A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists, Treatise · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. What the National Church of England is?
Sect. 1. ACcording to the Doctors Method we come now to the Explication of one of the terms of our Controverſie, ſo long and loudly called for, viz. what the National Church of England is, which we muſt obey, and from which we are ſaid to ſeparate, p. 287. And the anſwer is ſuch as may tell Dr. Fulwood and him, that it's time to give over wondering that I underſtood not what they meant by it.
Sect. 2. Our queſtion is of the Church Policy and Political Form. All writers of Politicks difference a meer Community, from a Political Body: This is eſſentiated of the two conſtitutive Parts, the Pars Regens and Pars ſubdita: the former is much like the Soul, and the later the Body. The Ruling Part is called the Form by moſt, and the ſorts (Monarchical, Ariſtocratical, Democratical or mixt) the form in Specie, as the rational or ſenſitive Soul to Animals: But the Relative Form is the Union of both in their proper order. Such a body Politick is a Kingdom, a City, a Church in the proper and uſual ſenſe.
But in a looſe ſenſe many other things may be called a Church. As 1. a Community prepared for a governing Form, not yet received. 2. An occaſional Congregation about Religion (as Priſoners that pray together; Men that meet about a Religious Conſultation or Diſpute, &c.) 3. Many Churches as under one Chriſtian Magiſtrate as an accidental Head. 4. Many Churches aſſociated for mutual help and concord, without any governing Head: Either of one Kingdom or of many. 5. Many Churches as meerly agreeing in Judgment and Love, in diſtant parts of the World. None of theſe are Churches in the political Senſe, but are equivocally ſo called.
But Politically. 1. All the Chriſtian World is one Church as formed by their Relation to Chriſt the Head. 2. All ſingle Churches that have Paſtors to guide them in the Eſſentials of the Paſtoral Office, are true Churches, formed by this mutual Relation. Theſe two are undoubted.
3. The now Roman▪ Catholick Church is one by Uſurpation, as informed by one Uſurping head.
4. A Patriarchal Church is one, as Governed by a Patriarch.
5. A Provincial Church is one as headed by the Metropolitan, or as mixt where Ariſtocratically others are joyned with him.
6. An Archiepiſcopal or Dioceſan Church that hath particular Churches and Biſhops under it is one as headed by that Dioceſane. (Jure an injuriâ I diſpute not.)
7. A Dioceſane Church of many ſcore or hundred Pariſhes, having no Epiſcopus Gregis, or true Paſtors and Paſtoral Churches under him, but only half Paſtors and Chappels that are but partes Eccleſia, is one, even of the loweſt ſort, in their opinion, as headed by that Dioceſane.
8. A Presbyterian Claſſical Church is one, as headed by the Claſſes.
9. A Presbyterian National Church is one, as headed by the General Aſſembly.
10. An Epiſcopal National Church is one, either as headed by one National Biſhop, or elſe by a Synod of Biſhops Ariſtocratically; or elſe by a Synod of Biſhops and Presbyters Ariſtocratically. All theſe that are conſtituted of One Regent and a ſubdite Part, are called Churches in a Political proper ſenſe, and not only equivocally.
Now the Queſtion is, Of which ſort is the National Church of England?
And the Doctor ſaith, page 287. 1. That the Society of all Chriſtians is counted a true Catholick Church, from their Union and Conſent in ſome common things: and ſo is ours, &c.]
Anſw. But in what common things? Not in one Bible, for ſo may Hereticks, much leſs in one Liturgy. If it be not a conſent in one Governing Head, it makes no proper Church.
2. He ſuppoſeth an agreement in the ſame Faith, and under the ſame Government and Diſcipline.
Anſw. That's right: But what Government is it, Civil, or Eccleſiaſtical? The firſt is no eſſential part of a proper Church. If it be the later, is it one in ſpecie or in individu… politico? Not the former; for a 100 Epiſcopal Churches in ſeveral Nations may have one ſpecies of Government, as many Kingdoms may have. It is therefore the later that is all my Queſtion, which is the Church-Head?
He ſaith [As ſeveral Families make one Kingdom, ſo ſeveral leſſer Churches make one National.
Anſw. True, if that National Church have one Conſtitutive Head as a Family hath: It's no Family without a Pater or Mater Familias. And no Governed proper Church without Governours; and there is no Governour where there is no ſupreme in his place and kind: For inferiours have all their power from the ſupreme: There is no Univerſal ſupreme but God: but the King is ſubordinately the ſupreme in his Kingdom in reſpect to inferiours, and ſo it is in other Governed Societies.
He addeth [The name of a Church comprehended the Eccleſiaſtical Governours and People of whole Cities, and ſo may be extended to many Cities united under one Civil Government, and the ſame rules of Religion.
Anſw. 1. If the queſtion were only de nomine, we grant that Civil Courts even of Heathens are uſually by Writers called Eccleſia, and ſo is any Aſſembly. If this be all you mean, ſpeak out.
2. Many Nations may agree in the ſame Rules of Religion, yea, ſo all Chriſtians do: Doth this conſtitute National Churches?
3. One Civil Government is of another ſpecies, and not eſſential but accidental to a Church, and therefore doth not conſtitute or individuate it: One juſtice of Peace or Mayor in a Chriſtian Corporation, doth not make it one Pariſh Church. But if this be all your meaning, ſpeak out: we grant de re a Chriſtian Kingdom, and contend not de nomine if you call it a Church.
§. 3. page 297. …. As to the difference of a National Church and Kingdom, he granteth what we deſire, confeſſing the difference. But asketh [whence cometh all this zeal now againſt a National Church?]
Anſw. An untrue inſinuation.
1. To deſire to know what it is, is untruly called zeal againſt it.
2. And agreeing with you in the deſcription is no zeal againſt it.
He adds [The Presbyterians and Mr. Hudſon write for it.
Anſw. Mr. Hudſon is a Conformiſt: And the Presbyterians tell you what they mean, a Chriſtian Nation of particular Churches Governed by One General Aſſembly as the Supreme Eccleſiaſtical Government. Whether this be juſt or unjuſt is now none of our queſtion. I have oft told what I think of it. Do you alſo tell us which is your National Church-power and I have done? Are you loth to be underſtood?
§. 4. But page 299. He cometh to his plain Anſwer, viz. 1. [The National Church of England diffuſive is the whole Body of Chriſtians in this Nation, conſiſting of Paſtors and People, agreeing in that Faith, Government and worſhip which are eſtabliſhed by the Laws of this Realm.] And now he [continues his wonder at thoſe who ſo confidently ſay, they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England.]
Anſw. Yea, your wonder may increaſe, that I leſs and leſs underſtand it, if you did not after tell us better …an in this unhappy definition.
1. Is this called the Church diffuſive one Governed body Politick? If not, it is no Church in the ſenſe in queſtion, and I'le not ſtick with you for an equivocal name.
2. Do you mean by [Government agreed in. 1. The Civil Government. 2. Or the Eccleſiaſtical Government of the particular Churches ſeverally. 3. Or one Government of all the National Church?
1. The firſt makes it no Church in the ſenſe in queſtion.
2. The ſecond makes it no Church, but an Aſſociation of many Churches▪ ſuch as a thouſand Independent▪ Churches may make, or the Churches of many Kingdoms. Many Families Aſſociated are no City or one ruled Society if they agree in no Common Governours, but only their ſeveral Family Governours. Many Cities aſſociated are no Commonwealth if they agree not in one ſupreme power. It's no political body without one common Governour▪ Natural or Collective, Monarchical, Ariſtocratical or Democratical.
And what is it of [Worſhip eſtabliſhed by Law] that individuates your Church? If all th… the Law hath eſtabliſhed.
1. Your Church hath oft changed its very being, and may do at every Parliament.
2. And the Church is ſmall and unknown, if all that differ in any point eſtabliſhed are no parts of it. But if it be not all eſtabliſhed, who knoweth by this definition what it is, and what is the very matter of your Church. So that here is a definition which neither notifieth matter or form.
§. 5. Next he anſwereth the Queſtion, How all the Congregations in England make up this one Church?] and anſwereth [By Unity of Conſent, as all particular Churches make one Catholick.]
Anſw. Conſent to what? 1. If it be not to one common Government, it is no Governed Church, as one. 2. Doth he think that the Catholick Church conſenteth not to one Governing Head, Chriſt? And doth any thing elſe make them formally One Politick body or Church? This were ill Doctrine.
§. 6. Queſtion, How comes it to be One National Church? (Saith he) I ſay becauſe it was received by the common conſent of the whole Nation in Parliament, as other Laws of the Nation are?]
Anſw. Whether, [How comes it?] Speak of the efficient cauſe, or the formal, or what, it's hard to know, ſo ſingular are his Logical notions. But the firſt is moſt likely.
And then, 1. The queſtion is ſtill unanſwered, What is the One common Governing power in the Church which this Parliament conſent hath …t up? He knows this is the queſtion.
2. And if it be by Parliament conſent, how old is your Church? What Parliament firſt made it? It's not ſo old as Luther? Is it no older than the Liturgy or Canons?
3. Doth it die and live again as oft as Parliaments change it? If the corruption of one have been the generation of another, how many Churches of England have you had?
4. The whole Nation did not conſent by Parliament when the Lords and Commons voted down the Biſhops and Liturgy: was there then no National Church?
5. How ſhall we prove that the whole or half the Nation ever meant to put their conſent into the hand of the Parliament to make a new Church of England, and to alter it?
6. What men make they may deſtroy. May not the Nation withdraw ſuch conſent? and the Parliament unmake their creature▪
§. 7. Next, p. 300 he ſaith [The Repreſentative Church of England i… the Biſhops and Presbyters of this Church meeting according to the Laws of the Realm, to conſult and adviſe about … of Religion.—The conſent of … Convocations (of Ca…erbury and York Provinces) … the Repreſentative National Church of England.
Anſw. 1. So here we have a Diffuſiv… Church and its Repreſentative, but no Government of either, as a Church, mentioned, but the Civil.
2. And they can be no Governours meerly as Repreſenting thoſe that are no Governours themſelves. Not as the peoples Repreſentatives; fo… they are no Church Governours (whatever elſewhere he ſaith like a Brownist of the Keys being given to Peter as repreſenting the whole Church.). Not as the Presbyters repreſentatives; For, 1. They are denied Epiſcopal power, 2. And they are Governours at moſt but of their particular Churches; and not of the whole. 3. Not as the Biſhops repreſentatives, for 1. They are there themſelves, 2. And they are no Common Governours of the whole as ſuch.
3. If he mean that the two Convocations when they conſent become the One Common Conſtitutive Governing Power of the National Church, this is intelligible, but 1. He after denieth any ſuch; 2. And then their diſſent would diſſolve the Church, and one Convocation not oblige it; (with much more ſuch.)
§. 8. But yet he perceiveth he hath not anſwered me, and therefore comes to it, page 300, ſaying, [It's a falſe ſuppoſition that whereever there is the true notion of a Church, there muſt be a Conſtitutive Regent part,—a ſtanding Governing power which is an eſſential part of it.]
Anſw. A true notion, belongeth to equivocals: The true notion, and the proper political notion are words of various ſignification. I have granted you that the true notion of a Church belongs to a Ship-full, a Priſon full, a Houſe-full, of Chriſtians as ſuch; and to our Parliament, and to the Common-Council of the City: But not the notion now in queſtion.
2. Is not Government eſſential to a Governed Church? Fixed Government to a fixed Church, and tranſient temporary Government to an anſwerable Church? Deny this and few will follow you.
§. 9. He adds, [Which I will prove to be falſe from Mr. B. himſelf. He aſſerts that there is one Catholick viſible Church, and that all particular Churches headed by their particular Biſhops or Paſtors, are parts of the Univerſal Church as a Troop is of an Army, and a City of a Kingdom.—Then it will unavoidably follow, that there muſt be a Catholick viſible Head to a Catholick viſible Church. And ſo Mr. Bs: Conſtitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindneſs—But there are ſome men in the world that do not attend the advantages they give to Popery, ſo they may but vent their spleen againſt the Church of England. But doth not Mr. B. ſay, that the Univerſal Church is headed by Chriſt; I grant he doth: But the Question is of the Viſible Church of which particular Churches are parts: And they being Viſible parts, require a Viſible Conſtitutive Regent Head,—therefore the whole Viſible Church muſt have likewiſe a Conſtitutive Viſible Regent part—This is to make a Key for Catholicks?
Anſw. I am glad he ſpeaketh ſo intelligibly, in denying a Conſtitutive Regent part▪ though ſorry that he ſpeaks ſo ill.
1. When I have written againſt Johnſon, alias Terrae the Papiſt, two Books on this ſubject; eſpecially the later fully proving the Catholick Church headed by Chriſt, to be that viſible Church Catholick of which all particulars are members; Can the Reader think I ſhould write it over again, becauſe this Doctor will talk over a little of the ſame with that Prieſt, and take no notice of my proof or anſwer?
2. Doth he believe that the Kingdoms of the World are not viſible parts of God's Univerſal Kingdom? and yet God inviſible?
3. Dare he ſay that all true Churches are not real parts of Chriſt's Univerſal Church, as a Governed body? and yet are not they viſible? Is it neceſſary then that the Univerſal Head muſt be viſible if the ſubordinate be ſo?
4. Doth he not perceive that he turneth the Controverſie, from the neceſſity of a Regent head, to the neceſſity of his viſibility? As if our queſtion had not been, Which is the Regent part of the Church of England? but whether it muſt be viſible? Is this edifying?
5. All Chriſtians are agreed that the Univerſal Church is Viſible. 1. In its parts and members on earth, and their profeſſion. 2. In that Chriſt the Head was viſible on earth; 3. And hath left Viſible Univerſal Laws; 4. And hath a Body viſible in Heaven; as the King is to his Courtiers but not to moſt of his Subjects; 5. And will ſhortly viſibly judge all the World. Thus far and no further (ſave as ſeen extraordinarily to Paul, Stephen, &c.) is the Univerſal Head Viſible. And are we not agreed that this is a real and moſt excellent Political Church▪ and that all other Viſible Churches are parts of it? Something beſides ſpleen makes ſome men talk dangerouſly.
§. 10. But really doth he think that this doth unavoidably ſet up the Pope? Why, firſt is there a word of this that a ſober Chriſtian dare deny? or that the Chriſtian World doth not commonly conſent to? And do the certain Doctrines of the Goſpel and Church ſet up the Pope? Will he turn Papiſt if this be proved, and the Chriſtian World be not deceived? Is this our Champion againſt Popery now? I thought no man but Mr. Cheny and ſome odd Papiſts had been of this Opinion? But to Mr. Cheny and againſt Johnſon I have confuted it, and therefore thither refer the Reader. Far be it from me to reſiſt Popery by denying, 1. That Chriſt's Church thus far viſible is one Political body headed by himſelf, 2. Or that all true viſible Churches are parts of it. 3. Or that every Political Governed body is conſtituted of the Regent and ſubdite parts. Chriſtians will reject me for the former, and Politicians deride me if I hold the laſt.
§. 11. He proceedeth, [2. The plain reſolution is, that we deny any neceſſity of any ſuch Regent Conſtitutive part, or one formal Eccleſiaſtical Head as eſſential to a National Church: For a National conſent is as ſufficient to make a National Church as an Univerſal conſent to make a Catholick.]
Anſw. No conſent maketh a Catholick Church, but conſenting to one ſupreme Head, Chriſt: But I am glad I underſtand you.
§ 12. Saith he, [Queſt. By what way this National conſent is to be declared? By the Conſtitutions of this Church the Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops and Presbyters ſummoned by the King's Writ, are to adviſe and declare their judgments in matters of Religion, which received and enacted by Parliament there is as great a National conſent as to any Law. And all the Biſhops, Miniſters and People make up this National Church.]
Anſw. Now we are come to the bottom: And, 1. Our queſtion is of the Conſtitution of the Church, and the Doctor tells us the Adminiſtration makes it. To conſult and adviſe and make Laws are acts of Adminiſtration, and follow the Conſtitution. Men muſt have Power before they uſe it, and muſt be a Church before they act … Church.
2. Yea to Adviſe and Conſult are not ſo much as acts proper to adminiſtring Government, but belong to thoſe that are no Governours alſo.
3. If they be no Laws till the Parliament make them ſuch, then either the Parliament are your Church Head, or you have none that's Eccleſiaſtical.
But having your plain Confeſſion that you have no ſuch Regent part, and ſo are no Church Political, (ſave Civil) but a meer Aſſociation, I ask
§. 13. 1. Why do you pretend that we are none of the Church of England, or that we vent our ſpleen againſt it or deny it, who deny not Aſſociated Churches in England under one Civil Government?
2. How unhappily are the Church-Defenders and Conformiſts diſagreed? Read Mr. Dodwell and many ſuch others that take the Church to be a Governed body Politick and ſee what they will judg of you?
3. Are not you and I liker to be of one Church of England, who agree what it is, than you and thoſe Biſhops and Doctors that ſpeak of two different things, and agree not ſo much as what it is?
4. Have you not brought your Defence of the Church of England to a fair iſſue, by denying that there is any ſuch Church, in the queſtioned political ſenſe?
5. What made you before talk of being under one Government? If you meant only Civil? Is your Governed Church as ſuch only Civil, or a Kingdom only?
6. Do you not now abſolve all men from the duty of obeying the Church of England a… ſuch, and from all guilt of diſobeying them? How can men Govern that are no Governours? and how can we obey them? It's only the Civil power then that we herein diſobey.
If you ſay that all the Biſhops are Governours, and altogether govern the whole; I anſwer, Yes per partes, but not as a whole or Church. If twenty Families in a Village agree as Maſters and Servants, to go one way as Conſenters, this▪ maketh no one Government of the Village. If the Phyſicians of London conſent to one Pharmacopeia that maketh them not a body Politick. If twenty Sea Captains conſent to go one Voyage by one rule, each one is a Governour of his own Ship, but this maketh no Government of the whole. All the Juſtices and Mayors of England rule the Kingdom per partes, by the ſame Law: But all together make not one Ariſtocracy to Govern the Kingdom as One whole. Unleſs your Biſhops, &c. are United in One perſona Politica or Ariſtocracy, they may rule their ſeveral Churches, but they make not one common Government for the National Church as ſuch. An agreement of the Emperour, Spaniard, and other Confederates make not one Kingdom or body Politick.
7. How can they be Schiſmaticks for diſobeying them that are not their Governours.
8. How come Diſſenters bound by Parliament conſent? If it never was in their minds to truſt them as Conſenters for them? yea and declare their own diſſent, as moſt of the Nation did lately againſt Prelacy and Liturgy, yea and their choſen repreſentatives? Have ſuch repreſentatives more power to expreſs our conſent than we our ſelves?
9. You unhappily erre with Hooker in your popular Politicks, if you think that the Laws bind us only becauſe we conſent to them by our Repreſentatives, or that as ſuch they make them. Whereas it is as by Conſenting in the Conſtitution they are made part of the Rullers or Legiſlators, and not meerly as if we made the Laws by them.
10. And as to Convocation conſent, how binds it all thoſe that never conſented to them? How is the City of London ſo bound to Conform, when they had not one choſen Clerk (but only the Dignitaries) in the Convocation that made us our Conformity (the two choſen by them being refuſed by the Biſhops.)
11. Will not you paſs for an aſſerter of the Principles of Independency, that not only ſay, The Keys are given to the whole body, and the Convocation repreſent the People, &c. but alſo that England is one Church but by conſent, without conſenting to any one Conſtitutive Regent Church head. The Independants are for a National Church meerly by confederacy and conſent, without National Government of it.
12. You go further from the Epiſcopal Politicks than the Preſbyterians do: For they make an Ariſtocratical Regent Part, but you make none.
13. I doubt ſome Stateſmen will be angry with you, that ſay there is no power of Church Government in England, but from the King as Head (as Crumpt… before Couſins Tables, and others ordinarily.)
14. Do you make England in eſſentials any more one Church, than England and any Foreigners agreeing are one? Did the Synod of D…rt make us one with them? Do large Councils make many Nations one Church? Did the Heptarchy make England one Kingdom, when ſeven Kings Governed the whole by parts, but none the whole, as ſuch?
15. I beſeech you think what you have done againſt the Parochial, Dioceſane and Provincial Churches in England. Have none of theſe, have not each of theſe a Regent Conſtitutive part? Are none of them true Churches in ſenſu politico? You dare not ſay, No. If they are, You have ſaid that viſible Churches as Parts unavoidably require a viſible Head to the whole (by which I bring in the Pope, becauſe you think Chriſt will not ſerve the turn:) And do you not ſay that all theſe Churches are parts of the Church of England? And if you deny it to have one Regent part, do you not then either deſtroy the reſt, or uſe the name Church equivocally to theſe ſeveral ſorts ſo heterogeneal?
16. I pray you tell us, from whom our Arch-biſhops receive their power? If you ſay from the Biſhops, and ſo Inferiours or Equals may give power, why may not Presbyters make Presbyters or Biſhops, and generare ſpeciem? If it muſt come from Superiours, the Church of England hath none ſuch.
17. If the Peoples conſent can make a National Church, why may it not make an Independant or Presbyterian Church?
18. If the Nations conſent, as ſuch make the Church of England, it is not made by Legiſlative power of King and Parliament.
19. Do the Clergy repreſent the King? or is he none of the Church?
20. How prove you that the Clergy repreſent the Laity in the Convocation?
21. By your Rule, if divers parties of Chriſtians agree to ſet up divers forms of Church-Government, with mutual forbearance they would be one National Church. And ſo would Epiſcopal, Presbyterians and Independants if the Law allowed them all.
22. Was the Church of England the ſame thing in the days of H. 8. Ed. 6. Q. Mary, