in Ministring to the Bishops and Priests and in doing their duty in the Church Hereby 't is apparent that Deacons as they were not by Office Preachers nor Dispensers of the Sacraments neither were they Governours of the Church The Government of the Church being committed unto the Bishops or Presbyters onely The which being so 't will as I humbly apprehend follow That Church Government according to Christs Institution was seated in those Particular Societies which were under the care and conduct of Bishops or Elders every such society call it Parochial or Congregational being a Compleat Gospel Church i.e. a Church whose Elders or Bishops have as Entire a power for the Exercise of Discipline in their Congregations as for the Dispensing the word or Administring the Sacraments This is not onely to be found in the Necessary Erudition but moreover there are Intimations enough in other Discourses published in Henry the Eights time to incline a Judicious mind to conclude That the Office of a Priest and Bishop is One and the same and consequently that Particular Parochial or Congregational Churches are of Divine Institution I have observed in the Sum of Christianity compos'd by Francis Lambert of Avynyon a Treatise Published An. 1536. That the Notion of the Sameness of the Order of a Bishop or Elder appeared in the world with some kind of boldness For although this Lambert in his Epistle to Sebastian Prince of Lausane doth assert That there be MANY Bishops of ONE City for saith he every City hath so many Bishops as it hath true Evangelists or Preachers For every Preacher of the Truth c. is a true Bishop although he be not call'd so of many Bishops be only Prophets of Truth and there should be so many Bishops as the multitude of People requireth Verily Every Parish ought to have its proper Bishop And in the Treatise it self chap. 5. In every City Town and Village there ought to be many Bishops i. e. Evangelists or Preachers after the quantity of places and multitude of people If many Parishes be so great that one Bishop is not sufficient for them let them be divided and to every part a Bishop assigned This and much more in Lambert Notwithstanding which this Treatise is published by Tristram Rewell and dedicated to Queen Anne wife of Henry the 8th A thing that would not have been done but that this Opinion was very common at that time and within seven years after declar'd to be the sense of the Church of England as I have evinc'd out of the Necessary Erudition But 5. That the Superiority of one Bishop over another or of a Bishop over a Presbyter is of Humane not of Divine Right Diocesan Bishops Metropolitane or Patriarchal are not found in Sacred writings and concerning this the necessary Erudition is most express in these words And whereas we have thus summarily declar'd what is the Office and ministration which in Holy Scripture hath been committed to Bishops and Priests and in what things it consisteth as is before rehearsed lest peradventure it might be thought to some persons That such Authorities Powers and Jurisdictions as Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitanes now have or heretofore at any time have had Justly and Lawfully over other Bishops were given them by God in holy Scripture We think it expedient and necessary That all men should be advertis'd and taught That all such lawful Powers and Authorities of ANY one Bishop over another were and be given to them by the Consent Ordinance and Positive Laws of men ONELY AND NOT BY ANY ORDINANCE OF GOD IN HOLY SCRIPTURE And all other Power and Authority which and Bishop hath used or exercised over another which hath not been given to him by such consent and Ordinance of Men as is aforesaid is in very deed no LAWFULL POWER but PLAIN USURPATION AND TYRANNY So far the Christian Erudition From whence 't is manifest That according unto them Diocesan Episcopacy is of Humane Right onely i. e. Any one Bishops Ruling over another Bishop or Presbyter is what the Scriptures do not direct unto and consequently 't is not of Divine Right neither is it any further Lawful than according unto the Laws of the Land in which 't is Exercis'd Though the Power of Diocesane Bishops as 't is Circa Sacra may be called Ecclesiastical yet if we consider its Origine and Source we shall find it to be but Civil seated primarily in the Civil Magistrate that 't is of an humane make and so far but no farther Lawful than as Sanction'd by the Laws of the Land Diocesane Bishops as such are not immediately owing unto God but unto our Civil Governours for their Being 't is on them their sole dependance is and on them they relie for the Continuance of their Power The King Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament can as they see cause make what Alterations they please in the Episcopal or Diocesan Government Though they cannot alter any Divine Law yet they can change any Law that receives its Being from themselves Though they cannot alter the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop which receives its Being from the Institution or Ordinance of Jesus Christ yet they may correct or amend any thing in the Humane viz. The Diocesane Constitution They can enlarge or narrow any Diocess yea pull down one and Erect another They can add unto or take from the Episcopal Jurisdiction as they judge Expedient That this was the sense of the Church of England in Henry the 8ths time yea and in most ages since an