Informer in constant danger of Fines c. and of more miseries than I can with delight reherse However though there are considerations enough from the world to byas our minds in a seeking for the Truth to lean towards Conformity yet desiring to approve our selves sincere towards God we find That we cannot without sin conform we cannot without sinning deliberately and knowingly comply with the Episcopal Impositions and if we should notwithstanding conform to live and die Conformists we should knowingly and deliberately sin yea and die under the guilt thereof which is a thing so hazardous to the soul that we durst not touch with Conformity lest we die lest we die eternally We censure not such as do conform because they not lying under the same convictions of Conscience as we do may not by their Conformity run that hazard which we unavoidably must should we against the light of our Consciences comply There is a great difference between those that act according to the directions of their Consciences and such as act contrary thereunto For which reason I wonder that our great Church-men should say that Mr. Baxter represented all Conformists as a company of Perjured Villains meerly because he shew'd that if the Nonconformists should contrary to the Dictates of their Conscience conform they should be guilty of Perjury and several other great sins But though this be the truth yet there are some who will not believe it who say we do we what we can for their satisfaction will count us a pack of Hypocrites For which reason that I might anticipate the censure I laid down the Principle unto which Dissenters do most firmly adhere the discussing which is what they do most sincerely desire The Principle is this That the word of God contained in Scripture is the only Rule of the Whole and of every part of true Religion As for external circumstances as time and place c. being no part of though necessary appendages unto our Religion From this Principle I proceed to this Conclusion That whatever part of the Service of the Church of England is impos'd on us as so necessary a part of our Religion as to be a term of Communion if not agreeable to the word of God in Scripture that Imposition is sinful Our Adversary considers that such as live in England and yet are not of the Church of England do not belong unto the Catholick Church that is they are all in a state of damnation Hence 't is we must according unto him be a member of the Church of England or be damned We are willing with all our hearts to be members of the same Church with them i. e. to be members of the Catholick Church is what we desire But this say they we cannot be but by complying with their imposed terms To which we reply Let their terms be as Catholick as they pretend their Church is and we 'l comply i. e. Let them keep to a few certain and necessary things let them not impose as terms of Union any thing but what is according to the Word of God in Scripture we are satisfied the Controversie is at an end But if they will take on 'em to make that a part of true Religion yea so necessary a part as to make it a term of our communion with the Catholick Church 't is a sinful encroachment on the Prerogative of the Lord Jesus Christ with which we dare not complâ— If they expeâ—t our compliance why do they not shew the Scriptures that declare the things they impose to be so necessary a part of true Religion as to be a form of our communion with the Catholick Church They must not only shew that those things are aâ—reeable to true Religion but moreover that they are so necessary a part thereof that whoever conforms not to them when impos'd is â—pso â—â—sact cut off from the Catholick Church This they can never do and therefore can never clear themselves from being the Faulty dividers When we provoke 'em to shew us what Scriptures direct them to their Impositions we are turn'd off with Where is it forbidden as if they had acted exactly to the Rule * Si objiciant in sacris literis non haberi Invocandos esse Sanctos venerandas Imagines abstinendum à Carnibus in t aliquid ejâ—sâ—nodi non ergo ista esse facienda nos contra objiciamus quidem Efficacius Hâ—c Sacris Literis non Prohiberi atque sine piccato fieri posse quia â—â—hi non est Lex ibi nec prâ—evaricatio Cosâ— Irstit Chriâ—t l. 2. c. 1. Costerus the Jesuit gave his young Scholars If any object Where are those points viz. The Invocation of Saints The worshipping of Images The abstaining from flesh and the like found in Scripture and because not found in Scripture therefore to be rejected To which saith the Jesuit answer thus Ask where 't is forbidden in Scripture if not forbidden in Scripture 't is no sin to observe 'em for where there is no Law there is no transgression So far Costerus To whom we rejoyn That the holy Scriptures being the only Rule of the Whole and of Every part of true Religion if these things be not according to the Scripture 't is because there is no truth in ' em There must be an exact correspondency and agreeableness between the Rule and its Regulate The Regulate must be brought to the Rule and if it doth not agree with it 't is because the Regulate is not Right The word of God in Scripture is the Rule what Religion soever varies from the Rule 't is a false Religion Rectum est Index sui obliqui There are some Religions are larger than the Rule There are other Religions that fall short of the Rule They who embrace any Notion as a part of their Religion which is not to be found in Scripture is too large for the Scripture and such as reject what the Scripture injoins have a Religion too short The one puts the Scripture on the Rack to stretch it to their Religion but the other pares off a considerable part of Scripture that the Rule may not exceed their Religion But such as keep exactly to the word of God in Scripture who neither go beyond nor fall short of it are in the right To make that a part of our Religion which is not to be found in Scripture is to take that for a part of our Religion which God hath not made a part thereof which is sinful How much more so is the making it a term of communion That the things in controversie between the Church and the Dissenter are not to be found in Scripture and consequently are no part of true Religion is evident not only because we can't understand where 't is to be found nor because the Church-men cannot direct us where to find it but because they themselves look on 'em as indifferent i. e. as what is not injoin'd us in the word of God
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
in Ministring to the Bishops and Priests and in doing their duty in the Church Hereby 't is apparent that Deacons as they were not by Office Preachers nor Dispensers of the Sacraments neither were they Governours of the Church The Government of the Church being committed unto the Bishops or Presbyters onely The which being so 't will as I humbly apprehend follow That Church Government according to Christs Institution was seated in those Particular Societies which were under the care and conduct of Bishops or Elders every such society call it Parochial or Congregational being a Compleat Gospel Church i.e. a Church whose Elders or Bishops have as Entire a power for the Exercise of Discipline in their Congregations as for the Dispensing the word or Administring the Sacraments This is not onely to be found in the Necessary Erudition but moreover there are Intimations enough in other Discourses published in Henry the Eights time to incline a Judicious mind to conclude That the Office of a Priest and Bishop is One and the same and consequently that Particular Parochial or Congregational Churches are of Divine Institution I have observed in the Sum of Christianity compos'd by Francis Lambert of Avynyon a Treatise Published An. 1536. That the Notion of the Sameness of the Order of a Bishop or Elder appeared in the world with some kind of boldness For although this Lambert in his Epistle to Sebastian Prince of Lausane doth assert That there be MANY Bishops of ONE City for saith he every City hath so many Bishops as it hath true Evangelists or Preachers For every Preacher of the Truth c. is a true Bishop although he be not call'd so of many Bishops be only Prophets of Truth and there should be so many Bishops as the multitude of People requireth Verily Every Parish ought to have its proper Bishop And in the Treatise it self chap. 5. In every City Town and Village there ought to be many Bishops i. e. Evangelists or Preachers after the quantity of places and multitude of people If many Parishes be so great that one Bishop is not sufficient for them let them be divided and to every part a Bishop assigned This and much more in Lambert Notwithstanding which this Treatise is published by Tristram Rewell and dedicated to Queen Anne wife of Henry the 8th A thing that would not have been done but that this Opinion was very common at that time and within seven years after declar'd to be the sense of the Church of England as I have evinc'd out of the Necessary Erudition But 5. That the Superiority of one Bishop over another or of a Bishop over a Presbyter is of Humane not of Divine Right Diocesan Bishops Metropolitane or Patriarchal are not found in Sacred writings and concerning this the necessary Erudition is most express in these words And whereas we have thus summarily declar'd what is the Office and ministration which in Holy Scripture hath been committed to Bishops and Priests and in what things it consisteth as is before rehearsed lest peradventure it might be thought to some persons That such Authorities Powers and Jurisdictions as Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitanes now have or heretofore at any time have had Justly and Lawfully over other Bishops were given them by God in holy Scripture We think it expedient and necessary That all men should be advertis'd and taught That all such lawful Powers and Authorities of ANY one Bishop over another were and be given to them by the Consent Ordinance and Positive Laws of men ONELY AND NOT BY ANY ORDINANCE OF GOD IN HOLY SCRIPTURE And all other Power and Authority which and Bishop hath used or exercised over another which hath not been given to him by such consent and Ordinance of Men as is aforesaid is in very deed no LAWFULL POWER but PLAIN USURPATION AND TYRANNY So far the Christian Erudition From whence 't is manifest That according unto them Diocesan Episcopacy is of Humane Right onely i. e. Any one Bishops Ruling over another Bishop or Presbyter is what the Scriptures do not direct unto and consequently 't is not of Divine Right neither is it any further Lawful than according unto the Laws of the Land in which 't is Exercis'd Though the Power of Diocesane Bishops as 't is Circa Sacra may be called Ecclesiastical yet if we consider its Origine and Source we shall find it to be but Civil seated primarily in the Civil Magistrate that 't is of an humane make and so far but no farther Lawful than as Sanction'd by the Laws of the Land Diocesane Bishops as such are not immediately owing unto God but unto our Civil Governours for their Being 't is on them their sole dependance is and on them they relie for the Continuance of their Power The King Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament can as they see cause make what Alterations they please in the Episcopal or Diocesan Government Though they cannot alter any Divine Law yet they can change any Law that receives its Being from themselves Though they cannot alter the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop which receives its Being from the Institution or Ordinance of Jesus Christ yet they may correct or amend any thing in the Humane viz. The Diocesane Constitution They can enlarge or narrow any Diocess yea pull down one and Erect another They can add unto or take from the Episcopal Jurisdiction as they judge Expedient That this was the sense of the Church of England in Henry the 8ths time yea and in most ages since an Episcopal Government has been established in this Kingdome and consequently the Antient Constitution of our Government is not only manifest from what hath been already taken out of the Necessary Erudition but from other passages that are in that excellent treatise and some other Considerations that I will insist on As First The Power that hath ever been acknowledged to be seated in the Kings of this Realm concerning the exempting any particular Churches from an Episcopal Jurisdiction evinces it If Episcopal Jurisdiction be of Divine Right it lies not in the power of any Prince to alter it If every Parish Presbyter is according to the Scriptures an Officer inferiour to some Diocesane Bishop the exempting such a Presbyter from Episcopal Jurisdiction is out of the power of any man 'T was a known Rule in our Land even in the days of Popery That no Law of man can alter or disanul any Law of God If then our Princes ever thought themselves to have been invested with a Power of exempting any Presbyter from Episcopal Jurisdiction 't is evident that they look not on that Jurisdiction to be of Divine Right But that our Princes judg'd themselves to have such a Power is notorious from the many Instances that can be given of their exercising it Whosoever consults the Learned Dr. Burnets History of the Refor part 1. lib. 3. will find That Ethelbert exempted a Monastry at Canterbury with some Churches
Officers of God Fundamentally and not Formally it may be granted But when we speak of the Officers of Christ in Contradistinction to the Officers of the King we mean such whose Authority is from God and remains good though the Prince should oppose it as in the case of the Primitive Officers of Divine Institution who being forbidden to Preach in Christs name could reply Whether we shall obey God or Man Judge ye The Office of a Presbyter or Congregational Bishop is so much of God that what right soever the Magistrate may have concerning Nomination Election or Presentation or Appointing of any such Ecclesiastical Ministers his Prohibition cannot make void that Commission he hath received from Jesus Christ But such as are Officers of the King whether about the matters of the Lord or about the King i. e. whether Circa sacra or about Civil Affairs 't is in the Power of the Supream Magistrate to give or take his Commission as it pleaseth him yea to direct to the Number of such Officers appointing them their peculiar work and to alter and change as the necessity of Affairs and State of the National Constitution shall require There must be a regard had unto the present temper and state of the Kingdom in which the Church is and a suiting the Ecclesiastical Affairs so far as they may have an influence on the State after such a manner as is most conducive to the more firm establishment of the Fundamental Constitution and consequently Peace of the State to which end the Civil Magistrate must still firmly adhere to that known Rule by which King Henry professed to walk which is expressed in the necessary Erudition viz. The Scripture doth teach That all Christian People as well as Priests and Bishops as all other should be obedient unto Princes and Potestates of the World For the Truth is that God Constituted and Ordained the Authority of Christian Kings and Princes to be the most High and Supream above all other Powers and Officers in this World in the Regiment and Government of their People and committed to them as unto the chief leads of their Commonwealths the Cure and Oversight of all the People which be in their Realms and Dominions without any exception and to them of Right and by Gods Commandment belongeth not only to prohibit Unlawfull Violence to correct Offenders by Corporal Death or other punishment to Censure Moral Honesty among their Subjects according to the Laws of their Realms to defend Justice and to procure the Publick Weal and Common Peace and Tranquility in Outward and Earthly things But Especially and Principally to Defend the Faith of Christ and his Religion to conserve and maintain the true Doctrine of Christ and all such as be true Preachers and Setters forth thereof and to abolish all Abuses Heresies and Idolatries and to punish with Corporal Pain such as of malice be the occasion of the same And Finally to Oversee and cause that the said Bishops and Priests do execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully and especially in those points which by Christ and his Apostles were given and committed unto them and in case they shall be negligent in any part thereof or would not diligently execute the same to cause them to redouble and supply their lack And if they obstinately withstand their Princes kind monition and will not mend their Faults then and in such case to put others in their rooms and places And God hath also commanded the said Bishops and Priests to obey with all humbleness and Reverence both Kings and Princes and Governours and all their Laws not being contrary to the Laws of God whatsoever they be and that not only propter iram but also propter Conscientiam that is to say not only for fear of punishment but also for discharge of Conscience Thus the Power of the Magistrate over all Persons to wit Ecclesiastical and Civil is according to the Ordinance of God and that 't is a Part of the Magistrates Office to Defend the Faith of Christ to maintain the true Doctrine and the Preachers thereof and to Abolish all Abuses c. the which must be done not only by keeping to the Rule of the Gospel but in conjunction therewith by taking a special care that no unnecessary thing be suffered that in its