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
of Expediency or Brotherly Correspondence or on the force of Civil Laws For when the Christian Belief had not the support of Law Every Bishop taught his own Flock the best he could and gave his Neighbours such an account of his Faith at or soon after his Consecration as satisfied them and so maintain'd the Unity of the Church The Formality of Synods grew up in the Church from the Division of the Roman Empire and the Dignity of the several Cities which is a thing so well known and so plainly acknowledged by the Writers of all sides that it were a needless Imposing on the Readers Patience to spend time to prove it Such as would understand it more perfectly will find it in de Marca the late Archbishop of Paris's Books de Concordia Imperii Sacerdotii and in Blondels works de La Primaute de l'Englise None can Imagine there is a Divine Authority in that which sprang from such a Beginning The Major part of Synods cannot be supposed to be in matters of Faith so assisted from Heaven that the lesser part must necessarily Acquiesce in their Decrees or that the Civil powers must always measure their Laws by their Votes especially where intrest doth visibly turn the Scales so far Dr. Burnet The contrary unto which being asserted by the Deans Substitute 't is Apparent that he doth abundantly recede from the true Church of England not only to the Reproach of his Profession but of the first Reformation and grief of the sober and moderate Conformist This I thought necessary to suggest that I might engage the Reader to consider with what Injustice this Author treats not only those who dissent from the Church in some things but the Sober Conformist also who is a through Church man by Reprsenting us all as Enemies both to Church and State as if the adhereing unto Old Protestant Principles about Church Discipline had been the Overt Act of a Spirit Seditious and Phanatical Having thus so fully shewn How easy t is to put an end to the mischevous Divisions which have for some years past prov'd very dangerous to this Kingdome I will not inlarge on every little thing that our Authour may think deserves our Animadversions The Rude and slovenly methods he hath taken to asperse his Adversaries are such as do rather evince the Feebleness of his cause than deserve the the Regard of any sober Person His talk about the Impossibility of Union between the Church of England and the Dissenter because of the many Important Differences there are among our selves is confuted by the Present Union of the Authours of the Ensuing Treatices who though they differ in little things as much as any the One being a Confor the other a Nonconformist the third of a Uniting Spirit in the middle between us both yet are we all heartily agreed in the things that would Unite us Moreover it were easy to make it appear that the differences among the Dissenters in General about Worship and Discipline are rather Nominal than Real and that their Union is in a manner already accomplish'd The Notions we insist on in opposing the Deans Substitute are truly Protestant such as are owned and embraced by the Famous Hooker Dr. Feild Mr. Chilliggworth and Dr. Burnet and after a Signal manner by the Country Conformist who hath exprest himself in these Sheets with Gravity and Candor He is aware of the design of this Author as well as we as its Tendencie is towards Rome and is sensible that the methods taken in the opposition some of the Clergy make against the Peaceable Dissenter do Justifie the French in their Rigorous and most cruel Persecutions There is to the letter of Mr. Humfrey to me at the end his late Paper added Entitled Materials for Union which together with this Preface if we offer'd no more will prove the things I have said to be Feasible and alone serve to that Firm and Lasting Union which is chiefly aim'd at in these our joint endeavours To conclude The peace of the Church of England and the Greatness of the King who is head of it being things most desireable to every good Protestant and true Subject we have in these Papers shewn our good will to doe something towards the advance thereof Which being submitted to the Superiour thoughts of some one who is in a higher Sphere of Ability for the cultivation of it and of place for the representing it without prejudice to our Sovereign we do hope it may both be well accepted by him and take with every body else who do truly honour the King seek Concord and love good men Sep. 16. 1681. Stephen Lobb The Author not being able to attend the Press desires the Candid Reader before be peruses the ensuing Discourse to Correct these momentous Errata Pag. 11. l. 9. r. is to have a Right p 17. l. 14. dele them p. 29. l. 38. for chain r. chair p. 36. l. 37. for Catholick Colledge r. Supream Governing Heads p. 74. before l. 18. r. I 'le now consider the Deans third Argument which is p. 76. before l. 4. r. The Deans fourth Argument which at this time only deserves Animadversions is our Divisions give great Advantage to the Papists and the Dissenters by their Separation have caused the Devision Rep. p. ib. l. 5. for the 2. r. 2d the l. 7. r. not p. 78. l. 28. for Form r. Term. A Reply to the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness c. CHAP. I. A Reply to the Reflections on the Title of the Enquiry SECT I. The Introduction The Acts of the Enquirers pretended Immodesty Examined The Dissenter vindicated from the Reproach of ruining King and Kingdom The Civil War the product of Jesuitical Councels as is confess'd by Dr. Heylin The VVar begun by the Episcopal on both sides The tendency of the Deans Defence towards Popery as 't is a revival of the Grotian Design THE Defence of the Reverend Dean of Pauls Unreasonableness of Separation containing little in it of Argument more than what we find in the Dean's own Treatise might pass unanswered had not the Author by a fuller Discovery of the Design of his Party which are but a few made it necessary to shew to the world whither it leads For in this Defence there are hints enough given to tempt an Unprejudiced and Impartial Reader to fear he hath engag'd himself too deeply in that Design that was seemingly but begun by the Dean For which Reason I will in this with as much modesty as the subject-matter will admit and this Author will let me enjoy shew That as I did not abuse the Dean of Pauls when in the Modest and peaceable Enquiry I detected some of his Mistakes even so if we must pass a Judgment on the Doctor answerable to the Character that is to be found of his Substitute in the Defence 't is apparent that they are conspiring in a Design which the Learned and Conformable Clergy will give him little
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
Universal Church are in the number of French Papists Thus Cassander yea and Grotius as to Church-Government were for a French Papacy Whether the Dean's Substitute be or be not I 'le leave to the impartial censure of the judicious Râ—â—der who is desired to consider his notion as compared with that of the Parisians 1. The Dean's Substitute doth suggest That the Universal Church is the first Seat of Government 't is a political organiz'd Body in which there is a Pars Imperans Subdita the Bishops in their Colledg being the Governours or Pars Imperans and all others of the Universal Church the subdite part It may be our Author to gratifie the Dean will deny the Universal Church to be a political organiz'd body as indeed he doth but 't is even when he 's resolv'd to assert That the Universal church is the Seat of Government and Discipline as if there could be any Government in any Society without a governing and governed parts But so it is as a National even so the Universal church with him is not a political body that is 't is not such a body unto whose constitution a pars Imperans and subdita is necessary even when its constitution is such that it cannot be but there must be in it some Governours and other Governed Therâ— is not a Regent part in the Catholick Church but there is a Governing part that is there are Governours viz. the Catholick Bishops in their Colledg who are the Governours of the Catholick church Thus our Learned Gentleman in one place endeavouring to fetch the Dean off from that difficulty Mr. Humphreys had driven him unto concerning the constitutive Regent part of the church of England as National doth say The Dean answers in my poor opinion with great judgment and consideration We deny any necessity of such a constitutive Regent part For though a National church be one body yet it is not such a political body as Mr. B. describes i. e. there is no such Government as cannot be without a Pars Regens Subdita p. 562. And yet he grants That Church-Governours united and governing by consent are the pars Imperans and christian peoplo in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour submitting to such government are the pars subdita p. 565. All which is true saith he without a Constitutive Regent Head i. e. There is a Governing part or a pars Regens or to speak English a Constitutive Regent part or Head without a Constitutive Regent Head The like is asserted of the Universal Church namely That it is a Church governed by the Colledge of Bishops which Colledge of Bishops are the Pars Imperans though not the constitutive Regent part For we must allow him to wallow in his contradictions But a Governing part there is in the Universal Church which Governing part is compos'd of Bishops II. The Governours of the Universal Church are Catholick Bishops in Council who though they are equals and as such have no Superiority over one another p. 213. yet the Colledge or these Bishops assembled have Authority and command over any of its collegues that is every single Bishop is under the Authority and command of this Foreign Council III. The Catholick Church is One when it is not rent and divided but united and coupled by the cement of Bishops who stick câ—ose together p. 596. The result of all is That the Catholick Church of Christ being one Visible Political Body it is a compleatly Organiz'd body on Earth hath its Governing and Governed parts The Visible Governing part being a Terrestrial Numerical Head though collective viz. A Colledge of Bishops a General Council A Notion that doth not only subvert the present constitution of the Church of England that thinks not it self accountable to any such Forreign Power but moreover in it self as grosly absurd as 't is suited to the French the Cassandrian or the Grotian Model leading us all to Unite with all the other parts of the Catholick Church by rendring an unwarrantable Obedience unto such a Governing Power as is seldom in being and when so as dangerous and of as destructive a tendency to the Government of Jesus Christ as that of the Italian Papacy But whether our Author had a clear prospect of this Intreague when at first he was put on it I 'll not venture to determine it being sufficient that I have fully proved That the New-Modell'd Episcopacy of this Gentleman is the same with that of the French which is as inconsistent with the old-establish'd Episcopacy of our Church as is the Italian Papacy For if our Author may safely exceed the bounds of those Laws that do with the greatest Severity forbid our Appeal to any Forreign Power by addressing himself unto a Forreign Colledge Why may not another presume to make his Appeal to the Court of Rome What Reason can be given for the One which will not prove cogent for the Other especially to such who living where they have constant experiences of the excellency of a Monarchical Government in the State may be easily induced to conclude Monarchy as admirable in the Church and then farewel Impossibilities viz. General Councils a Roman Monarch in the Church being much more desirable Having thus given a true state of the Controversie whereby we find our Author to agree exactly with the French Papist about Gâ—vernment asserting the Universal Church as such to be a Governed Body in which there is a Governour and the Governed 't will be requisite that as I have shewn what are some of the Absurdities which flow from it that I do moreover evince it to be in it self unsound and false That this may the more clearly and with the greater conviction be performed I will be so just as to do our Author all the right imaginable by taking notice what he seems to assert and what he 's resolv'd to deny and accordingly proceed to the strictest disquisition after the Truth Our Author asserts That the Universal Church as such is the Seat of Government 't is a Body under Government as much as if it had been said There must be in it a Governing and a Governed part It being impossible that Government should be without Order which Order is secundum sub Supra Wherever there is Government there must be a Superiour part Governing and an Inferiour Governed There must be Dominus Subditus This our Author seems to grant when he doth to this Assertion of the Government of the Universal Church add his thoughts about the Governours thereof which he saies are the Universal Bishops assembled in Council But alrhough this is what our Author doth assert he doth notwithstanding resolutely deny the Universal Church to be a Political Body what he saith of a National that he asserts of the Universal Church both which are Govern'd Societies but neither a Political Body p. 564 565. All which is to fetch off the Dean from Mr. Humphrey's and Mr. B's unanswerable Queries
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