Episcopal Government has been established in this Kingdome and consequently the Antient Constitution of our Government is not only manifest from what hath been already taken out of the Necessary Erudition but from other passages that are in that excellent treatise and some other Considerations that I will insist on As First The Power that hath ever been acknowledged to be seated in the Kings of this Realm concerning the exempting any particular Churches from an Episcopal Jurisdiction evinces it If Episcopal Jurisdiction be of Divine Right it lies not in the power of any Prince to alter it If every Parish Presbyter is according to the Scriptures an Officer inferiour to some Diocesane Bishop the exempting such a Presbyter from Episcopal Jurisdiction is out of the power of any man 'T was a known Rule in our Land even in the days of Popery That no Law of man can alter or disanul any Law of God If then our Princes ever thought themselves to have been invested with a Power of exempting any Presbyter from Episcopal Jurisdiction 't is evident that they look not on that Jurisdiction to be of Divine Right But that our Princes judg'd themselves to have such a Power is notorious from the many Instances that can be given of their exercising it Whosoever consults the Learned Dr. Burnets History of the Refor part 1. lib. 3. will find That Ethelbert exempted a Monastry at Canterbury with some Churches
included within the confines of a particular Church who in the management of their discourses concerning it give too great an advantage unto the Papacy 2. The Episcopal and Presbyterian differ from some of the Congregational concerning the nature of Discipline the Congregational being esteemed as espousers of a Democracy or Populacy the other against it 3. The Episcopal differs from the Presbyterian in that the Episcopal are for a Monarchy the Presbyterian for an Aristocracy § 8. All Protestants generally agree in asserting the Independency of particular Churches 'T is notorious that the Church of England established by Law is a particular National Church independent on any Foreign Power whatsoever Such is the constitution of our Church that what Bishop soever is found an abuser of his Power he is not accountable to any Colledg of Bishops but such as are conven'd by his Majesties Authority and that what apprehensions soever he may have of his being griev'd through any undue procedure he cannot make any Appeal to any Foreign Power from the King 'T is the King who is the Supreme Head of the Church of England there is no Power on earth equal unto or above his in Ecclesiastical Affairs To appeal unto any Foreign Power whether unto one Bishop singly or unto many by consent assembled 't is to do what tends to the subverting the present Constitution yea 't is to subvert the very foundation of our Government as 't is opposite unto a French or an Italian Papacy Whoever consults the many Laws made in Henry the 8th's time Edward the 6th's and Queen Elizabeths cannot but be fully satisfied that the Appeal of any Bishop or any other person from the King unto any other Foreign Power is contrary unto the ancient Laws of this Realm and that such as shall venture the doing so run themselves into a Praemunire For 't is most apparent that our National Church of England is a particular Independent Church That neither the Pope of Rome nor the Bishop of Paris nor any other Foreign Bishops have any Original Right or Power in relation to England and that therefore their assuming any such power is a sinful Usurpation All this is undoubtedly true Yet § 9. The Deans Substitute exposeth the Independency of Episcopal particular Churches as what is inconsistent with Catholick Union and asserts That if any Bishops abuse their Power they are accountable unto a General Council that is unto a Foreign Power whereby he doth his utmost to tare up the Church of England by the Roots to subvert his Majesties Supremacy as if all the Laws of the Land concerning it had not been of any force All this by Dr. Stilling fleet 's Defender That this is so I 'le evince from our Authors own words which are as follow And now I cannot but wonder saith he to find some Learned men very zealous assertors of the Independency of Bishops and to alledg St. Cyprians Authority for it for what ever difficulty there may be in giving an account of every particular saying in St. Cyprian certainly he would never be of this opinion who asserts but One Chair One Apostolical Office and Power which now resides in the Bishops of the Universal Church for when the same Power is in ten thousand hands it can be but One only by Unity of consent in the exercise of it and 't is very wild to imagine that any one of these persons who abuse this Power shall not be accountable to the rest for it i. e. to the Colledg of Bishops for saith he soon after if we consider the practise of the ancient Church we shall find that they never thought every Bishop to be Independent but as liable to the censure of their Colleagues as Presbyters and Deacons were to the censure of their Bishops P. 212. So far our Author who doth as it were expresly assert That the Archbishop of Canterbury though Metropolitan and Primate of England if he abuses his Power is accountable unto the General Council when by consent assembled that is the Archbishop who is not in power above any other Bishops as is by the Deans Substitute asserted abusing his Power is accountable to some Court above any in this Realm to a General Council a Colledg of Bishops § 10. Although the Papists generally assert That the Universal Church is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all Church-Government as hath been already intimated yet there 's a difference between the French and Italian Papist about the kind of the Government the one insisting on an Aristocracy the other on a Monarchy i. e. the French holds That the pars Regens of the Universal Church is a General Council the Italian That it is one single person viz. the Bishop of Rome There hath been in the Church of Rome for some hundred years a great contest concerning the Supreme Regent part of the Universal Church Whether it be a General Council or the Pope Whether a General Council be above the Pope or the Pope above a General Council About which the Church of Rome is fallen into three parts as Bellarmine asserts 1. That the Pâ—pe is the Supreme Head of the Church and so much above a General Council that he cannot subject himself thereunto The Government of the Universal Church though mixt being composed of a Democracy Aristocracy and Monarchy yet principally 't is Monarchical The Supreme Power being immediately lodg'd in the Monarch who is the Bishop of Râ—me Christs Vicar and Peter's Successor he is above a General Council and not accountable to any on earth for any abuse he may be guilty of Of this opinion saith Bellarmine are all the Schoolmen generally especially Sanctus Antonius Jeannes de Turrecremata Alvarus Pelagius Dominicus Jacobatius Cajetan Pighius Ferrariensis Augustinus de Aneena Petrus de Monte c. Yea this is the sense of the Jesuits generally and of all such as are engag'd to support the Court of Rome as are the Italian Bishops for which reason I call it Italian Popery 2. There are some among the Canonists who assert That the Pope is above a General Council but yet may subject himself hereunto 3. There are others who assert That a General Council is above the Pope that the Supreme Governing-power over the whole Catholick Church is given them immediately that the Pope as every other Bishop is accountable to the General Council This is what hath been asserted by the Council at Constance Anno 1315. and by that of Basil Anno 1431. and by many Learned Divines in the Church of Rome viz. Cardinal Cameracensis Jeannes Gerson Jacobus Almain Nicolas Cusanus Panormitanus and his Master Cardinal Florentinus as also by Abulensis Gerson being a Chancellor at Paris had many followers among the French who at this very day assert That the Supreme Regent part of the Universal Church is a General Council for which reason I conclude that such as assert That a General Council is the Political Head or Regent part of the
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
in foreign parts they should rather accommodate their worship to those among whom they liv'd whence instead of the English Liturgy they used one near the Geneva and French Forms Moreover in Queen Elizabeth's time even long after the Separation the old Nonconformists declar'd that they look'd on Forms of Prayer to be lawful It may be they were griev'd to see Q. Elizabeths Bishops to entertain more favourable thoughts of the Pope than those blessed Martyrs Cranmer and Ridâ—ey did as is to be seen by their expunging out of Q. Elizabeth's Liturgy what was offensive to the Pope in K. Edward's but against Forms they were not or it may be they could not approve of any that would quench the motions of the Spirit they professed to have felt before their Ordination whether in trusting unto it for help in the exercise of Prayer or any other parts of their work But to cry down all Forms in order to the setting up spiritual and free prayer instead of the Liturgy and for this reason to separate from the Church of England is more than can be proved 2. The great and principal reason of the Separation of the old Nonconformists was occasion'd by their pressing towards that Reformation expresly aim'd at by our English Reformers in H. 8. 's time for the which they were burnt in Smithfield and elsewhere Whoever would understand the true Reason of the first Separation in Queen Elizabeth's time must enquire after the first Reformation desir'd in H. 8. ' s. In Henry 8th's days that wickedness that spread it self throughout the Western part of the World sadly prevail'd in these Northern parts This part of the earth was in an especial manner troubled with a vicious and sensual Clergy whose example had a sad influence on the Common people The off-spring of a lewd vicious Clergy was a profane and extremely wicked Laity so that if ever it might now be truly said The whole world lay in wickedness This being the state of the Clergy and Laity the fear of God and all true Religion almost lost it pleased the Father of mercies to open the eyes of some to shew 'em the evil of the times c. Luther Zuinglius Calvin and others beyond the seas and Tindal Frith Barns c. here in England These Worthies being deeply sensible of the Abominations of the times in which they liv'd made diligent search after the causes thereof in order to the carrying on a Reformation c. In which enquiry they found the viciousness of the people to be occasioned by the sensuality and lewdness of the Clergy the lewdness of the Clergy to be the product of an uninstituted Hierarchy which was rather adjusted for Worldly grandure than the glory of God The great cause of all those Mischiefs was the want of strict and Scriptural Discipline which as it had not been in due exercise since the first degeneracy from the Apostolical Institution and Primitive Practice even so could not be faithfully exercised but by being reduced to its antient state For which Reason Tyndall applies himself to the work and so did the famous Lambert and Doctor Barnes All which I will from good Authority evince 1. Mr. Tyndall a blessed Martyr burnt at Brabant for his firm adhering to the Truths of the Gospel doth in those Discourses of his published by Mr. Fox shew that the many Abominations of his Times proceeded from the viciousness of a Proud Covetous Sensual Clergy who having forsaken the Apostolical Rule in process of time through the Bounty of some wealthy persons who had embraced the Christian Religion and divers other ways got an abundance of Riches which occasioned their Pride and Luxury to the ruine of the true Religion Thus in that Treatise of The Obedience of a Christian man There is no Mischiefs or Disorders saith he whether it be in the Temporal Regiment or in the Spiritual whereof they i. e. The Spirituality the Clergy are not the chief Causes and even the very Fountain and Spring and as we say the Well-head So that 't is impossible to Preach against Mischief except thou begin at them or to set any Reformation in the world except thou Reform them first This same Mr. Tyndall in another place shews us how they occasioned so much mischief in these words But after that the Devil was broke loose and the Bishops began to purchase and the Deacons to scratch all to them and the Spirituality to climb on high then because the Labour viz. of examining and confirming the Adult who had been Baptized in their Infancy ' seemed too tedious and painful they neglected it Tyndal of Sacraments and Ceremonies The Clergy growing rich labour'd that their Honour might equalize their Wealth which was followed with Idleness a Neglect of God and their Duty Hence Preaching is let down the Ceremonies being esteem'd as the most effectual means of Instruction This occasions the multiplication of significant Ceremonies which was the great Reason of the dreadful Ignorance into which the whole European world was plundg'd when Popery prevail'd So Mr. Tyndall I impute this our grievous fall into so extream and horrible Blindness wherein we are so deep and so deadly brought asleep unto nothing so much as unto the multitude of Ceremonies for assoon as the Prelats had set up such a rabble of Ceremonies they thought it superfluous to teach the plain Text any longer and the Law of God Faith of Christ c. forasmuch as all such things were play'd before the peoples faces daily in the Ceremonies c. Tyndall of the Ceremonies of the Mass Thus 't is evident that in Henry the 8ths time the great wickedness of that Age was grievous to such as aim'd at Reformation that these wickednesses were occasion'd by the Pride Covetousness and Sensuality of the rich Clergy But 2. 'T is as manifest That the Pride of the Clergy was discovered by their Prelacy their aspiring after a Dominoon over their Brethren Whence the One gets the name of Bishop appropriated unto him and with that name an Unaccountable yea an Unscriptural Power So Mr. Tyndall in his Practice of Prelates The Office of a Bishop was a roume at the beginning that no man coveted and that no man durst take upon him save he that loved Jesus Christ better than his own Life For as Christ saith That no man might be his Disciple except that he were ready to forsake Life and all Even so might that Officer be sure that it might cost him his Life at one time or another for bearing record unto the Truth But after that the multitude of the Christians were encreased and many great men had received the Faith then both Lands and Rents as well as other Goods were given unto the maintenance as well of the Clergy as of the Poor because they gave then no Tythes to the Priests nor yet now do save in certain Countries For it is too much to give Alms Offerings Lands and Tythes also And then the
of Rome's Authority Upon which Submission of the Clergy the King gave unto the said Bishops the same ample Rule that before they had under the Pope over their Inferior Brethren saving that the same Rule was abridg'd by Statute by this Parenthesis following that is to say without offending the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England and the Laws and Customs of the Realm in the latter end of the Statute it was added That whosoever offendeth in any one part of that Statute and their Aiders Counsellers and Abetters they did all fall into the penalty of the Praemunire And after I had recited this Statute in the Parliament-House I declared that in King Henry the 8th's days after this there was no Bishop that did practise Superiority over the Inferior Brethren And in King Edward's days the said Bishops obtained a Statute whereby they were Authorized to keep their Courts in the Kings Name the which Statute was repealed in Queen Maries days and was not revived in her Majesties time that now is whereupon it was doubtful to me by what Authority the Bishops do keep their Courts now in their own Names because it is against the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England that any should keep a Court without sufficient Warrant from the Crown Whereupon I was answered that the Bishops do keep their Courts now by Prescriptions and it is true that the Bishops may Prescribe that King Henry the 8th gave them Authority by the Statute of the 25th of his Reign to have Authority and Rule over their Inferior Brethren as ample as they had in the Popes time For this was no special Warrant for them to keep their Courts by and that in their own Names And yet they have none other Warrant to keep their Courts as they do now in their own Names to my knowledg And this was the Cause that made them obtain a Statute in King Edward's days to keep their Courts by in the Kings Name Now it is a strange Allegation that the Bishops should claim Authority at this present to keep their Courts in their own Names as they do by Prescription because the Statute of 25. doth restrain them generally from offending of the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England and the Laws and Customs of the Realm And no man may justly keep a Court without out a special Warrant from the Crown of England as is aforesaid And the general Liberty given by King Henry the 8th to the Bishops to Rule and Govern as they did in the Popes time is no sufficient Warrant to the Bishops to keep their own Courts in their own Names by Prescription as I take it And therefore the Bishops had done wisely if they had sought a Warrant by Statute to keep their Courts in the Queens Name as the Bishops did in King Edward's days in which time Archbishop Cranmer did cause Peter Martyr and Bucer to come over into this Realm to be placed in the Two Universities for the better Instruction of the Universities in the Word of God And Bishop Cranmer did humbly prefer these Learned men without any challenge to himself of any Superior Rule in this behalf over his Inferior Brethren And the time hath been that no man could carry away any Grant from the Crown of England by general words but that he must have special words to carry the same by Therefore now the Bishops are Warranted to carry away the keeping of their Courts in their own Names by Prescription it passeth my understanding Moreover whereas your Lordship said unto me that the Bishops have forsaken their claim of Superiority over their inferior Brethren lately to be by Gods Ordinance and that now they do only claim Superiority from her Majesties Supreme Government If this be true then 't is requisite and necessary that my Lord of Canterbury that now is do recant and retract his saying in his Book of the great Volume against Cartwright where he saith in plain words by the name of Dr. Whitgift that the Superiority of Bishops is Gods own Institution which saying doth impugn her Majesties Supreme Government directly and therefore it is to be retracted plainly and truly For Christ truly and plainly confesses John 18.36 That his Kingdom was not of this world and therefore he gave no worldy Rule or Preheminence to his Apostles but the Heavenly Rule which was to Preach the Gospel saying Ite praedicate in omnem mundum Quicunque crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvus erit qui non crediderit condemnabitur Go and Preach in all the world whosoever shall believe and be baptized shall be saved but he that will not believe shall be condemned Mar. 16.16 But the Bishops do cry out saying That Cartwright and his Fellows would have no Government c. So belike the Bishops care for no Government but for worldly and forcible Government over their Brethren the which Christ never gave to his Disciples nor Apostles but made them subject to the Rule of Princes who ought not to be resisted saving that they might answer unto Princes that they must rather obey God than men Act. 5.29 And yet in no wise to resist the Prince but to take up the Cross and follow Christ So far Sir Francis Knolles Discourse in Parliament concerning the Episcopacy c. But to return I would fain know why we may not think honourably of good beginnings even when we cannot approve of such as put a stop thereunto Is the Episcopacy of King Edward so much the same in all respects with the present that whoever dissents from this must thereby cast a reproach on that Surely the Dean won't say so after so many Months consideration 6. There is an admirable distinction insisted on which will bring off the Dean without all doubt viz. There is a Popish and a Protestant Episcopacy But where lies the Difference What Difference is there between our present Episcopacy and that in Henry the 8ths time Is not the Episcopacy so far as 't is an Episcopacy the same What is there Intrinsecal to this Episcopal Constitution that differs from that Whence if that be Popish why may not this seeing 't is the same with that be in like manner so That Henry the 8ths Episcopacy was Popish Bishop Bramhall hath evinced in proving that the Papists begun the Separation from Rome In fine Let our Author tell me the Difference between Queen Maries Episcopacy and Queen Elizabeths Episcopacy on her first entring the Throne Is not the Episcopacy now the same with that at the Reforming the Liturgy by Act of Parliament and was not that Episcopacy the same with Queen Maries The only specifying Difference that can be suggested is that though the Episcopacy as such is the same and the Persons in both may be the same yea and their Principles for so it hath been in King Henry the 8th King Edward the 6th Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth yet the outward profession of the Bishops is not the same But is
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