himself and take from him in effect all Power in Religious things placing it in Believers in common who are supposed to have a Power antecedent to all positive Injunctions which you call a Liberty of Judgment and Liberty of Practice That is in my plain way of expressing my self they are under no Obligation either to take notice of what he says or to obey what he commands or to abstain from what he prohibits and so are their own Law-givers It is you say the Princes duty to defend and protect the publickly owned and professed Religion of a Nation to restrain Men from acting publickly tending to the subversion of it pag. 39. But it is no bodies duty to obey him unless he please or cannot help it And consequently the enactments of Empires are not Laws but Canons like the decrees of Councils as you have termed them and as the use of the Assemblies of the Pastors of the Church are the Common Council of the Church to the King so the Assembly of the King and his Ministers of State are the Council to the People as Elective Synods so Elective Parliaments are a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which will never be Sovereign enough to cure the distemper that
in him to which every Man may attain by his personal Capacity antecedent to the being of a Church and Church-Governors Or in the words of Mr. Hales made your own by citing of them in your Irenicum pag. 108. Schism is but a Theological Scar-crow set up by such as hold a Party in Religion And by consequence the Church of England is upon the same terms in respect of the Church of Rome as the Dissenters are in respect of the Church of England The Impositions of both are alike Anti-Christian which is again the very Doctrine of the Irenicum Your Answer to several Treatises c. is the next of your Writings that I have pitcht upon whence to inform my self and others of your particular Judgment in these points of Church-Power and its Obligation And that which I hence report will be so much more satisfactory because in your Answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle Apologetical c. you refer him hither from pag 260. to pag. 291. as those Pages in which you maintain as much Authority in the Church of England as ever the Church of England challenged to her self But here you have left the Church in the same condition you had placed her in before and altogether without Power to make her Declarations Law whether in Council or out of it and the Office assigned by you to her Pastors is to Teach Instruct Propose and Recommend engaging them in Toil and Labour enough in order to the search of Truth but they are no where vested with an Authority to oblige the whole Body of Christians or the Church diffusive Each Private Man is left at Liberty to receive or reject according to his Eye-sight and as he apprehends the Reasons Motives Tradition Context Criticism or inward Revelation of that which is delivered And you say withal That the ancient Church did not pretend to more Authority as is to be seen in the Pages foregoing As for that branch of Authority you assign her in making Rules and Canons about matters of Order and Decency in the Church it is no more than in effect you had said before in your Irenicum and accordingly you refer to it in the point in the Preface to the Vnreasonableness of Separation where notwithstanding you contend with all might and main sometimes against the Laws themselves as Anti-Christian sometimes against the execution of them that they be not imposed upon doubtful Consciences as I have already shew'd And you have since been engaged for a Toleration or Non-execution of Church-Laws in the said Preface pag. 83 84 85. then when you had Preached but a little before against Separation and this is the last and all the account that I can give of you in this affair He that is most favourable to you must yield that you are wavering and unfixed in your Judgment And did you really believe that there is an advantage on the side of Authority which ought to over-rule the Practice of such who are the Members of that Church where the Authority is exercised as you speak you would also be so kind to Dissenters as to urge with more constancy upon them their duty in obeying as a Private Man you ought to propose nothing less unto them Tho' I cannot see why we should less doubt of your good will to them and their Cause when you drew up those Terms and Articles of Toleration than of Coleman's kindness to the Papists when he drew up his Declaration for Dissolving the Long Parliament in order to a Toleration also And it will be difficult to determine which of the two was more presumptuous I know what course the Ancient Church would have taken with a Private Presbyter who after a full debate in Council seconded with a Church Sanction and confirmed by the Imperial Constitution should have dared to have made Proposals or draw up Rules and Limitations and make them publick in opposition thereunto and yet this was not your first attempt of this nature your good will to Comprehension Latitudinarian Principles hath all along been manifest and notorious Those many Meetings which you and your Church of England and Mr. Baxter and his Church of England had were not so private but that some took notice of them where you made Proposals for altering the Church Government setled and confirmed by all that is sacred in Church and State. And the reason is plain why those Men afterwards dealt so severely with you of which you complain in the above-mentioned Preface upon that Sermon which was Preached before my Lord Mayor because after your healing Condescensions in private you appear'd a Revolter and Apostate and they were to deal with you as one that had broken his Faith. If some other had Preached that Sermon they might possibly have born with him he acting according to his principles when you were not to be endured tu Brute their Friend with whom they took sweet Council together concerning the House of God. I add farther 1. That in your Treatise of the Vnreasonableness of Separation you no where that I could take notice of have pressed Christians to Obedience as they are a Corporation imbodied under Governors and Laws of their own which is the original and fundamental Obligation to submission and conformity arising from the nature of that Kingdom which Christ erected by the promulgation of the Gospel of which Kingdom every true Christian is a Subject I do not deny but that your performance is competently well done upon your principles and so far as it reacheth You have abundantly set forth the reasonableness of our Book of Common-Prayer in the Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies and urged Obedience thereunto from the destructive consequences that must inevitably follow in that Church or Society of Christians which retains not an Vniformity of Worship and more especially this reasonable one that we have in our Church of England But all is left still as matter of Dispute like the Corporation it self as Arbitrary and at the pleasure of its Subjects to retain or reject them and he that sees not with your Eyes by your own principles hath no Obligation for Obedience and Conformity to any one Rubrick Law or Injunction therein contained And it is observable in your Epistle Dedicatory that you beg pardon indeed of your Superiors for going beyond your bounds in your projects of accommodation But it is not for any one reason relating to them as your Governors or because you have been injurious thereby to their Power and Government in the Church of God which you in so doing had inroaded and invaded But because forsooth the Dissenters would not come up to you and their untractableness rendred your Project useless admit you had jump'd together and united in the project What then Why you had never begged their pardon And it was success not design was wanting by your own confession The very case of Coleman Besides is not this a delicate Apology for your self After
it self Pag. 134. you seem at least too unwary in your Expression asserting That if the whole Nation in Parliament consent to the passing a Law for removal of Pastors and putting in of others this is sufficient for the satisfaction of that People to whom they are appointed as Pastors by virtue of that Power or for the making them true Pastors I yield that the right of Investiture is originally in the Secular hand and by consequence the right of deprivation upon the breach of those terms on which the Investiture is made Thus Abiathar was removed and Zadok put in his room But the question is supposing Zadok had not been of the Priestly Line Whether Solomon's placing him in the High-Priest's Chair did by virtue of his Kingly Power alone create him High-Priest and the People were thereupon bound to own and submit to his Ministry Or to bring an instance nearer home supposing an Act of Parliament appoint a certain Person to be Minister in such a Parish when he is really no Minister because without Ordination from a Bishop Whether by virtue of that Law he is made a true Minister and ought to be received as such by that People to whom by Act of Parliament he is sent No understanding Christian will own him as his Minister upon such terms We have a great instance of this nature in the Church of Scotland about Fourteen Years since The Secular Power commanded Dr. Burnet Archbishop of St. Andrews to admit into particular Churches and in the relation of Ministers certain Men that had no Episcopal Orders and by consequence were not of the Gospel Priesthood the most excellent and exemplary Prelate refused for this reason Because the Prince may promote to what temporal Possessions he please but he cannot promote to the Authority which is Spiritual as to the former he must be submitted to but not as to the latter And his Lordship was a great example of the last case for denying their Institution he was Suspended from his Bishoprick and sustained it with a due resignation tho' the Government upon second thoughts restored him with greater honour and estimation in which he died But as to the more immediate question and which occasioned this Section you ought to have urged That the consent of the People did not constitute a Minister neither was it any necessary qualification in order to it as Mr. Baxter and his Combination pretended But instead of doing this you reply That an Act of Parliament is sufficient to constitute him such which savours too much of the old Vessel I confess the consequents would be really evil in the Government both of Church and State if he be an Usurper in a Parish to whom the People do not consent the disorders thereby must become intolerable and the consequents would be as noxious on the other hand if the Parliament had the Power of qualifying for it For then the Ministry will be quite swallowed up in the State and every Usurper be his Religion what it will may alter the Priesthood or as in the days of Jeroboam make Priests of whom he please But thus it fares with your Arguments and it is their usual fault That they prove too much You take away Infallibility and the Ministry at once in other places and maintain here the Secular Power to the destruction of the Spiritual I 'll receive him in Seculars whom my Prince is pleased to set over me but none in Spirituals who hath not an Authority which the Secular hand cannot derive unto him 5. But that which crowns all is Pag. 300. when you scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their Eyes that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England and tell us it is so called because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parliament Surely if now we be not a Parliament Church we never were in the opinion of any nor ever shall be Should any Man ask me what the Church of England is I would tell him It is that due Succession of Authority Doctrine Worship and Discipline which are now made Law in the Kingdom of England but if that Law ceaseth to own and protest them I should not thereby think it to become less the Church of England For certain there was a Church of England when there was no Parliaments in England according to those who carry their aera or date to the highest pitch And we say There was the very Church of England that now is and neither Parliament nor Pope had appeared in our Coast Besides What if the Parliament of England pass a Bill of Abjuration against the present Church as they did the other day against the Crown of England The Rump Parliament did it Why then your definition of the Church of England is much at the same as Socrates defined a Man Homo est Animal bipes implume A Man is a living Creature with two Feet and without Feathers Diogenes's Jackdaw was as good a Man when he had pluckt his Feathers off The being of the Church of England does not depend upon any such outward advantages or upon the Votes of the People whether in Parliament or out of it We thankfully own the outward advantages she has had and now enjoys by Parliaments but we own withal her separate Being abstracted from them the Church of God here in England is antecedent to them all One while I was willing to think That this Book was wrote by you at a time when the general design was on Foot for enlarging the Privileges of Parliaments or rather of the House of Commons by the Men of Shaftsbury and you might think your self engaged to cast in something and if so you add that which is very considerable making the Being of the Church of England to depend upon their owning and acceptance of it The Kingdom must have Parliaments once a Year at least only for this for otherwise we may have no Church once a Year But then again this seems not to be the reason because I find you to have been of the same Judgment some years before and you reckon up this among the Encroachments and Usurpations of the Bishop of Rome and spoil thereby a good cause viz. That Acts of Parliament were no certain indications of the Judgment of the Church or the generality of the People in that time Answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle Apologetical c. pag. 448. I must therefore conclude that you were somewhat discomposed neither is this the only unwary expression you have let fall within the distance of one or two Pages For you there mix the Pastors and People together as of the same Church diffusive You say farther That to assert in every Church a constitutive regent part as essential to it is the same as the Pope's universal Pastorship And again That the Acts of the Convocation are to be allow'd and enacted by the King and the three States of the Kingdom Flatly against the King's Prerogative in making Church-Laws by the Convocation alone As also your term National Church is as incongruous as any National Congregational Classical are Relatives and give life to one another 6. It doth not appear why you Reprinted that scandalous Manuscript which so immediately opposeth all Church-Power in the utmost latitude of it and by the Authority of so many of our most eminent Reformers Nay farther with an artifice to conceal Archbishop Cranmer's Retraction unless it be to give all the seeming Authority you could to the Doctrines there asserted There is not one Note in the Margent by which it appears that you had then altered your first conceptions of it as Printed in the Irenicum Nay you have own'd and justified it in part in your Epistle to my Lord of London or if there be any alteration made it is least there might be occasion to suspect that Cranmer had deserted you 3. And in the last place you have made no satisfaction at all to the Church of God for that Irenicum Doctrine which equals the Presbyter with the Bishop There is not any thing like amends for it in all your writings that I have met with It is true you often speak of Episcopacy as the most ancient Government derivable from the Apostles But you have not any where asserted it in the number of those Institutions and Practices Apostolical which are perpetual and immutable And until you say this all you can say besides is to no purpose The Bishop is notwithstanding at the mercy of your Prince or your Presbyters when their prudence sees fit to degrade and depose him There is no more Obligation to continue the distinct order of Bishops than that order of Widows in the Epistle to Timothy And thus Sir I have shew'd that you have not made due satisfaction for those errors in your Irenicum concerning the Power of the Church in general and the constitution of our Church in particular of which I accused you in my Letter dated May 1. 1682. I have also shew'd more at large the grounds of my Accusation I beg only this Favour of you That if you think fit to return an Answer you will do it in a Scholar-like way i. e. by Argument and Matter of Fact not Raylings and Nick-names it is really below your quality in the Church to Act Andrew Marvel It was thought by J. O. to be a thing below him And therefore we know on whom he set that Buffoon when his case was much at one with yours and he wanted argument Besides tho' Dr. Burnet was pleased to assign me the Province yet I am not at leasure to catch Flies But if you keep to these terms I shall certainly make a reply and you will thereby oblige Novemb. 6. 1685. Reverend Sir Your Humble Servant SIMON LOWTH FINIS
who stood upon the supposition That Christ had appointed a Presbyterian Government to be always continued in his Church And it is easily observable that you have omitted nothing that was pleaded by them whereby Prelacy might be rendered detestable as an unlawful Vsurpation but whether you have done the same thereby to render Presbytery as such I appeal to that very Chapter You are so far from it that the same design is managed throughout the whole Book where your Plea is against the Divine Right of any one individual Form of Government but the instance is mostly against Episcopacy Presbytery is seldom mentioned with any mark of disrespect or if it be it is accidentally I do not remember any one set discourse particularly levelled against it as there is sometimes against the Independents but all along against the Church of England both in this and several other of her most considerable Tenents and Articles Nay you expresly and in so many words give the precedency to Presbytery founding it upon one of your necessary and unalterable Divine Rights Part I. c. 1. § 7 8. pag. 23 26. and say That the Presbyterians seem more generally to own the use of General Rules and the light of Nature in order to the Form of Church-Government as in the Subordination of Courts Classical Assemblies and the more moderate sort as to Lay-Elders And to the Independents in the next place who plead the general Rules of Scripture and evidence of natural Reason Now all this you must be supposed to remove from the Episcoparians because therein you place the opposition if you do any thing And besides you say further The Episcopal Men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or the Practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many Congregations for Worship under the charge of one Person in the Primitive Church for the Ordination of a Bishop without the preceeding Election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the People and neither in Scripture nor Antiquity the least Footstep of a delegation of Church-Power and leave them no other Foundation but the Principles of humane Prudence and those not very well observed Pag. 416 417. So then upon the winding up of your Book the Church of England is represented without evidence of natural Reason and the Rules of the Light of Nature with little evidence from Scripture or the Practice of the Apostles in some instances of her Worship and Discipline but with none in others neither is Prudence her constant Guide And was not this a hopeful way and delicate means to bring over Dissenters to a compliance with the Church of England then likely to be established But none of it is to be wonder'd at if we consider the account you have given of the Government of our Church in the name of the Foreign Divines a little before pag. 409. and the inconveniencies it is liable unto as a step to Pride and Ambition and an occasion whereby Men might do the Church injury by the excess of their Power if they were not Men of excellent Temper and Moderation insomuch that our Bishops are begg'd rather to lay down their Power than to transmit that Power to those after them who it may be were not like to succeed them in their Meekness and Moderation and at last they are left to the Judgment of those who have the Power not only to redress but prevent abuses incroaching by an irregular Power And yet you have not left her barely to her Judges or the Civil Magistrate for such you can be interpreted only to mean to stand and fall at their discretion your self appear as Council against her prepossessing them with new fears and jealousies to which purpose you produce a ridiculous Prediction of Padre Paulo viz. That the Church of England would then find the inconveniencies of Episcopacy when an high Spirited Bishop should come once to rule the Church A Prophecy that in all likelihood was forged in the Brain of some Puritan and my reason for it is Because I find it placed in the front of a Latin Treatise writ by one of great intemperance and violence against the Church of England the Title whereof is Irenaei Philadelphi Epistola ad Renatum Virideum in qua aperitur mysterium iniquitatis novissimè in Anglia redivivum excutitur liber Josephi Hall quo asseritur Episcopatum esse Juris Divini Eleutheropoli 1641. The design of it is to inveigh against the praetorian Authority of Bishops with their Pride and Usurpation over the Clergy and he states the case just as you have done in your Irenicum viz. against their Solitary appropriated Power by Divine Right allowing a Ministry by the Law of Christ and that general Rules are given in Scripture for the great ends of Peace and Order But the particular Form depends upon the choice of the Presbyters and as they do judge it best agreeing with that Kingdom or Common-Wealth in which it is setled So then it seems the Presbyterians first instructed and brought over you not you them as you told my Lord of London And this also confirms what I said before viz. That you come up to the principles of them all excepting some of the rigider Scots who believe that no Church is duly administred where there are Bishops from whom my Worshipful Author declares his dissent tho' he is never the nearer to the Church of England for it that is purely your mistake and he notwithstanding follows on his design against our Church with all manner of indecency and dirty Language He begins with Arch-Bishop Land and takes occasion to vilifie him by reason of his Book against Fisher as worth no Man's reading and that it is unsaleable (a) Quis enim operam perdere voluerit in evolvendo hoc libro quem audio fidum esse custodem officinae bibliopolaâ—um thence he goes on to Richard Montacute Bishop of Norwich upon whom he empties his Spleen calling him a Chief Coal-blower (b) 〈◊〉 ciniflones Archiepiscopalis culinae primas tenet in the Archbishop's Kitchin reviling him as wise in his (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 own Eyes swelled with Pride and Malice with a little learning but more of self-conceit Bishop Andrews is his next Man whom he accuses of Plagiarism and for stealing his determination against Vsury out of Rivette upbraiding him for his ill stile (d) De ferreo stilo per scabra decurrente adding that Du Moulin and Rivette are as much before him in Learning as he thinks a Bishop to be above a Presbyter and placeth him at length amongst the Men mediocris Doctrinae of mean Learning The last I shall produce tho' there be many more against whom he raves at the same rate is Bishop Hall and he impleads him for want of Prudence in that he wrote his Book of Episcopacy carried on to it with an unseasonable itch of Scribbling casting Oyl thereby on that pyle in which the
Providence of God making way concurr'd to their restauration like another Sanballat using this common high-way insinuation thereunto taken from the scandalous Rabble and worst of our Enemies And I have been credibly told That your self did neither Subscribe nor Read the Service-Book till that fatal as some call it St. Bartholomew and you had otherwise been deprived of your Rectory of Sutton And this subject you reassume in your Preface spending a great part of it with a vehement zeal and ardency in defence of Libertinism so far as That no Church Laws ought to be enjoyned as Terms of Communion but those which Christ hath himself given us or those that were immediately directed by the guidance of the Spirit of God. Those things you say are sufficient for that which are laid down as the necessary Duties of Christianity by our Lord and Saviour in his Word which are sufficient for Salvation Would there be ever the less Peace and Vnity in a Church if diversity were allow'd as to practices supposed indifferent Yea there would be so much the more as there was a mutual forbearance and condescension as to such things The Vnity of the Church is an Vnity of Love and Affection c. Doctrines that are justly called Damnable by the Vniversity of Oxford and condemned with certain pernicious Books in their Judgment and Decree past in Convocation July 21. 1683. as destructive to the sacred Persons of Princes their State and Government and of Humane Society and presented to his late Majesty of blessed Memory July 24. in the Twenty first and Twenty second Propositions and in these words viz. It is not lawful for Superiors to impose any thing in the Worship of God that is not Antecedently necessary The Duty of not offending a weak Brother is inconsistent with all humane authority of making Laws concerning indifferent things But yet you endeavour to make them good from these several Topicks 1. From the Design and Example of our Saviour whose business was to ease Men of their former Burthens and not to lay on more The Duties he required were no other but such as were necessary He that came to take away the unsupportable Yoke of the Jewish Ceremonies certainly did never intend to gall the Necks of his Disciples with another instead of it What Charter hath Christ given the Church to bind Men up to more than himself hath done Or to exclude those from his Society who may be admitted into Heaven 2. From the Example of his Apostles who do not warrant any such rigorous Impositions either We never read of the Apostles making Laws but of things supposed necessary When the Council of the Apostles met at Jerusalem for deciding a case that disturbed the Churches Peace we see they would lay on no other burthen besides the necessary things Acts xv 29. It was not enough for them that the things would be necessary when they had required them but they looked on an antecedent necessity either absolute or for the present state which was the only ground of their imposing those Commands upon the Gentile Christians All that the Apostles required as to these was a mutual forbearance and condescension towards each other in them 3. You parallel the Laws of our Church as to indifferencies and in limiting of them in particular practices with those Impositions of Rome as to the Rule of Faith and her other Idolatrous Superstitious Practices 4. From the Example of the Primitive Church which you say deserves greater imitation by us in nothing more than in that admirable temper moderation and condescension which was used in it towards all the members of it It was never thought by her worth the while to make any standing Laws for Rites and Customs that had no other original but Tradition much less to suspend Men her Communion for not observing them And you instance in that objected case related by Sozomen Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 19. and the same is in Socrates Hist l. 5. c. 22. which every one rallies our Church withal that can but read the Historian in English or the Libellers of our Church who in their Pamphlets represent her to them as you do here to her disadvantage It is granted that these Churches there mentioned as Antioch Rome Aegypt Thessaly and Caesarea did differ from one another in divers Customs and Rites as in times of Fasting manner of Meats c. and therein they were not to judge or condemn one another But you must prove that Antioch Rome c. did allow different Rites in their particular Churches which you cannot do from that place the contrary is evident there For the examples you bring That there were divers Rites and Customs not only in different Churches but in different places belonging to the same Church and many Cities and Villages in Aegypt differ'd from the Mother Church of Alexandria prove nothing against us For the Diocess of Aegypt as the Notitia informs us had abundance of Provinces in it which had also their distinct Metropolitans and Laws And Alexandria however it might be the Patriarchical See or Mother Church in relation to them all was otherwise but the first Church in one of these Provinces called Provincia Aegypti primae and so a Sister Church And Socrates farther tells us That the People of Thebais which is a distinct Province also of Aegypt with its Metropolitan had this different custom from Alexandria And those whom he calls Neighbours to the Alexandrians were in all likelihood another of the Aegyptian Provinces Socrates plainly severs them one from another as distinct Provinces All this will be fully exemplified in the Diocess of Carthage in the days of St. Cyprian where there were several Provinces with their particular Bishops whose Primate he was But yet every one of those Bishops had his distinct and appropriated Power in his Province Neque quisquam nostrum se Episcopum Episcoporum constituit Quando habet omnis Episcopus libertatis suae arbitrium proprium c. Vid. Concil Carthag de haeret baptizand inter opera Cypriani But then tho' the Bishop had this Power in his own Province to establish what Rites and ways of Worship he judged most convenient yet no Man but your self or with your design ever hence asserted that each Village or Parish Church in the Province had the same Power or might erect their own mode of Worship also I remember immediately after the Conference at the Savoy which was the first Summer upon his late Majesty's happy return there came forth a large stitch'd Quarto containing the Dissenters Reasons and Argumentations against the re-establishment of our Church it was without a name but drawn up as was supposed by Richard Baxter And one of his principal heads which he much insisted on was this passage in Sozomen and Socrates I fear me you had been dabling here and so transcribed it for authentique History in their sense of it a thing in those days too usual with you And yet