Tendency is destructive of the Peace of the State If the present constitution of the Government of the Church as it is National and of humane Right onely be in any Respects Inconsistent with the Publick Weal of the Kingdom t is necessary that it be alter'd especially when an Alteration in some little things may abundantly contribute unto the Lasting Peace both of Church and State But if the Church Government as Diocesane or National be of Divine Right there can be no Alteration of it and consequently seeing the setting up any of the Kings Officers to Inspect Ecclesiastical Affairs is an Altering the Diocesan Constitution the Prince durst not though encouraged by an Act of Parliament enter on it What is of Divine Right is Sacred and must not be touch'd 't is dangerous to come too near that Mount For which Reason how mischeivous soever the Ecclesiastical-National-Government may in Process of time be unto the Civil the Civil not the Ecclesiastical must be Altered That there may be an Adjusting matters in debate between the Diocesane and the State the State must submit unto the Diocesane For the King according to this Hypothesis hath nothing to do with Church Affairs which are wholly by the word of God confined to Churchmen among whose number the King cannot be justly mention'd neither may the King take any Cognizance of what is done among them nor may they hold their Courts in his but only in their own Name or rather in Jesus Christs A Notion so inconsistent with his Majesties just Prerogative and the Powers of Parliaments that as it doth destroy the Former in like manner it doth so very much limit the Latter as to Alter the Fundamental Constitution of our Government By this time I presume it may appear with some Conviction to the Reader 1. That a Parochial or Congregational Church Government is according to the Church of England Jure Divino 2. That the Diocesane or National Government as such is Jure Humano and for its particular Form must be such in all ages as our Civil Governours Judge most meet as a Means for the Preservation of Parochial Discipline and the great Ends of the Civil Constitution These things being so A Declaring this true Church of England Principle to be still according to the Sentiments of our Governours will Relieve tender Consciences among Dissenters and sufficiently gratifie any moderate Conformist to the Ending all our Divisions without an Embasing his Majesties Prerogative 1. The Establishing a Parochial or Congregational-Church-Discipline by Law is the great thing the Dissenters desire and what may be done consistently with the Antient Constitution of the Government of this
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
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
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
to appear above board and to let us know whether he will set up also for that notion and defend his Defender Mr. Baxter is a man who understood Politicks and stated what he understood but the Doctor was at the present raw and put into his arguing he did not know well what that is the truth on 't and forasmuch as this man hath undertaken to interpose between shame and the Doctor I will tell them both plainly the Doctor may be ashamed to put in a fourth Term into his Argument and this man truly takes the shame on him by bringing in a fifth also That which Mr. Baxter said was this That every proper Political Church must have a Constitutive Head and the Doctor both leaves out the words Proper Political and brings in the term Visible Therefore the Catholick Church says he must have a Constitutive Visible Head The Interposer now to take off this shame from the Doctor hath taken the right course I say for he comes and does worse and that is puts in a fifth term also into the Argument If every Church when he should say every Proper Political Church only if he speaks to Mr. Baxter must have a Visible Subordinate Constitutive Head then must the Catholick Church have such a one But that having no such a one a National Church as well as the Catholick may be without a Constitutive Head This is the Reasoning in the summ I say in the sum for it is no matter for more of his words that puts me and Mr. Baxter as he says at such a loss as is irrecoverable And does he not indeed take off the shame from the Doctor by taking it thus upon himself Suppose another should put a sixth term into the Argument and argue If no Church can be a true Visible Church without a Visible Subordinate Monarchical Constitutive Head then cannot the Catholick Church visible be a true Church without a Visible Subordinate Monarchical Constitutive Head Who could doubt now any longer but Mr. Baxter must yield to a plain Confutation or bring in the Pope presently without remedy But did Mr. Baxter I pray lay down the Proposition from which this Consequence by this means is indeed made unavoidable No you will say this were to wrong Mr. Baxter to put in the term Monarchical and would spoil this mans Goverment by Consent quite I say likewise that this Author wrongs him to put in this term Subordinate and the Doctor by putting in the term Visible Mr. Baxter hath neither of these terms in his Assertion and if you cannot argue from what he hath said that the Pope is Head of the Catholick Church Visible you cnanot argue from him that it hath any Subordinate Head or Visible but a Constitutive Head only whether Visible or Invisible It is nothing else but the Fallacy whereby the Opponent puts in more into the Argument then is granted by the Respondent which I think we called at the University Fallacia plurium interrogationum vel dictionum for whether the diverse things are interrogated or argued the Paralogism is the same that hath made all this pother as this man phrases it which seeing it is on their side I will give over any farther persuit of this Chapter There is one thing only and that is the main thing not to be omitted The Dean in his Determination of this point does hold that Consent is sufficient to the making a National Church understanding by that Consent a Consent to be of it The Deans Defender holds the Church to be a Government by Consent meaning by it the Consent of the Bishops These are two contrary things the one making the Church not Political and the other makes it an Aristocracy and yet intends to justifie the former But neither of them are in the right The Church of England is not a Church by Consent onely without a Head nor a Government by Consent by the Colledge of Bishops but it is a Political Church with a Constitutive Regent part which is the King according to my Papers That the King is the Head of it appears by the Statute that declares him Head of the Church as it is called the Church of England It appears by other Acts that give him the same Supremacy the Pope usurped It appears by the First Fruits and Tenths of all Benefices given him as the Supream Head of the Church It appears by Cromwell who was made Henry the Eigths Vicar General and Vicegerent and sate in the Convocation as Personating the Head of it It appears by this Reason of my Book Where the Rights of Majesty are there must the Headship be placed Legislation and the Last appeal belong to him It is the King gives Authority to the Canons in so much as when a Law cannot pass without a Parliament the Canons becomes valid by the Kings own Ratification And there can be no Appeal in any Ecclesiastical cause from the King Again it appears most unanimously by the Ministers Prayers every Sunday giving him the Title of Supream Head and by the Oaths of Supremacy and Alleigance If the King be not the Head accordingly then must the Clergy generally be both Lyars and Perjured Persons From this truth then which is beyond opposition it follows that a National Church is of Humane appointment and not of Divine right that is indispensible It follows that it belongs not to the Essence of the Church of Christ to be National but that this is a consideration accidental to it It follows that such a Church may receive its Constitution at first and a new form or mould at any time as is most convenient to the State and most conducive to the glory of God in the good of the People It follows that a Reformation of the Government of our Church by the introducing some such new form into it as shall be more conducive to the ends of Holiness and Peace than the present Form does were a most desireable thing and fit to be tendred to the Wisdom of Parliament It follows finally that seeing the model that is hammering by this Author is proposed as strictly of Divine Right which is therefore the most direfull Schismatical Scheme that can be proposed in regard to Dissenters excluding them thereby out of the body of Christ and consequently from salvation besides dangerous to the Supremacy of the Magistrate and unanswerably faulty in many respects so that it cannot be received or indured it is fit that a model more agreeable to the power which is proper to Kings and less exceptionable in regard to the Conscience of the Subject were exhibited in the room of it and if it be such as would make the Prelates onely the Kings Officers to execute under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings as this Author so well expresses it p. 275. so as the Nonconformist and Conformist may share I shall not for the dislike of any one or two men or party who are designing an Antipodes
A REPLY TO THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet BEING A Counter Plot for Vnion between the Protestants in opposition to the Project of others for Conjunction with the Church of Rome By the Authors Of the Modest and Peaceable Inquiry Of the Reflections i.e. the Country Confor Of the Peaceable Designe Then Abner called to Joab and said shall the sword devour for ever Knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end How long shall it be then ere thou bid the people return from following their Brethren LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercers Chappel 1681. To the Right Honourable THE EARL of HALLIFAX May it please your Lordship THE Design of these Papers being for the Glory of the King and the Peace of the Church we cannot think it dishonourable for any person of moderate Inclinations and in a capacity to serve so good an end to favour it Your Lordship therefore being at present at the Helme in the Administration of the greatest Affairs will not as we hope receive with any Disdaine this our humble Dedication Not that we concerne your Lordship in our little Contests as the Book is Controversal for we know Themistocles cannot fiddle but he can govern a State but because the Thing Designed is so momentous and concerns Statesmen such as your Lordship is We do intend no further avocation of your Honour from your other Imployment than to look over onely the Preface and the last Half Sheet of the Book wherein you will find a Foundation laid and Materials made ready There is wanting onely the Perfecting skill of some Master builder and then Hands to work We are sensible of the Meanness of such an Offering to so great and judicious a Person and being conscious that the blame which we deserve upon that account is too much for One there are Two of us to bear it Your Lordships humble Servants John Humfrey Stephen Lob. THE PREFACE IT hath pleased God that the hearts of most men at this present juncture or at least their faces are set upon Union of the Protestants and it is absolutely necessary that somewhat be done in order to a firm and lasting one among us Upon this point on all hands we seem to be agreed We must Unite or we must be undone but as for the means of obtaining this end the differences are many Some among the Conformists seem to propose an Execution of the Poenal Laws as a sure way of Uniting us Others as this Author of Dean Stillingfleets Defence c. insist on a Submission to the Bishops of the Universal Church to be the onely foundation of Unity in the Church The Dissenters differ from such as are of these Opinions and in the general assert That if ever an Union be obtained it must be by an Insisting onely on a Few Certain Necessary things as terms of Communion That the utmost severities of the Magistrate will rather fill the minds of the Sufferers with Prejudices against the Dictates of those men whose most powerful Argument is the Sword than Inlighten their Judgments or Dispose their Souls to any sincere Compliances and that the Notion of our Author to wit the Defender of the Dean of Pauls is Schismatical Upon this account it is not a little time is spent in a Representing the several Notions there are about the methods of Uniting us to be Ineffectual the one Party misliking the Proposals made by the Other But surely this is not the way to heal our breaches or put an end to the Warme and Indecent Contests that have been among us For which Reason though my principal aime is for Union yet will not I presume on any thing proposed by us I will onely acquaint the Reader with the Nature of the Ancient Constitution of our Government in Relation to Ecclesiastical Affairs and thereby shew what will most effectually conduce to Unite us in a way the least novel and most consistent with our Civil Establishment The which I can no sooner compass but I shall be capacitated to demonstrate to the World That the Principles of the Dissenter are very much adapted for concord not onely among themselves but with the moderate Episcoparians and very advantagious to the State in which they live The Ancient Constitution of our Government about Matters Ecclesiastical is very excellently describ'd in the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian man composed by several Bishops and other great Doctors and approved by Authority in the days of Henry the 8th In this Judicious Tractate 't is manifest 1. That Church Government is Jure Divino 2. That to the Constituting such a Church Government those Church Officers onely are necessary who are mention'd in the New Testament 3. That in the New Testament there is mention made of no other Church Officers but Priests and Deacons That no other Government is of Divine Right but what is under the Conduct of Bishops or Priests i. e. Elders is evident in that the New Testament mentioneth no other Governours as Ecclesiastical but the Bishops or Elders whence that Government whose Constitution is such as that it becomes a Government on no other account than that the Governours are of humane make that Government cannot formally considered be of Divine Right 't is but Humane though circa Sacra 4. That Bishops or Priests the sole Governours of the Church are of one and the same Order their Power the same their work the same which is to preach the Word Administer Sacraments and Exercise Discipline All this I collect from what is asserted in the aforesaid Necessary Erudition about the Sacrament of Orders where 't is said That Bishops or Priests and Deacons are the onely Orders mention'd in the New Testament And of these two ORDERS onely that is to say Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention That all others were afterward added by the Church That the Duty and Office of the Bishop Priest or Elder consisteth in true Preaching and Teaching the word of God unto the People in Dispensing and Ministring the Sacraments of Christ in Losing and Assoiling from sin such persons as be sorry and truly Penitent for the same and EXCOMMUNICATING such as BE GUILTY IN MANIFEST CRIMES and WILL NOT BE REFORMED OTHERWISE and finally in Praying for the Whole Church of Christ and specially for the flock committed unto ' em Thus the Order of a Bishop or Priest is one and the same whose Office is not onely to Preach and Administer Sacraments but moreover to exercise Discipline namely in Losing and Assoiling from sin such persons as be sorry and truly Penitent and in Excommunicating the Obstinately Vitious As much as if it had been said that Church Government and the Office of a Bishop or Elder is of Divine Right The Office of the Deacons in the Primitive Church was partly in Ministring Meat and Drink and other Necessaries to the poor people found of the Church partly also
Realm to the fixing the desired Firm and lasting Union among all sorts of sound Protestants These Assemblies once established as so many Compleat Particular Churches whose Pastors have full Power for the Administring all Ordinances and the exercising Discipline over those who do freely and of choice submit thereunto may notwithstanding lesser Differences be considered as United unto one another in that they Profess the same Faith Preach the same Word and Administer the same Sacraments For the Proof hereof consult the Necessary Erudition where t is said That the Unity of the Holy Church of Christ is not divided by Distance of Place nor by Diversity of Traditions and Ceremonies diversesly observed in divers Churches for good Order of the same And though in Traditions Opinions and Policies there was some Diversity among them i.e. the Churches of Corinth of Ephese c. likewise as the Church of England Spain Italy Pole be not separate from the Unity but be one Church in God notwithstanding that among them there is great distance of Place Diversity of Traditions not in all things Unity of Opinions Alteration in Rites Ceremonies and Ordinances or Estimation of the same such Diversity in Opinions and other outward Manners and Customes of Policy doth not dissolve and break the Unity which is in One God One Faith One Doctrine of Christ and his Sacraments preserv'd and kept in these several Churches without any Superiority or Preheminence that one Church by Gods Law may or ought to Challenge over another Thus Particular Parochial or Congregational Churches may be United in One God One Faith One Doctrine of Christ and his Sacraments even where there is some difference between them in lesser matters What though in one Parish there is a Liturgy in another a Directory shall this hinder Union Don't even the Papists themselves acknowledge that the Church of England was very closely United even among themselves notwithstanding the several different Offices there were in use among us in the times of Popery One Office after the use of Sarum another after the use of York of Bangor c. and yet all United Moreover what more common than to observe many little differences in Civil Corporations even where they are all United in one head A consideration sufficient to evince the Union of Parochial Churches to be Possible notwithstanding some Remaining Differences in Customs c. In these Kingdoms there are a multitude of Particular Corporations and little Policies whose Customs and modes of Government within themselves are very Different The particular Laws by which they are govern'd as a Particular Body Corporate are of as many different kinds as there are Cities Towns or Parishes but yet All United in that they swear Alleigance to his Majesty and submit themselves to the General Laws of the Land The different Customs of different places do not in the least break the Union of the Nation And why may it not be so in the Church What Reason can there be given why the Union of many a Civil Society or Association may be notwithstanding the different Customes are among them but the Union of many Particular-Parochial-Churches cannot be unless they all agree in every little thing Methinks it is as Reasonable to plead for a destroying the Particular Customes and Charters of Burroughs Corporations and Cities as the only way to Union in the Civil Government as 't is to assert That nothing but an Uniformity among every Parochial or Congregational Church can Unite us in the Ecclesiastical What though there are some differences among Parochial Churches as to their Customes and modes of Worship so long as they agree in One Faith One Lord One Baptism So long as they all Profess the same Faith Preach the same Word Administer the same Sacraments and submit unto the same Civil Government So long as they all Swear Allegiance to to their Prince and Subscribe any Test to assure the World they are sound Protestants the which being so what hinders a firm and lasting Union Certainly This is enough to shew that their Union if no more is as much as that between One City and another One Corporation and another and that their differences are no greater if so great than those between one City and another The which being so An Altering the Present Laws about Conformity and an Establishing such New ones as shall be Judged necessary by our Governours for the defence and safety of a Parochial or Congregational Church-Discipline as well as for the Regulating his Majesties Officers Circa Sacra will Unite us and put an end to that Horrid sin of Schism that hath these many years abounded in the midst of us Let the Dissenters be permitted to Embrace the Laws and Customes of their Fore-fathers in the Apostles days about Church-Discipline and the Mode of Worship and they are Relieved the which may be done without any Injury to the Conscience of any sound Protestant of the Episcopal Perswasion I say 2. This cannot but satisfie any moderate Episcoparian who may if he please firmly abide by those Ceremonies he now doth He may still Read the same Prayers among such as are of his own Opinion He may wear the same Vestments and address himself to his Majesties Officer the Lord Bishop as unto his Ordinary for Councel and Advice And if his Ordinary or Diocesan be an Elder for that is left to the Supream Magistrate to appoint he may look on him though in truth as such he being only the Kings Officer Circa Sacra as a Bishop who is of an Order Superiour to that of a Presbyter and so exercise Disciplene as he Receives Encouragement from him If there be any entring on the Ministry who think a Diocesane Episcopacy to be Jure Divino and is called unto a Parish or Congregation of the same Judgment This Candidate may if the Kings Officer be an Elder and of the same mind with him apply himself unto him as unto his Diocesane and receive Orders from him and do all things as now unless our Governours Judge meet to make any Alteration as to the use of some Ceremonies Only let none be by Law compelled to do so Let those that are so weak as to think a Diocesane Episcopacy to be of Divine Right enjoy the Liberty of their Consciences the which being attended but with the vouchsafing the like Liberty unto others I know not why they may not be satisfied We are not for the Pulling down Lord Bishops nor for an Alienating Church Lands If it seem good to our Governours to continue them we only desire that the Nature of their Office be declared to be no other than what it was Antiently in this Kingdom which is That they are meerly the Kings Creatures That all they do must be in the Kings Name and by vertue of a Commission receiv'd from him That as such they are only the Kings Magistrates that act Circa Sacra That their work is only to see that the Bishops or Presbyters
within their allotted Precincts discharge their Duty not only in leading Godly Lives but in Preaching the word administring the Sacraments and exercising Discipline according to the Rule of the Gospel We are far from pulling down such Bishops for we rather wish that whereas there is now one there might be five nor are we for the alienating Church Land any more than we are for the taking from his Majesties other Civil Officers those Pensions are allowed them for their great services A thing we esteem as necessary and highly expedient as what doth not only conduce very much to the Encouragement of all sorts of Learning the equal Administration of Justice but as what advanceth the Honour and Grandeur of the State But 3. This doth no way Embase his Majesties Prerogative in matters Ecclesiastical It doth rather make it the more Grand and August His Majesty is hereby acknowledged to be the Supream Head of the Church All Officers Circa Sacra depend as much on his Majesties Pleasure for their Places as any other Civil Officers 'T is in the Kings Name they must act by vertue of a Commission received from him whereby the King is Recognized as the sole Governour of the Kingdom and hath no Competitors with him nor is he in danger of Forreign Usurpations To summe up all Let all such Particular Congregational or Parochial Churches that are of Divine Institution according to the sense of the Old and most true Church of England be by Act of Patliament declar'd to be so and taken under the Protection of the Laws and the Dissenters are satisfied The which as hath been prov'd may be done without any wrong to the consciences of the Conformist This is the utmost I shall propose leaving it to the Wisdom of the Nation to Regulate and Order the Constitution so far as it is National and of Humane Make as they Judge most Expedient The States-men know best how to alter correct or amend any thing in the present Frame for which reason Modesty doth best become Divines whonever succeed in any undertakements beyond their Sphere If no encroachments be made on what is of Divine Institution no wrong can be done us I desire the Dean and his Substitute to consider this Proposal which is but a Revival of what was on our first leaving Rome strenuously asserted as the Onely way to break all the Designs of the Papists about Church Discipline From the corruptions of which did proceed all the Popes Tyranous Usurpations Certainly the Establishing this Notion cannot but be of extraordinary use as it Erects a Partition Wall between the Reformation and the Corruptions of the Roman Church as it is adjusted for the silencing all Differences among our selves the healing our Breaches and the fixing a firm and lasting Union among all sound Protestants whether Episcopal Presbyterian Congregational or meer Anabaptist I humbly apprehend this to be enough to evince That the Dissenters are not such Enemies to Union as some have Asserted nor are they for the destroying a National Church Government They are onely against Unaccountable Innovations even such as tend to the Ruine of the Old Protestant National Church which as such is but of Humane Institution and in all ages must be of such a Peculiar Form as is best suited to those great Ends viz. Gods Glory in the Flourishing of particular Parochial or Congregational Churches and the Peace of the State The Dissenters do know that as One Particular Church is not to depend on another as to be Accountable thereunto when at any time she may abuse her Power yet All are accountable unto the Magistrate of that Land in which they Live and that such is the state of things with us that what person soever is griev'd either by a Presbyter or Bishop or by any Inferiour Officer Circa Sacra he may make his Appeal to the Supream Magistrate with whom all Appeals on Earth are finally Lodg'd Whatever the Deans Substitute may assert 't is most undoubtedly true that no Appeal can be justly made from our King unto the Pope or any Colledge of Catholick Bishops whatsoever That herein as our Author dissents from the Church of England we do heartily agree with her That the sound Protestant Party among the Sons of the Church of England do accord with the Dissenters about this great Point is not only evident from what a Conformist hath written in the following Treatise but from what is asserted by the Judicious Dr. Burnet in the History of the Reformation The which I do the more chearfully insist on that the world may see How the Dissenters have been misrepresented and How clear they are from any Seditious or Factious Principles concerning Church Discipline In Dr. Burnets Preface to the History of the Reformation p. 1. for which the whole Kingdom have given the Dr. thanks 't is asserted That in Henry the 8ths time 't was an Establish'd Principle That every National Church is a compleat Body within it self so that the Church of England with the Authority and Concurrence of their Head and King might examine or Reform all Errors or Corruptions whether in Doctrine or Worship Moreover in the Preamble of that Act by which this Principle was fix'd 't is declared That the Crown of England was Imperial and that the Nation was a Compleat Body within it self with a full Power to give Justice in all Cases Spiritual as well as Temporal And that in the Spiritualty as there had been at all times so there were then men of that Sufficiency and Integrity that they might Declare and Determine all Doubts within the Kingdom And that several Kings as Ed. 1. Edw. 3. Ric. 2. and Hen. 4. had by several Laws Preserv'd the Liberties of the Realm both Spiritual and Temporal from the Annoyance of the See of Rome and other Forreign Potentates Hist Ref. p. 1. p. 127. Furthermore the same Judicious Author by an Extract out of the Necessary Erudition and out of the Kings Book de Differentia Regiae Ecclesiasticae Potestatis out of Gardiners de vera Obedientia and Bonners Prefix'd Epistle and out of a Letter written by Stokesly Bishop of London and Tonstall Bishop of Duresm hath made it evident that the Church in Henry 8. did not only assert the Kings Supremacy but as a Truth in Conjunction therewith held That in the Primitive Church the Bishops in their Councels made Rules for Ordering their Diocesses which they only called CANONS or RULES nor had they any Compulsive Authority but what was deriv'd from the Civil Sanction A sufficient evincement that they did not believe General Councils to be by Jesus Christ made the Regent part of the Catholick Church neither did they believe their Determinations or Decrees to lay any Obligation on the Conscience unless Sanction'd by the Magistrates command To this Dr. Burnet speaks excellently well in his Preface to the Second Part of the Hist Refor The Jurisdiction of Synods or Councils is founded either on the Rules
thanks for The Doctor 's Substitute as hereafter I will from his own words prove doth sufficiently declare what his party would be at which is a point I 'm sure that will meet with opposition from such as are true Sons of the Church whereby the Controversie if closely followed must cease to be between Conformist and Noncormist it must be between Conformist and Conformist It looks as if there were among our Church-men some resolv'd to revive Laud's Design as 't is well known there are many others among them who highly value the Principles and Temper of that great Protestant Prelate Abbot Laud's Predecessor in the See of Canterbury between whom the Scussle must at last end That this may with the greater Conviction be evinc'd I will in this Reply to the Defence of the Dean c. confine my self to the Author 's own words as compared with what is more than suggested in the Writings of Bishop Bramhall and some other Sons of the Church of England the which with due clearness I shall not be able to compass if I follow our Author in his disorderly way of Writing For which reason I must keep to the Method I took in the Modest and Peaceable Enquiry and bring what calls for my observation into its proper place The whole then he hath offered in Answer to the Enquiry may be reduced to these Heads 1. His Reflections on the Title of the Enquiry 2. His Censure of the Author's Design 3. The Defence of the Dean I 'll begin with the First The Author reflects on the Title as if the Discourse notwithstanding the specious pretences of the Title had not been as Modest nor as Peaceable as suggested in doing which he spends one whole Chapter it may be not fâ—nding matter enough in the Discourse it self to enlarge so far as to write any thing that might deserve the name of an Answer or countenance the Title given his Great Book I could very easily therefore as one unconcern'd pass by this first Chapter if there had not been more in it than the representing me as a person who deserve not the Character of being either Modest or Peaceable But the Overt acts of Immodesty which are insisted on by this Author being such as cannot but be of an ill Tendency I must consider ' em The first instance of Immodesty is thus express'd He begins his Epistle to the Dean with observing how industrious the Papists have been ever since the Reformation to ruine England and the Churches of Christ in it which he sufficiently proves from their Rebellions and Insurrections in King Edward's days the Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeths the Gun-Powder Treason in King James's c. and the late Hellish Conspiracy which was designed for the utter Extirpation of the Protestant Religion and the universal Destruction of all the Professors thereof whether Episcopal or Dissenter But this modest man saies our Author takes no notice That King and Kingdom Church and State have been once ruined already by such Modest Dissenters and may be in a fair way for it again if we suffer our selves to be Charmed and Lulled asleep by such modest Inquirers We are aware Sir what a Popish Zeal would do and what a Factious Zeal has done and think our selves concern'd as much as we can to countermine the Designs of both But however I confess it was very modestly done to pass over this that while men are zealous against Popery they may fear no danger from any other quarter Rep. Whether the mentioning the Rebellions and Insurrections of the Papists in King Edw. the 6th days the Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeths the Gunpowder-Treason in King James's the Hellish Plot of late discovered be an extraordinary act of Immodesty or Unpeaceableness let any temperate man among the Church of England judge that please Is it an Act of Immodesty to relate such notorious Truths or of Unpeaceableness to mention the Dangers we are in on the account of Popish bloody Plots This it may be is not the Crime but what follows which is This modest man saith our Author takes no notice That King and Kingdom Church and State have been once ruin'd already by such modest Dissenters and may be in a fair way for it again if we suffer our selves to be Charm'd and Lull'd asleep by such Modest Inquirers Rep. Hereby we know what the Authour would be at 't is as if he had said This Modest Enquirer is very immodest and quarrelsome for not imitating the Jesuitical Clubs who are contrary to the Act of Oblivion raking in old sores calling us to the remembrance of 41. to make us look back on the actings of Archb. Laud and his Faction the steps they made towards Rome the bones of contention they cast in between a Protestant Prince and a Church of England Parliament the Civil War begun by the Episcâ—pal who were Chief in each Army 'T was this the Enquirer indeed past over in silence wishing with his very Soul that the Episcopal Clergy had been either so wise or honest as to have done their utmost to have prevented those Ruins which their own Divisions brought on these Nations For 't is well known to many hundreds now alive who they were that had an Influence on those Unnatural Broils and Intestine Quarrels and whoever will consult Mr. Baxter against Hinekley or rather Mr. Rushworth and Dr. Heylin will see That the Sons of the Church of England more on both sides the active persons concern'd in the very beginning of those Troubles But those things the Inquirer was loath to mention it being as Unnecessary as Unsuitable to his Peaceable Design However seeing our Author will not be satisfied unless some notice be taken of those that once already Ruin'd King and Kingdom c. I will out of Dr. Heylin's Life of Laud a good Record at least in the sense of the Dean's Defender shew who they were that did it In a perusal of which 't will appear That 't was the Papists who had a sole hand in the Plot no Protestant I verily believe ever design'd what was the unhappy product of the Hellish Conspiracies of the bloody Papist This hath been long ago discover'd by Dr. Du Moulm and since by Dr. Oates and here most exactly related by Dr. Heylin a Son of the Church in these words viz. A Confederacy was formed amongst them i. e. the Papists consisting of some of the most subtle heads in the whole fesuitical Party by whom it was concluded to foment the Broils began in Scotland and to heighten the Combustions there that the King being drawn into a War might give them the opportunity to effect their Enterprize for sending Him and the Archbishop to the other World Which being by one of the party on Compunction of Conscience made known to Andreas ab Habernsfield who had been Chaplain as some said to the Queen of Bohemia they both together gave intimation of it to Sir William Boswell his Majesties Resident at
have been for his purpose and rectification In his Defence of the Church of England Tom. 2. Disp 2. c. 2. he saith The Communion of the Christian Catholick Church is partly internal partly external Among many other things in discoursing of internal communion 't is added That it is to judg charitably one of another To exclude none from the Catholick Communion and hope of salvation either Eastern or Western or Southern or Northern Christians which profess the ancient Faith of the Apostles and primitive Fathers established in the first General Councils and comprehended in the Apostolick Nicene and Athanasian Creeds This granted by our Author as describ'd by Bramhall seeing the Faith contain'd in these Creeds is professed by the Dissenters 't is queried Whether or no this Gentleman doth not fall short in this respect of Catholick internal communion by excluding the Dissenters from the Catholick communion and hope of salvation Moreover as to external communion says Bramhall There are degrees of exclusion every one that is excluded is not cut off from the Catholick Church for external communion may sometimes be suspended more or less by the just censures of the Church clave non errante as in the primitive times some were excluded a caetu participantium only from the use of the Sacraments others a caetu procumbentium from Sacraments and Prayers also and others a caetu Audientium from Sacraments Prayers and Sermons and others a caetu Filâ—lium from the society of Christians yea and as it may be suspended it may be waved or withdrawn by particular Churches or persons from their Neighbour Churches or Christians in their Innovations or Errors Nor is there so strict and perpetual an adherence required to a particular Church as to the universal Church This surely is enough to intimate how sudden our Authors thoughts were for had he but deliberated on those things as this great Bishop did he would not assert so confidently That the separating from a particular Church that is in the Universal is a separating from the Universal Leaving therefore our Author to receive further light from this Bishop concerning his own notion I 'le make my address to the Reader beseeching him to apply himself to our Protestant Divines for an answer to what is said against the dependency of the Church of England on Foreign Churches such as Rome c. And as to what he saith concerning Schism from the Universal Church which p. 256. saith he is when any shall separate from that part of the Catholick Church where they dwell and set up any distinct Churches meerly for some greater degree of purity This is so like what the Author of Charity maintain'd by Catholicks insisted on that the Memorandums given by the famous Mr. Chillingworth will be sufficient to enab'e an ordinary capacity to answer the whole he hath asserted about Schism 1. That not every separation but a causless separation from the external communion of any Church is the sin of Schism 2. That imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known errors and practising known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation and that this is the cause which Protestants alledg to justifie their separation from the Church of Rome To which I must add That this is the cause which Dissenters alledg to justifie their separation from the Church of England it being uncontroulably true That the professing known errors and the practising known corruptions is imposed on Dissenters on pain of Excommunication as hath been proved in Mr. Baxter's first Plea for Peace never answered but only nibled at by some inconsiderate Scriblers The Dissenters are convinc'd in conscience that if they continued in your communion they should sin against God What can be offered against this I know not unless you 'l say unto us thus viz. If this your pretence of conscience may serve what Schismatick in the Church what popular seditious brain in a Kingdom may not alledg the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from Schism or Sedition No man wishes them to do any thing against their conscience but we say that they may and ought to rectifie and depose such a conscience which is easie for them to do This is what hath been frequently urg'd by the Clergy yea by the Dean of Pauls But seeing these words are taken out of the mouth of a Papist the answer shall be no other than what I find in the mouth of a son of the Church the famous Chillingworth who asserts That whoever is convinced in conscience that the Church of Rome errs cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of her errors and the reason hereof is manifest because otherwise he must profess what he believes not and practice what he approves not which is no more than your self in thesi have divers times affirmed For in one place you say 't is unlawful to speak any the least untruth Now he that professes your Religion and believes it not what else doth he but live in a perpetual lye Again in another you have called them that profess one thing and believe another a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And therefore in inveighing against Protestants for forsaking the profession of those Errors the belief whereof they had already forsaken what do you but rail at them for not being a damned crew of Sycophants The same may be said as to the Dissenters who are in conscience convinced that they must profess to believe what really they do not should they conform But as to what the wicked may pretend as to conscience take the Author's answer 'T is said that a pretence of conscience will not serve to justifie separation from being Schismatical which is true but little to the purpose saith Mr. Chil. seeing it was but an erroneous persuasion much less an hypocritical pretence but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience And therefore though seditious men in the Church and State may pretend conscience for a cloak of their Rebellion yet this I hope hinders not but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience rather than the unjust command of his Tyrannous Superiors Otherwise with what colour can you defend either your own refusing the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy I may add Otherwise with what colour can the Dean and his Substitute defend their so firmly adhering to the present Constitution But to return to the third Memorandum 3. That to leave the Church and to leave the external communion of the Church at least as Dr. Potter understands the words and I think I may safely add as every Protestant but a Grotian understands is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to have those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as Faith and Obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick Worship of God This little Armour
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
concerning the constitutive Regent part of a National church whose existence must be acknowledged if a National church as such be a Governed church or a Body Politick but yet this cannot be found out For which reason they distinguish between a Governed Society and a Body Politick between a Governing and a Regent part and assert That the National church is a Govern'd Society but not a Body Politick that it hath a Governing but not a Regent part the like of an Universal church This is the true state of our Author's Judgment wherein we have an admirable account of the Gentleman 's acute distinguishing the excellency of which I 'll leave to the entertainment of his Admirers and if he please consider the Notion according to his own stating it that is to gratifie him I won't insist on the word Policy nor Regent nor constitutive Regent part but only on government Governours and Governed and so our Enquiry being about the Government of the Universal Church we must consider what is necessary thereunto and see whether what our Author asserts be agreeable unto such a constitution for if not so 't is far from Truth To consider what it is that is necessary to the constitution of any Governed Body that is what is so necessary that the absence thereof is destructive to the Constitution To this I Answer That a Governing and a Governed part is so necessary unto Goverement that where either one of these be absent there can be no Government A Governed Body cannot be without a Governing part neither can this be without a part Governed Government doth necessarily infer both these remove either one the Government is destroyed Government is a Relation resulting from that mutual respect the Governing and Governed parts have to each other whence as Sublato uno Relatorum tollitur alterum and where there is nor Subject nor Term i. e. nor Relate nor Correlate there can be no Relation Remove the Governing part from the Universal or National Church and the Government ceases Paternity may be where there is no Father assoon as Government without a Governing part Whence I infer That where there is a Fixed Government there must be a fixed Governing part This premised Let us next enquire whether or no what our Author asserts be suitable to this undoubted Rule Doth he shew us such a Governing part The Government is a constant fixed Government but where is the constant fixed Governing part 'T is a General Council saith he i. e. the universal Bishops in their Colledge assembled But is this a fixed Governing part Is it not evident to an ordinary capacity that the assembling such a Council of all the Bishops in the World is a difficulty insuperable and that without such an Assembly 't is impossible they should by joynt consent govern the Universal Church The astembling of the Catholick Bishops is as easie as the gathering together their consent per literas format as and much more conducive to the desired End because when assembled they can debate the matters before 'em and with the greater judgment give their determinations But 't is well known that had such an Assembly been possible yet the Church of God for the first 300 years had no such Assembly excepting that in the Apostles days i. e. it had no such Governing part which is as if it had been said There was no Government in the Universal Church the first 300 years To gratifie our Author Let us suppose that the Universal Church is as such a Governed Society and that it hath its Governours But though this be so yet it must be still acknowedged that a Governour cannot be without Power to Govern I would therefore beseech my Author to shew me What is that Power with which this Colledge of Bishops are invested Is it Legislative only or also Executive Whether the one or the other is it in the Colledge Subjectively and Formally or only in 'em as in fine seu regulante or supplente or How 'T would be necessary that our Author consult the Parisian Doctors if he will speak to the purpose when he espouses their Notion Let our Author assert as it pleaseth him at an adventure it matters not for his Notion is such as necessarily directs us to conclude what he must if he will be consistent with himself assert and that is this All Church-Government is Universal and as such it must be exercised no one being a Governour in the Church but he that is a Catholick Officer That the due course of exercising this Power is when it flows originally from the Head unto all its Members That it flows from the Invisible or rather unseen Head in Heaven immediately unto the visible Head on Earth is granted by all those who assert an Universal Church-Government though there is a Dispute among the Papists whether this Head be the Council or the Pope As it flows immediately from Christ to the visible Head so it proceeds from this visible Head unto the Patriarchs from thence to the Metropolitans from thence to the Diocesans For which Reason if any are injur'd by their Diocesan they may Appeal to their Metropolitan from thence to their Patriarch from thence to the Pope or Council This our Author must hold That there may be no wrong done the Little Ones of Christ if any be grieved by One he may Appeal unto an Higher till he comes unto the Highest Power on Earth from whence if he find not relief he must acquiesce leaving the whole to him who is in Heaven But if there be no constant visible Head actually existing where shall the grieved lodge his last Appeal The Dean's Substitute supposes an equality of Power in Patriarchs Metropolitans and Diocesans whence if his Diocesan doth abuse his Power he is not accountable to any Metropolitan nor Patriarch but only unto the Catholick Colledge The which being so 't will follow That Executive Power must be lodg'd in some Supreme Head Subjectively who can receive Appeals I say Subjectively or Formally and not only Virtually for 't is an Executive Power only that can relieve in this case which cannot Actually be where 't is only Virtually For which Reason 't is evident that according to our Author there must be a fixed Governing part invested with an Executive Power from whom relief is to be expected if at any time the Diocesan doth abuse his Power which Governing part must be either a Colledge of Bishops or one single Person And if the obtaining the former be as indeed 't is impossible the acknowledging the latter is necessary Thus we see how fairly this Gentleman at length leads us to Rome or some other Pope as the only necessary way of governing the Church In doing which he doth but carry on the Project of which Sir Francis Winnington takes notice at the Trial of the Lord Stafford when he assured the Lords That as an encouragement to the POPISH PLOTTERS there did appear in some men too easie
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
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
that one Bishop should have so many Cities underneath him Unto whom I answered That I could no farther go than to St. Paul's text which set in every City a Bishop Then asked he me If I thought it now unright seeing the Ordinance of the Church that one Bishop should have so many Cities I answered That I knew none Ordinance of the Church as concerning this thing but St. Paul's saying only Nevertheless I did see a contrary custom and practise in the world but I know not the Original thereof Then said he That in the Apostles time there were divers Cities some seven miles some six miles long and over them was there set but one Bishop and of their Suburbs also so likewise now a Bishop hath also but One City to his Cathedral Church and the Countrey about it as Suburbs unto it Methought this was far-fetcht but I durst not deny it because it was so great Authority and of so holy a Father and of so great a Divine But this I dare say that his Holiness could never prove it by Scripture nor yet by any Authority of Doctors nor yet by any practise of the Apostles and yet it must be true because a Pillar of the Church hath spoken it But let us see what the Doctors say to mine Article Athanasius doth declare this Text of the Apostle I have left thee behind c. He would not commit unto one Bishop a whole Ylde but he did injoyn that every City should have his proper Pastor supposing that by this means they should more diligently oversee the people and also that the labour should be more easie to bear c. Also Chrysostome on that same Text He would not that a whole Countrey should be permitted unto one man but he enjoined to every man his Cure by that means he knew that his labour should be more easie and the subjects should be with more diligence govern'd if the Teachers were not distract with the governing of many Churches but had cure and charge of one Church only c. Methinks these be plain words and able to move a man to speak as much as I did But grant that you may have all these Cities yet can you make it none Heresie For my Lord Cardinal granted that it was but against him and against you which be no Gods But I poor man must be an Heretick there is no remedy You will have it so and who is able to say nay Not all Scripture nor yet God himself By this time the Reader cannot but be well satisfied that the great thing aim'd at by the first great Lights England had in Henry the 8ths days as a most effectual way to carry on a Reformation was the reducing the Popish Hierarchy to an Apostolical Presbytery The Presbyterian Discipline that is The Government of Gospel-Churches by Presbyters and Deacons being of Divine Institution is most admirably suited to the designed End of promoting the Glory of God the Power of Religion c. A Discipline the truth of which hath been sealed by the blood of blessed Protestant Martyrs a thing in which our Episcoparians cannot make theâ—r boast Moreover 't is manifest that this was not only the apprehension of Tindall Barnes and Lambert but that all the Clergy in Henry the 8ths time denied a Diocesan Episcopacy to be of Divine Institution asserting that in the New Testament there is no mention made but of Deacons or Ministers and Priests or Bishops This is in a Paper sign'd by Cromwell and many others Yea and in the necessary Erudition of a Christian man as is acknowledged by the Judicious Dr. Burnet who in his Addenda to the first part of the Reformation doth say That both in this Writing and in the necessary Erudition of a Christian man Bishops and Priests are spoken of as one and the same Office Though I must confess that the Dr. doth differ from those Divines and although he gives us not satisfaction in his Reply yet he speaks more ingenuously and more to the purpose than either this Gentleman or Dr. Stillingfleet himself 4. The old Nonconformists in Queen Elizabeths days agreeing with those worthy Martyrs Tyndall Lambert and Barnes concerning the most effectual way of carrying on the Reformation applied themselves seriously to the Work The Viciousness of some of the Clergy in Queen Elizabeths days was as grievous unto the Nonconformist as unto those glorious Martyrs a Reformation in Manners and in order thereunto in Church-Discipline was what they aim'd at 'T is very evident That a further Reformation than was carried on by Queen Elezabeth was very desirable for in some respects she carried it not so far as King Edward himself had done ' For Queen Elizabeth as Dr. Burnet most admirably expresseth it though she had been bred up from her Infancy with a Hatred to the Papacy and a Love to the Reformation yet as her first Impressions in her Fathers Reign were in favour of such old Rites as he had still retained so in her nature she loved State and some Magnificence in Religion as well as in every thing else She thought that in her Brothers Reign they had stript it too much of external Ornaments and had made their Doctrine too narrow in some Points Therefore she intended to have some things explain'd in more general Terms that so all Parties might be comprehended by them She inclin'd to keep up Images in Churches and to have the manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament left in some general words that those who believe a Corporal Presence might not be driven away from the Church by too nice an explanation of it History of Reform part 2. l. 3. As to this last Particular the Rubrick that explain'd the Reason for the kneeling at the Sacrament That thereby no Adoration is intended to any corporal presence of Christs flesh and blood because that is only in Heaven which had been in King Edwards Liturgy is left out and kneeling at the Sacrament to many a Protestant much more offensive than formerly The great Propension in Queen Elizabeth's days to gain over the Popish party to her Communion by those Alterations made in the Liturgy in favour of the Papist the ordering the Sacramental Bread to be made round in the fashion of the Wafers used in the time of Queen Mary the requiring the Table to be placed where the Altar stood c. was attended with the Conformity of many who were cordially affected to the Interest of the Church of Rome at which time there was not a sufficient number of learned men to supply the Cures which filled the Church as Heylin saith with an Ignorant and Illiterate Clergy whose learning went no further than the Liturgy or Book of Homilies though otherwise conformable unto the Rules of the Church The Old Nonconformists still desiring a further Reformation than was carried on in King Edwards days but â—â—â—â—ing rather a turning toward Rome could not but be greatly grieved They in their places
wait a while but at length humbly desire a Parochial Discipline instead of which they fall under the lash of new Impositions unto which they could not Conscienciously conform hence many Learned Judâ—â—â—us Godly and Faithful Ministers are cast out even at such a time when the Church had but a company of Illiterate Fellows to officiate in Publick From whence proceedeth the First Sâ—paratiâ—n as appears from what the old Smith said in his Answer to the Bishop of London's charge where you will find that although they separated from the Church because their faithful Ministers were turn'd out yet they even then made it manifest That they left not the Liturgy because it contain'd Forms of Prayer for they made use of a Form at their Separate Meeting Take Smith's words in a part of the Register Indeed as you said even now for Preaching and ministring the Sacraments so long as we might have the Word freely Preached and the Sacraments administred without the preferring of Idolatrous gear about it we never assembled together in Houses But when it came to this point that all our Preachers were displaced by your Law that would not subscribe to your Apparel and your Law so that we could not hear none of them in any Church by the space of seven or eight weeks except Father Coverdale of whom we have a good opinion and yet God knows the man was so fearful that he durst not be known unto us where he Preached though we sought it at his house And then were we troubled and commanded to your Courts from day to day for not coming to your parish-Parish-Churches Then we bethought us what were best to do and we remembred that there was a Congregation of us in this City in Queen Marys days and a Congreagation at Geneva which used a Book and Order of Preaching Ministring of the Sacraments and Discipline most agreeable to the Word of God which Book is allowed by that Godly and Well-learned man Mr. Calvin and the Preachers there which Book and Order we now hold And if you can reprove this Book or any thing that we hold by the Word of God we will yield to you and do open Penance at Paul's Cross if not we will stand to it by the Grace of God Thus no Parochial Discipline being admitted but those who desir'd it being Ejected even at such a time when those who remain'd in Publick for the most part were Illiterate and Vicious the Separation begun The Ejection of the Godly Now Conformists the Sensuality of the remaining Clergy was a great Cause of the first Separation and not without great Reason For it being as essential to every true Gospel-Minister that he Govern the Church of which he is a Pastor as that he teaches and instructs it the taking from 'em so essential a part of their Office which by woful experience has been of a very ill tendency could not but occasion the Old Nonconformists to manifest their dislike to such proceedings and refuse the giving in an Assent and Consent thereunto for which Refusal they being Ejected the multitude of such as remain'd being Illiterate yea and Vicious in their Conversations the more sober People withdrew from the Publick and run after the Ejected The Scandals of the Clergy having had no inconsiderable influence on the Separation For which consult the Learned Dr. Burnet who saith In the Sponsions made by the Priests they bind themselves to teach the People committed to their charge to banish away all erroneous Doctrines and to use both publick and private Monitions and Exhortations as well to the sick as to the whole within their Cures as need shall require and as occasion shall be given Such as remember that they have plighted their Faith for this to God will feel the Pastoral Charge to be a load indeed and so be far enough from relinquishing it or hiring it out to a loose or ignorant Mercenary These are the blemishes and Scandals that lye on our Church brought on it partly by the corruption of some Simoniacal Patrons but chiefly by the Negligence of some and the Faultiness of other Clergy-men Which could never have lost so much ground in the Nation upon such trifling accounts as are the contests since raised about Ceremonies if it were not that the People by such palpable faults in the Persons and behaviour of some Church-men have been possessed with prejudices first against them and then upon their account against the whole Church So that these corrupt Church-men are not only to answer to God for all those Souls within their charge that have perished through their neglect but in a great degree for all the mischief of the Schism among us to the nourishing whereof they have given so great and palpable occasion The importance of those things made me judge they deserved this Digression Having been thus large in removing the Mistakes the Dr's Substitute seem'd to lye under let the Sober Reader judge Whether 't is any way probable that the Jesuits had an hand in the first Separation or whether the pretence about Spiritual Prayer was any ground of their Separation that is Whether they were against a Form of Prayer crying down the English Liturgy with a Design of setting up Free and Spritual Prayer in its stead SECT II. The Designs of the Jesuit against a Prelatical Episcopacy found to be none Some Differences between the first Reformers and our Author A Letter of Sir Francis Knolles to the Lord Treasurer Cecil out of which 't is prov'd That there is a Difference between some old Queen Elizabeths Bishops and the Dean c. The Author's Pretences about Antiquity confuted out of Bishop Jewel HIS Reply to what I offer'd to the Dean's second Argument falls now under Consideration The Dean in representing the Dissenter to the great Disadvantage of the Party insinuates as if their opposing Prelatical Episcopacy had been the most effectual way to cast reproach on the first Reformers and to introduce Popery In Answer unto this I did First prove 1. That it was not the Principle nor the Interest of the Jesuit to destroy Episcopacy A Truth the Dean's Substitute doth not deny 2. That the Reputation of the first Reformation is not in the least blasted by the Dissenter which I evinc'd with so much Demonstration that the whole that is returned by way of Answer is His not believing some of those persons on whose Testimony I insisted though he gives no Reason for his Unbelief His proving what I granted and his Extravagant Interpreting an Argument brought to evince That 't was not the Jesuits Interest to destroy a Prelatical Episcopal Constitution to be an admirable Address to the Lords and Commons to pull down Bishops and divide their Lands All which is done partly in his Preface and partly in the first Chapter of his great Book to shew himself an excellent Methodist But the whole is so little to the purpose that if he had not given an occasion to
q. d. as what is not according to the word of God All this being most plain and obvious to an ordinary Capacity that is not biassed by Prejudice c. Let the world judge who is in the FAULT They who keep close to Scripture or they who recede therefrom They who will do any thing but Sin for Peace Or they who will exercise their Authority and impose unnecessary things with the greatest Violence imaginable I say with the greatest Violence imaginable for they are impos'd with such a severe Threatning anrex'd that whoever refuses a compliance is cut off from the Catholick Church and given over to the Devil Hence 't is that they imposing Indifferent things as necessary to Salvation do according to Dr. Stillingfleet's own Rule declare themselves to be the Schismatical Dividers I say according to Dr. Stillingfleet's own Rule compar'd with his Substitutes Notion In the Doctor 's Unreasonableness of Separation p. 213. he saith That there are three Cases wheren the Scripture allow of Separation The last of which is When men make things Indifferent Necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account and this was the Case of the false Apostles who urged the Ceremonies of the Law as necessary to Salvation Now although St. Paul himself complied sometimes with the practice of them Yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the Observation of them as necessary to Salvation then he bids the Christians at Philippi to beware of them i. e. To fly their Communion and have nothing to do with chem From this Rule of Dr. Stillingfleet it must follow That if the Church of England make things Indifferent Necessary to Salvation our Separation from the Church is allowed by the Scriptures yea commanded and enjoyned We must beware of 'em i. e. to fly their Communnion and have nothing to do with them But that things Indifferent are made necessary by the Church of England according to his Doctrine doth appear irrefragably That which is Necessary to our Communion with the Catholick Church is according to his Doctrine necessary to Salvation But Indifferent things are Necessary to our Communion with the Church of England which is One with the Communion with the Catholick Church in that according to him they are made necessary to our Communion with the Church of England which is One with the Communion with the Catholique Church according to his constant Judgment Ergo. Or in other Terms Whatever is made necessary to our being Members of the Catholique Church is made necessary to Savation for to be Members of the Catholick Church and to be in a state of Salvation is the same and to be Members of the particular Church of England and Members of the Catholick Church is one and the same with our Author p. 248. As if it had been said To be Members of the Church of England is to be in a state of Salvation but not to be Members of the Church of England is to be out of a state of Salvation Whence what is made necessary to our being Members of the Church of England is made necessary to our Salvation that is The many indifferent Ceremonies impos'd as terms of our Communion with the Church of England are made necessary for Salvation according to our Author For which reason the Scripture allows our Separation yea the Scripture bids us beware of her that is to fly her Communion and have nothing to do with her Thus the Doctor in conjunction with his Substitute furnishes us with an unanswerable Argument to clear the Dissenter from the odious Sin of Schism which in short is this From such as make Indifferent things Necessary to Salvation we must Separate This is Dr. Stillingfleet's But the Church of England makes Indifferent things necessary to Salvation This is the Dr's Substitutes Notion Ergo We may yea we must Separate that is 'T is the Will of God we should Separate or 't is our Duty and therefore not our Sin to separate i. e. We are not the Schismaticks This is Argumentum ad Hominem and either this Author must quit his Doctrine or acquit us of Schisme But to treat our Author with the greater Civility we 'll suppose him to be so tenacious of his own Doctrine that he 'll rather discharge us of Schisme than abandon his beloved Notions for which reason seeing 't is on all sides acknowledged that there is a Faulty Division among us and consequently a Faulty Divider who is the Schismatick He must be either the Dissenter or the Conformist but not the Dissenter as we have already prov'd from our Author 's own Topicks Ergo the Conformist Here we might have put an end to this Discourse and would do so had not our Author 's fertil Brain furnish'd us with another Argument that doth as fully evince the Conformist to be the Schismatick as the former clear'd the Dissenter In the management of this Argument we 'll consider the Netion of Dr. Peter Gunning and Peirson as compared with our Author The I earned G. and P. in a Conference with the Papists assert That a Superiours unjust casting any out of the Church is Schismatical If the Governours of the Church do by sinful Impositions or unjust Excommunications cast any out of the Church they are Schismatical This our Author won't deny But according to his Notion The Church of England are guilty of such Impositions and do unjustly Excommunicate Dissenters 1. That the Impositions are sinful is evident in that Indifferent things as has been prov'd are made necessary to Salvation The making any indifferent thing Necessary to Salvation is sinful But the imposing indifferent things as terms of Catholique Communion is the making such things Necessary to Salvation Ergo Sinful Ergo The Imposer is Schismatical But 2. Whoever doth unjustly Excommunicate any are Schismatical This is Dr. Gunning's sense But the Church of England if they agree with our Author Excommunicates the Dissenter unjustly Ergo c. That the Church of England Excommunicates unjustly according to the Doctrine of our Author is demonstrable even in that the Church doth as he would have it by Excommunication cast thousands out of a state of Salvation for not complying with little uncommanded things Whence I argue thus To Excommunicate or cast us out of a state of Salvation merely because we cannot comply with what God never commanded us is to Excommunicate unjustly But so doth the Church of England if we may pass a censure on her as our Author provokes us to do for the Church according unto him doth Excommunicate that is shut Heaven-gates against such to whom our Lord Jesus Christ hath promised the opening them To illustrate this with the greater clearness I beseech the Reader to consider That Salvation is promised by Jesus Christ unto all such as do sincerely Believe truly Repent and lead an Holy Life in all Godliness and Honesty Though a man may be daily guilty of lesser Evils yet if he believe in Christ
and renders sincere Obedience to the known Will of God he shall be saved All which may be even with those who being verily perswaded that their compliances with the present Impositions are sinful durst not Conform that is The Promise of Salvation is made by Christ to many who do not conform to the Impâ—sitions of the Church of England But Salvation by our Author is denied unto such their Non-compliance is enough to make 'em Schismatical to cut them off from Christ and the hopes of Salvation which being no ways justifiable in the Conscience of any sober man the Dissenters are unjustly Excommunicated and he that so Excommunicates is Schismatical 'T is most certain That many good Christians cannot conform to the imposed terms of Communion with the Church and that for this single Reason they are Excommunicable if not actually Excommunicated from the Church that is put out of a state of Salvation The which being so 't will unavoidably follow That either the Excommunication is unjust or That the Church hath greater Power than he that is the Lord of it to open and shut the gates of Heaven If the latter then the Church sets itself up above all that is called God in this world and Christ in the other For whereas Repentance towards God and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient for our Salvation these add somwhat more to wit an Obedience to new Impositions threatning the neglect with Damnation But if the former if the Excommunication is unjust then according to Dr. Gunning with the addition of our Author Our Ecclesiastical Governours are the Schismaticks The Argument here in short is this He that doth unjustly Excommunicate any out of the Catholick Church is a Schismatick This is Dr. Gunning's But the Church of England shutting those out of Salvation to whom Christ hath promised it Excommunicates unjustly This is our Authors Therefore the Church of England according to the Position of our Author is the Schismatick Hereby we may easily perceive what an admirable Defender the Church of England hath in the Defender of the Dean and how little the true Protestant Clergy of the Church are beholding to this man who insists on such Notions as do necessarily lead judicious men to conclude the Church of England Schismatical But to return to our Author who leaping over all the difficulties though but hinted in the Enquiry runs unto another Question viz. From Ceremonies to Circumstances form the Parts of their Religion to the external Appendages thereunto confounding the one with the other and then runs triumphantly assuring his Reader That 't is impossible to worship God or exercise any act of Religion but it must be in some time or in some place it must be done in some circumstances therefore we may make some things a part of our Religion which God has not At this rate he fills up a great part of his Second Chapter Insisting on nothing but what had its answer in that Enquiry he attempted to confute Therefore if I should say no more than what I have in giving the true state of the Controversie it would be sufficient For it lies on him either to prove to our Conviction that We may without sin comply with their Impositions i. e. He must so far effectually enlighten our Conscience as to help us to see that the Impositions are not sinful and that we may lawfully Conform or shew That we must Conform contrary to the Convictions of our Consciences and render a blind Obedience unto their Commands Believing as the Church believes or they ought to remove the Impositions or acknowledge that our Compliances are not sinful One of these must be done Let him do either and the Controversie will be ended and the Dissenters freed from Schisme But if he cannot enlighten us to see the Lawfulness of their Impositions nor perswade us to render a blind Obedience nor remove the Impositions but plead for their continuance 't will appear That they by imposing what in their Judgments is but Indifferent as things necessary to our Salvation are the Schismaticks This might suffice as a full Answer But that nothing may escape consideration that our Author may think deserves it I le reflect a little on his main strength If there be any force in this Argument says he it consists in these two things First That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with And secondly That the Opinion of Dissenters That indifferent things are unlawful in the worship of God is a just reason for parting with them For if it be not lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent those who retain the use of some indifferent things cannot meerly upon that account be called Dividers or Schismaticks and if the opinion of Dissenters that all indifferent things are unlawful be not a sufficient reason for parting with them then there may be no fault in the Episcopals will not nor a sufficient justification or excuse in the Dissenters cannot p. 9. First saith he If there be any force in this Argument it consists in two things First That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with This is his mistake he should have said That if there be any strength in the Enquiry it lyes in this viz. No one indifferent Ceremony must be made so necessary a part of Religion as to be a term of Communion 'T is this he should have considered For you sin by insisting on any one or more indifferent things so zealously as to make 'em terms of Communion with your Church and consequently with the Church Catholick so as to deny us a right to Christ and Salvation for a mere non-compliance You can part with your indifferent Ceremonies without sin and open the door of Salvation to the wretched Dissenter if you will even when they cannot without sin comply with your intolerable Impositions The indifferent things you impose you impose as terms of our Communion with you which you make to be the same with Catholick Communion that is of Salvation 2. You add the second thing viz. That the Opinion of Dissenters That Indifferent things are unlawful is a just reason for parting with them For if it be not say you lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent those who retain the use of Indifferent things cannot merely upon that account be called Dividers or Schismaticks c. You should remember that I distinguished between Ceremonies and Circumstances between what is a part of Religion and Intrinsecal thereunto and what is Extrinsecal only But you run to external Circumstances that are necessary in Thesi which is off from the point in hand You run from what is Indifferent to what is Necessary as if we called you to part with any necessary thing whereas there is never any indifferent Ceremony that is grievous to our Consciences but you may part with or cease to impose 'em and yet
worship God But to divide necessary circumstances of Action from the Action is impossible A thing we no way desire 'T is true as you assert A man who is to remove from London to York is not bound either to go thither on foot or on horseback or in a Coach or in a Waggon each of these ways are in themselves indifferent but yet if he will travel to York he must use one or ether of those ways of Motion not one in particular is necessary yet one or other is But what is this to our purpose What though the Partition-wall between Ceremonies and Circumstances be broken down and they all mingled together and all must be consider'd alike but as Circumstances What will this help you To keep to your pretty Allusion with one necessary Addition viz. One hath not strength to walk on foot from London to York another cannot bear the riding in Coach yet to York they must go If you 'll keep to the point before us you must say to the person that cann't walk to York Some way of Motion is necessary to your going to York if you 'l go thither therefore you shall walk or not go thither And to the other that can't ride in a Coach if you 'll not go thither in a Coach you shall not go at all and yet give him the Strapadâ— for not going thither This is the Case and how easily may they reply unto you on your calling them to hasten to York on these impossible terms or to the Bisliâ—ps Colehouse We would go to York with all our heart on Horseback or in a Waggon but to walk or to ride in a Coach we cannot You can give us leave to go thither on horsback if you will but you will not we would go but go in Coach or walk we cannot Here is a division your will not and our cannot who now is in fault That they cannot is evident because of weakness and Infirmity of body That you can permit 'em to go on Horseback is as unquestionable but yet you will not Thus we have the strength of our Author's Reply You must get into the visible Catholich Church or to prison and you cannot get in but you must either use some external circumstances in some time or in some place c. therefore this time or no time this place or no place Sir by your good favour as you acknowledg this or the other particular circumstance to be indifferent and that other circumstances may be chosen if not this to make either of these indifferent circumstances a necessary tâ—rm of communion is sinful and schismatical To make of a little thing so great a bar to shut thousands out of heaven is what you will never be able to answer when you shall appear before the Tribunal of a righteous God But as to the true state of the Controversie 't is another thing you make that a part of Religion which God hath not made you impose uninstituted ceremonies and in many things recede from the Apostolical Institution and call on us on pain of damnation to comply with you We must comply or be cut off from the Catholick Church even from the body of Christ from all hopes of salvation These things being thus plain I 'le gratisie our Authors desire in considering his Logick If the Dissenters can without sin says he obey their Governours in indifferent that is in lawful things but will not and the Episcopal would be content to part with indifferent things for union but cannot who is the Divider What must be done for Union Must the Dissenters comply in things wherein they can without sin or must the Episcopal sin and lose their peace with God fot Union p. 29. This is called by our Author an Argument but why I cannot imagine however let it be so wherein lies its strength or how comes it to pass that this cannot be answered without a shewing Sophistry to be where 't is not If there be any force in this Argument it must be either in this viz. That the Impositions are in the judgment of the Dissenters Lawful or Indifferent which may be submitted unto without sin Had this suggestion been true we would grant him the whole he desires viz. That the Dissenters refusing to do what is Lawful in their own judgment to be done for Union they are Faulty But 't is notirious That the imposed terms are of such a nature that they cannot be submitted unto by the Dissenter but he must grievously offend the most high God to the wounding his own conscience If its strength lyes not there it must in this That the Episâ—â—pal would be content to part with indifferent things but cannot And why can they not What is the matter that they cannot part with toys and trifles to take many a thousand within the pale of the Church and thereby help 'em to Heaven The things are still supposed indifferent by our Author and therefore a parting with 'em is not contrary to any Law nor sinful Why then can they not without sin part with what they can part with without sin This is surely mysterious They cannot part with that without sin which they can part with without sin and Yet will not part with it though according to their own judgment their not parting with their indifferent things tends to the unavoidable destruction of souls They know the Dissenters unless these indifferent things be past by must be kept out of the Church of England that is out of the Catholick Church say they and remain to the last hour of their life in a state of damnation Whence then did I say What must must be done for Union I may now say What must be done to save the thousands of Souls for whom Christ died Must the Episcopal part with what they can without sin and take the Dissenters into the Catholique Church and thereby save their Souls or must the Dissenters sin that they may be saved What Is there no way to Heaven for English Dissenters but their complying with sinful Impositions T was said in the Apostles days that We must not do evil that good may come thereof Then surely if we will be of the Apostles judgment We must not sin to save our Souls Our Unrighteousness doth not cannot commend the Righteousness of God But Before I dismiss this Point that the Reader may be fully satisfied that I abuse not our Author I must beseech him to consider 1. That our Author hath in a way different from the greatest or rather the better part of the Clergy asserted That our not holding external communion with the Church of England is a cutting our selves off from the Catholick Church a putting our selves out of the Way of Salvation This is the main scope of his discourse A notion concerning which Dr. Stillingfleet's thoughts are desired 2. That notwithstanding the absolute necessity there is of the Dissenters returning to the Church of England that they may become members
and the poor Church be left as destitute of Lands and Ornaments as when she came into the world in her natural Nakedness From these words of Heylin 't is evident That such as are of this Grotian Faction do reflect sufficiently on the Reformation then begun and also plainly enough suggest That if K. Edward had lived longer the Reformation had gone on further than you or your party desire it may be they would have gone on so far as those you now call Schismaticks If so how comes it to pass that the Dissenters by acting so agreeably to what King Edwards Protestants would have done cast any reproach on that so happily begun Reformation In fine It cannot but amuse wise men to observe how prudently Dr. Stilling fleet and his Substitute insist on the Dissenters subserviency to the Popish Interest Whereas 't is most manifest that the Papists themselves do with the greatest confidence conclude none more opposite nor more injurious to their Designs than the Dissenter However seeing one Dissenter spake but a word for the forbearance of a meer conscientious Papist this is enough to animate those Gentlemen to load the whole Party with the reproach of being great friends to Popery The which is the more remarkable because all this cry is even when a Son of the Church yea a Reverend Divine of that name hath written a Volume in favour of the Church though not of the Court of Rome without any notice taken of it And the Dean himself in that very Preface in which he so much declaims against the Dissenter doth speak much more in favour of the Papists than any Dissenter ever did for he himself asserts That it will be thought great hardship when mens heats are ever for them only viz. the Papists to be deprived of the liberty of their Consciences when the wildest Fanaticks are allow'd it p. 79. Moreover what is matter of greater surprise is That all this stir is rais'd from one word out of a Dissenters mouth even when great things have been done by some who pretend to be sons of the Church in favour of the Papist to the turning the edg of those Laws that were made against Papists on Protestant Dissenters without any remark as if it had been highly meritorious in a Church-man to act for all Papists in the general tho' an unpardonable crime in a Dissenter to speak but one word for the supposed conscientious only That some of the Church of England have acted in favour of all sorts of Papists to the advancing Popery is notorious as hath been observed by Sir Francis Winnington at the Trial of the Lord Stafford Another encouragement my Lord faith Sir Fr. W. which the Papists had was That by the means of those Ministers who were secretly of their Faction whenever his Majesty was pleased to command the Laws made against them in the Reign of Q. Elizabeth and K. James to be put in due execution his good intentions were frustrated and the severity of those Laws was turn'd upon the Protestant Dissenters This was a Master piece of Rome not only to divert from themselves the edg of those Laws which were design'd against them but to turn them upon the Protestants and to make them useful to advance the Romish Interest The same is also the sense of the Commons assembled in Parliament as is to be seen in their Address unto his Majesty November 29.1680 Where they declare unto his Majesty in these words At home if your Majesty did at any time by the advice of your Privy Council or of your Two Houses of Parliament command the Laws to be put in execution against Papists even from thence they gain'd advantage to their Party while the edg of those Laws was turned against Protestant Dissenters and the Papists escap'd in a manner untouch'd Thus many a Son of the Church have heretofore taken an especial care to turn the edg of Laws against Popery on the Dissenter But this is not speaking for a forbearance 't is but an actual affording forbearance to 'em all in general Of which one word must not be spoke As if such men as our Author would that all the Respects which are had for Papists must be confin'd to them who alone without offence may shew it ' em But 't is pretty evident that there are other Conformists of another mind as may appear by the Countrey-Conformists further Reply to this Defence or Vindication which we have received from him in these Sheets following and to which I refer my Reader FINIS Mr. PARK HURST HAVING information that you are Printing som Papers of others in Answer to the Defence of Dr. Stilling fleet I have thought fit upon advice to send you these three or four sheets to put in as one concern'd among the rest The young Hero that hath written this Defence hath treated his Antagonists with no less a supercilious contempt than the Dr. but he hath not written his Book with the like judgment and sense I cannot say that he hath in any thing confuted them but he doth grosly pervert their words and give them a meaning which is contrary to their intention and then drolls upon it and mightily pleases himself in his Victory and Success And this he hath done almost throughout his Book He that reads the Book and doth nor compare it with the Authors whom he pretends to Answer may perhaps think there is something in it But if he shall diligently do this he will alter his opinion I will instance in one particular Mr. Baxter among other things objects the renunciation of the Covenant for our selves and others when we know not their sense These last words he interprets of the Takers of that Covenant when Mr. B. meant it of the Imposers and no wonder then if he makes fine work of it The Author of the Reflections hath reason to take notice of these his dealings in this kind and I do foresee how he is like to fare again yet being one for whom I have so near a concern I cannot refuse a sheet or two having this intimation in his behalf especially seeing he is a Son of the Church and 't is convenient his Brethren should rightly understand him It is in the Preface I am engaged and p. 3. thus he begins The Countrey Conformist in his Reflections on Dr. Stilling fleet endeavours to excuse Mr. B. from intending the D. of St. Pauls in that lewd character that he gave of a mâ—st unskilful proud partial obstinate impertinent Adversary by making it the description of such Substitutes as had neither the Candor nor Learning of the Doctor He did so and how doth this Gentleman prove that he endeavoured it to no purpose Why even thus However any impartial Reader will see cause to believe that Mr. B. had the Dean in his eye tho' he had not courage enough to apply every thing to him but left his Readers to apply as much as they pleased To which I reply There
Christian world Let us have but such Churches and such Bishops with Presbyters and Deacons as were in the Churches of Corinth Jâ—râ—â—lem and Antioch in the days of Clemens James and Ignatius and the Countrey Conformist is satisfied and so would Mr. B. and most Nonconformists in England besides Whether this kind of Episcopacy be a new name for Presbytery and whether this Author have proved it I leave to such Readers to judg as can consider as well as read his Book But how comes this Gentleman to know that the Countrey Conformist is such a one as those that raised a Civil War some years ago and pulled down Church and State to set up a Presbytery Can a man oppose nothing that is defended by some Church-men but he must immediately be reported a secret Traytor or Rebel Is this becoming Christianity or the Preachers of it Do these men believe the Gospel that dare slander and traduce their brethren in such a villanous manner 'T is a word I received from him I hope he will take it agen Tho' it should be granted the Miter supports the Crown yet surely the Errors and Vices of Church-men give no support unto it and I am of opinion that a man may speak for peace and against the opinions and corruption of Churches and Church-men and yet be a very good subject to his Prince notwithstanding that perpetual buz of Rebellion that is suggested by some Huffs in the prejudice of such men and their discourses But why did I enquire how this Monsieur came to know that the Countrey Conformist was such another as those that raised the Rebellion in forty three The nature of the assertion betrays the Author of the Information and there needs no great skill in Magick to find him yet lest he should be ignorant of him I will be so kind as to tell his name he is called Beclzebub the Father of lyes and I hope when he writes agen he will beware of him and hold better correspondencies for his information Pag. 7. he adds Our Conformist doth plainly deride the Dean for thinking he can justifie our present Episcopacy and then quotes his words as followeth But the Dr. makes no question but he shall confute this fanciful man and make it appear that our present Episcopacy which Mr. B. opposes is agreeable to the institution of Christ and the best and most flourishing Churches And easily he may if Mr. B. be such a pitiful Antagonist But what is there in these words that savour of derision I have read and considered them agen and agen and I cannot find it by all the search that I can make The Learned Dr. had pitied Mr. B. and given sufficient evidence of the mean opinion he had of his performances in his late Books and particularly in his Treatise of Episcopacy and is it to deride the Dean to say he may easily confute so contemptible an Adversary This I confess I cannot understand And yet after all I am not satisfied that the Learned Dr. or his Defender hath confuted what Mr. B. hath said in prejudice to our present Diocesan Episcopacy he says that the enlargement of Diocesses hath varied the species of Episcopacy and gives many arguments for the proof of it which neither the Dr. nor this Gentleman hath attempted to answer I know the latter of them says that the enlargement of Diocesses doth not vary the species of Bishops and that a great and a little King are specifically the same Governours But I can by no means believe this to be true of Bishops whatever it be of Kings For the Diocess of the Pope is only bigger than that of the Bishop of London or Worcester or Lincoln and yet I think they are Governours specifically distinct and I hope this Gentleman thinks so too Yea give me leave to suppose that there were but two Bishops in England there would be only a gradual difference in their Diocess and yet I suspect some men would think that the Government were specifically altered but let not our Author infer that this supposition is my desire for he is apt to pervert mens words for I will assure him that I do not desire it but would have many more Bishops not less In fine 't is my opinion that the needs of the Church and the abilities of Bishops to perform the work of the Episcopal Office ought to determine the extent of their Diocess Let their Diocesses be as big as they can manage and no bugger and if so I am sure they must be reduced to smaller limits than now they are No Bishop can discharge the proper work of his Office in a thousand or five hundred Parishes nay I will say That there are many single Parishes in England that will employ the most industrious Bishops on earth If it be said that they do perform the proper work of their Office in many Parishes I utterly deny it that the work is not done and thence proceeds the prophaness and wickedness of particular Churches and thence follows the Schisms and Separations that have and do vex this Church at this day Pag. ib. Our Author proceeds He pleads i. e. the Countrey Conformist for taking off the Impositions in general without any limitation to receive the Presbyterians again into our Church which before he told us were Subscriptions Declarations c. and some few Alterations besides That is faith our Commentator either a form of Prayer or at least our present Liturgy Ceremonies and Administration of religious Offices Now he is an admirable Conformist indeed who at once grants away the Episcopal Office and instead of it setteth up a Bishop in every Parish or either an Anti-Christian Bishop of Bishops or an Ecclesiastical Minister of State to head and govern them and alters the whole frame of our Worship and into the bargain leaves every man to do as he saith and all this without injuring our present Constitution Nay he concludes That all those that hinder the Union of Presbyterians with this Church by continuing the Impositions are Factors for the Pope In this paragraph are a great many falshoods He charges the Countrey Conformist with pleading for the Admission of the Presbyterians into the Church without any Impositions Subscriptions or Declarations This was very ill done of him if it be true which I do a little suspect because this Gentleman is so apt to misunderstand and misrepresent the words and meaning of his Adversaries The Country Conformist hath declared in several places of his Books That he pleads the Cause of none but tolerable Dissenters and for the Admission of none into the Church but such as can Officiate in our Parochial Assemblies but how this difference can be made without Impositions or Subscriptions is not imaginable And therefore to say no more I think this Author hath injur'd and wronged him in this report of his judgment And wheras by those few Alterations besides that the Country-Conformist speaks of he understands either a Form of
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
said of particular persons I say of Churches Optimus est qui minimis urgetur vitiis He is the best man that hath least faults and there are none without them Those are the best Churches which have the least of defects and imperfections such as are without fault are not to be found out of Heaven And as among men the strong must bear the Infirmities of the weak so among Churches the strongest and most perfect must bear the Weakness and Infirmities of those that are more defective and imperfect If our Author should say that those that I plead for and call Churches are no Churches but acompany of Schismatical Conventicles I answer I am of opinion that they are as truly Churches and parts of this National Church or may be easily so made as the Churches of France Holland Geneva Switzerland c. are of the Universal But if our Author shall please to cut them off from the Catholique as I think according to his own Doctrine he must do I shall permit him the liberty for I know not how to hinder it to cut off these from the National Church having no mind at this time to debate the Justice of his Sentence Only I will beg leave to tell him that I can by no means believe that what he doth on Earth will be ratified in Heaven or that God will damn all that he gives up to the Devil If what hath been said doth not satisfie our Gentleman give me leave to suppose him a Minister of the Reformed Church in France be it at Charenton Caen Saumur or where you please and let me suppose that some Gentlemen of the Roman Catholick Religion address themselves to him after this manner Sir We pity your state and condition and have a kindness for you for though you be an Heretick you are one of human race the King our Master will have but one Religion in his Kingdom and you must comply with him or else you are undone your Estate your Liberty and peradventure your Life must all be sacrificed to him for he is resolved and peremptory in that resolution all must serve God the same way or they must bear the punishment of refusing it Here are the Subscriptions that are made by the Catholick Clergy do but set your hand to them and you 're safe and may share with them in the Preferments of the Church To this our Author answers Gentlemen I bear an honour to our Puissant and Invincible Monarch and am very ready to obey all his just commands but in this particular I pray you have me excused God is a King superiour to our Prince and must be obeyed before him I fear His Majesties Displeasure and Vengeance but I am much more afraid of that of God the one may hang or break me upon the wheel but the other will damn me for evermore I beseech you therefore interpose with his Majesty on the behalf of me and my Brethren that we may have the same liberty of worshipping God as for many years past we have enjoyed under him and his Royal Predecessors We vow all Duty and Allegiance to his Person and Government we will defend them with our Lives and Fortunes and we have nothing so dear to us unless it be our Consciences which we are not willing to sacrifice for his just Honour and Advantage The Subscription you propose I cannot make without the offence of God and my Conscience And I must beg his Majesties Pardon if I chuse to obey the God of Heaven before his Vicegerent here on earth The Catholick Gentlemen replies His Majesty is willing and resolved to put an end to all Differences and Controversies in Religion he is weary of those eternal Squabbles that are managed by Divines of different perswasions The Temple of Janus shall be shut he will have no more Religious Wars among his Subjects To grant you the Liberty of serving God after your own Way is not a method of ending Differences but of perpetuating them For when you are pleased others may succeed to you and under pretence of Conscience carry on Differences as high as ever Let our Author answer the Argument of these Catholick Messieurs and I do humbly conceive I may be able from his own words to answer that of the Doctor if it be not sufficiently done already but let him not misunderstand or pervert my words I do not affirm that the Impositions in the Church of England and those of the Church of Rome are equally wicked burdensome and offensive all that I say is they are both unlawful in the judgment of those that do refuse them and the Arguments against relaxing those Impositions or granting Liberty to those that do refuse them are the same and must receive the same Answers Pag. 9. The Conformist had said That he hoped our Governours would distinguish between those that subvert the Christian Faith and those that err in small things Our Gentleman answers Thus our Governours have distinguished already and yet it hath not put an end to our Controversies nor is he the Conformist sure that once more distinguishing will do it To which I reply That when and where our Governours have made this distinction I confess the Countrey Conformist is as ignorant as our Author will needs have him in the Constitution of our Church p. 10. What particular persons may have done I do not enquire but what the Governours of our Church have done They have determined the conditions of Communion and upon what terms the Clergy may minister at the Altar but where by any publick act they have distinguished between the great essentials of the Christian Religion which must be believed and lesser errors that may be tolerated I do not know and cannot find If this Gentleman thinks that all things imposed as conditions of Communion either upon Laity or Clergy in England are of the essence of Christianity and that all who have other apprehensions concerning them are damnable Hereticks let him enjoy his Faith to himself I am not like to become his proselyte nor I think many others P. 10. Our Author proceeds Will not the excluded parties cry as loud for Liberty of Conscience and complain of persecution as they do now Either these are good arguments or they are not If they be they will hold good in all cases that men must not suffer for their consciences but be allowed the free exercise of their Religion according to their own persuasions If they be not let them leave off the pretences of scruples and tender consciences with that liberty and freedom in exercising their Religion which they challenge as their natural birthright and demand no more of that than what the merit of their Cause requires In this discourse there are more strange things than one 1. He declares that if those arguments that are brought for free exercise of Religion from scruple and tenderness of Conscience be good they must be good in all cases The meaning is this One
are some of Mr H's expressions and of Mr. B's Character and which in my opinion are weighed as well as written I shall only add on mine own part those few words of the Apostle This witness is true And seeing I have quoted so much of that Learned mans words in point of equal judging I will not forbear the end of his Book in point of upright dealing The Dr. had no need to lay out his parts upon such a Design as that he hath under his hands nor hath he reason to despise or scorn no nor to slight or neglect the meanest person For I must confess 't is matter of real offence to me that a person who is so learned a man so honoured a man throughout the Nation should prove a proud man a disdainful person which temper if it be indulged is so unendurable by God and man that it will hurl any man into the dust And I cannot do any better service in the earth to this otherwise very much worthy and excellent Doctor than to contribute the best I can to my utmost for the bringing him to some ingenuous sense and Amendment of it Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart but thou shalt in any wise rebuke him and not suffer sin upon him Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet so far as concerns the Peaceable Design I should now follow our Author to p. 20. where he returns to the Countrey Conformist and there were some sheets done but because it is indeed but endless and it will turn to no account but to ease my self I desist Existimat ejus Majestas Rex Jacobus nullum ad in enndam Concordiam breviorem fore viam quam si diligenter separentur necessaria a non necessariis ut de necessariis conveniat omnis ope insumatur in non necessariis libertati Christianae locus detur Ep. Causaboni ad Card Perroniam p. 31. Author of the Reflections C. Conf. THE END Mr. Lob I cannot tell whether it be best to meddle with this Book or let it alone The wise may says Answer a man and Answer not a man There may be reasons to doe it and reasons to forbear Nevertheless if you determine upon it as to your part I have fetcht the Book and taken my pen and lookt it over as to mine There is but one Chapter wherein I am concern'd and I have no mind to meddle with any more though when I am writing I may point at some few things besides Of all the Books that came out against Dr. Stillingfleet's there are those few sheets called Additional Remarks which are some of the least taken notice of and of the most value Not I count for the merits of the Controversie which is not to be expected from a Conformist but for the ingenuity of Spirit which he hath shewn in so singular exemplary a charity towards the Dissenter and what I count more peculiar in such a true candid respect to the Doctor even while he takes so natural a freedom as he does with him that the fawning for so is applause to the rising of this Authour is but alchimy to his reprehension I am beholding I must confess to the Gentleman for my own part for his Reflections but I must commend his Additional Remarks I will commend them particularly to the Deans Defender not for an Answer but for his imitation I do apprehend that in the writing his first sheets he was not so well aware of their being Printed as he was of the other and that that was the reason of the difference of the style in regard to the Doctor It is a kindness this worthy good man hath done me by laying in a censure of my sheets before hand and so prevented the sugillations of this Author As I need not therefore so I shall forbear any retortions of that kind and address my self to my little task before me It begins page 557. To State this matter and to lay a foundation for an Answer to the Question what the Church of England is and who is the Constitutive Regent part of it he distinguishes between a National Church considered as a Church and as incorporated in the State p. 558. and then speaks to both For this distinction if he had said the Church of Christ may be considered in its self and as incorporated in the State it had been a good distinction but to say the National Church may have this double consideration it is not good because the Church is National onely under the last consideration The Church of Christ considered in its self is either Universal or Particular but it must be considered as incorporated in the State to make it National This quick Antagonist hath the sagacity to perceive this and therefore cites these words of mine page 559. To be Particular or Universal is Essential to Christs Church but to be National is of Accidental consideration If this be true now says he then is my distinction that is this distinction quite out of doors for it is a Church that is a National Church as it is the State as it is in the State he should say and Headed by the Civil Magistrate This is well and what hath he then to object against me and to say for himself Against me he says There are two things p. 560. supposed in my Argument which he hath candidly delivered as necessary to the being of a National Church that are not necessary That all the people that is the generality of the Nation should be Christian and that the King should be so also These two things I had said were Accidental to the Church of Christ and yet goe to the making our Church National and consequently the Church of Christ is National onely under an Accidental consideration But these two things he Objects are not to be supposed necessary to a National Church I answer when we speak of a National Church our owne is always to be understood about which the dispute is and our Church is a National Political Church no otherwise but upon this account and the supposition hereof is necessary to it For himself he says There were great Combinations before Constantine's days Patriarchal Metropolitan which are of the same nature with what we call National Churches I Answer A Patriarchal Church and a Metropolitan Church is not a Church National A Patriarchate may contain in it the Christians of many Nations A Metropolitan but half the Christians of one and so the one is too big and the other too little to be a National Church and a Diocesan much less By a National Church we commonly understand I apprehend a Political Church wherein all the particular Christians and Churches in a Nation and these only are combined under one Government through the Supream Magistrate to Church purposes A Metropolitan Church is no combination of them all and a Patriarchal a combination of more then all The one and the other may be called Churches but neither one or other a National
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
to it be at all out of love with it And seeing there is a draught to this purpose which he alludes to and whatsoever the humor be does style an ingenious proposal I advise that it be preserved and inserted therefore at the end of the Book if you Print it The Paper you know was prepared against the Sitting of the last Parliament at Oxford and Entituled Materials for Union And now I have done about my self you may expect from me some more general censure of the Author and his Book which I was willing to decline For the Author whatsoever he else be I take him to be a man of Ability that requires our regard By his Stile and Undertaking I guess him to be a man of younger age so I hear and believe though by his reading and compass he fetches for the making good his Notion he may be some graver Person In the small game he plays with me I perceive he hath hit me and I ought not to like him the worse for that It is where I lay open to him and left him a blot But for the defence he makes of the Doctor against me I think he hath failed in his cast and thrown out He is a â—â—â—n I count hath a Proud Pen and I am not moved at that but the Doctor whose Pen is more Prudential seemed to me to have his contempt within and that moved me do what I could and made me write as I did There are many I believe will think that this man hath despised me so much that it should move me but I do not think it so much The man is a bold insolent man and it is I think the taking a ferocious liberty rather then shewing disdain He hath used Mr. Baxter like a very dog and when I methinks am but something rightly served why should I care how he uses me I will do nothing more to deserve it and if he despises me I know then how to be even with him I wont care if he does For the Book I think the Bookseller hath done his part The Paper and Print is to be like't but for the matter I think it to dear at the price Five Shillings I must tell him with some displeasure is too unreasonable much for such Controversie There are three or four things more particularly I have observed in the Reading it In the first place I observe the Design which appears to be in hand A design which seems specious being for Union but that Union is of the Church of England with the Church of Rome in the French and Cassandrian way not a Union of Protestant Dissenters and the Conformists with one another On the contrary this Gentleman thus discourses The Christian Church throughout the whole world is One The Unity of this Church Catholick lies in One Communion This Communion is exercised in Particular Churches There are no true Particular Churches of Christs Institution and parts of that Catholick but they must have Bishops Every man consequently that is not in Communion with his Bishop is out of the true Catholick Church which consists of such parts and so not only a Schismatick but cut off from Salvation Either this Author now is aware of this Doctrine or not If not as soon as he comes to be he will be ashamed of it if he already be he may be ashamed to own such Doctrine as this is In the next place I observe a little how consistent he is in this Doctrine For when he hath bestowed a whole Chapter p. 164. to tell us that the Unity of the Universal Christian Church consists in one Communion and descends to explain that Communion by a Communication of the same Divine Service for when Dr. Owen is speaking of a Communion between the Churches in Faith and Love He ought to have added says he in Religious Worship for without this there is no Christian Communion p 446. which he also urges so far as to make a forsaking Communion with the Church of England to be a cutting a man quite off from the Church of Christ and yet if you turn to p. 305. you shall find these words The Nature and Essence of the Church does not consist in Religious Assemblies but it is a Covenant Relation to Christ which Constitutes the Church Here then we have sounder Doctrine for these two are different things If an entring into Covenant with Christ is that really which Constitues a man a member and unites him to the Body then is it not this One Communion wherein the Unity of that Body does consist A man may give himself up to Christ I hope who yet does not and cannot communicate with the Church of England and though he own not the Bishops may be a Christian for all that In the third place I observe this that when he hath said some things well about the Text which the Doctor chose for his Sermon p. 447 448. yet is he very unsatisfactory in bringing off the Doctor or vindicating his judgment in his choice of it for his purpose There were some in the Apostles time that thought the Jewish Law still obligatory and that they should sin against God if they did not keep it and there were others understood the liberty they had from it by the Gospel The first of these are called the weak brother the last the perfect The advice the Apostles gives to the perfect is to use and enjoy that liberty which the Gospel brought them The advice he gives the weak is to wait till God should reveal to them the knowledg of this liberty And in the mean while that they should forbear seeing To them who esteem any thing to be sin it is sin and this he presses still so far and with such exceeding caution that the strong Christian himself must refrain his liberty for their sakes in case that by his example he shall give them occasion to doe the same thing which in regard to their not yet sufficiently informed formed consciences would be sin and destroy their souls This is the certain sense and diffusive doctrine of St. Paul in his Epistles I will come then to the Doctors Text Whereto we have attained let us walk by the same rule let us mind the same thing and I must ask his Defender whether the weak and perfect Christian as before explained be here both included I mean whether both of these are alike required in the Text to walk by the same rule This Author does hold it and he frames such an interpretation of the words as he must hold it but I deny it and that interpretation therefore must be counterfeit By walking by the same rule he understands the maintaining Church Communion and this Communion with the Church he counts must be held howsoever it be we differ This is therefore a fictitious and certain false application or explication of the Text for it is directly contrary to the scope of that Doctrine which I have but now delivered as the
if it he rightly placed I am persuaded will repel all those batteries which you threaten shall be so furious To use the words of Mr. Chil. And for this reason I will now shew the Reader That the Model the Deans Substitu â—â—aâ—h given us is what is not only in it self admirably adjusted to accommodate the difference between one Faction of the Church of England and the Church not the Court of Rome for that is their Distinction but moreover 't is very like that of Archb. Laud for which he was censur'd as a Favourer of Popery This I will attempt to perform by giving you an account of the Charge that was brought in against Laud in the House of Commons by the Lord Faulkland a true Son of the Church and the Reply is made thereunto by Dr. Heylin whereby 't will appear that as there is an agreement between Laud's Design and our Authors even so this as well as that was to bring the Church of Rome and England together § 1. Take My Lord Fauklkland's Speech made in the House of Commons as represented by Dr. Heylin in the Life of Archbishop Laud p. 383. A little search saith he will find them to have been the Destruction of Unity under pretence of Uniformity To have brought in Superstition and Scandal under titles of Reverence and Decency to have defiled our Church by adorning our Churches to have slackned the strictness of that Union which was formerly between us and those of our Religion beyond the Seas an Action as unpolitick as ungodly Or we shall find them to have resembled the Dog in the Manger to have neither Preached themselves nor suffered those that would to have brought in Catechising only to thrust out Preaching and cried down Lecturers by the names of Factions either because their Industry in that Duty appeared a reproof to their neglect of it or with intention to have brought in Darkness that they might the easier sow their Tares while it was Night And by that introduction of Ignorance introduce the better that Religion which accounts it the Mother of Devotion In which saith he they have abused his Majesty as well as his people For when he had with great wisdom silenced on both parts those Opinions which have often tormented the Church and have and always will trouble the Schools they made use of this Declaration to tye up one side and to let the other loose Whereas they ought either in discretion to have been equally restrained or in Justice to have been equally tolerated And 't is observable that the party to which they gave this Licence was that whose Doctrine though it was not contrary to Law was contrary to Custom and for a long time in this Kingdom was no oftner Preached than recanted c. We find them introducing such Doctrines as admitting them to be true the truth could not recompence the Scandal or such as were so far false as Sir Thomas Moore says of the Casuists their business was not to keep men from sinning but to inform them Quà propè ad peccatum sine peccato liceat accedere So it seemed their work was to try how much of a Papist might be brought in without Popery and to destroy as much of the Gospel without bringing themselves into danger of being destroyed by Law To go yet further some of them have so industriously laboured to deduce themseves from Rome that they have given great suspicion that in Gratitude they desire to return thither or at least to meet it half way Some have evidently laboured to bring in an English though not a Roman Popery I mean not only the out side and dress of it but equally absolute a blind dependence of the People upon the Clergy and of the Clergy upon themselves And have opposed the Papacy beyond the Seas that they might settle one beyond the Water § 2. I 'll now proceed to the Reply Dr. Heylin makes to this Speech of the Lord Faulkland 1. He produces the several Protestations of the Archbishop made in the Starchamber p. 389 390 c. and at his Tryal before the Lords and on the Scaffold just before his going out of this world of his Innocency as to this Besides Dr. Heylin doth insist on his Conference with Fisher the Jesuit the enlarging that Conference as an Argument that the Archbishop was no Papist 2. Touching the Design of working a Reconciliation betwixt us and Rome 't is acknowledged by Heylin and the Design applauded Take his own words I thought when our Saviour said Beati Pacifici it had been sufficient warrant to any man to endeavour Peace to build up the Breaches in the Church and to make Jerusalem like a City which is at Unity in it self especially where it may be done not only Salvâ Charitate without breach of Charity but Salvâ Fide too without wrong to Faith The greatest part of the Controversies between us and the Church of Rome not being in the Fundamentals or in any Essential point in the Christian Religion I cannot but look upon it as a most pious work to endeavour an Attonement in the Superstructures So far Heylin goes to shew both the Lawfulness of the endeavours of a Reconciliation and then the Possibility of obtaining of it The which Dr. Heylin no sooner evinces but he admits that such a Reconciliation was endeavoured betwixt the Agents for both Churches and gives an hint upon what terms the Agreement was to have been made and how far they proceeded on it 3. As to Reconciliation saith he out of a Book entituled the Pope's Nuncio affirmed to have been written by a Venetian Ambassador at his being in England between the Churches of England and Rome there were made some General Propositions and Overtures by the Archbishops Agents they assuring that his Grace was very much disposed thereunto And that if it was not accomplish'd in his Life-time it would prove a work of more difficulty after his Death That in very truth for the last three years the Archbishop had introduced some Innovations approaching near the Rites and Forms of Rome That the Bishop of Chichester a great Confident of his Grace the Lord Treasurer and eight other Bishops of his Grace's party did most passionately desire a Reconciliation with the Church of Rome that they did day by day recede from their antient Tenents to accommodate with the Church of Rome that therefore the Pope ought on his part to make some steps to meet them and the Court of Rome remit something of its Rigour in Doctrine or otherwise no accord will be The Composition on both sides was in so good a forwardness before Panzany left the Kingdom that the Archbishop and Bishop of Chichester had often said That there were but two sorts of people likely to impede and hinder the Reconciliation to wit the Puritans amongst the Protestants and the Jesuits amongst the Catholiques Let us next see the judgment and relation of another Author in a Gloss or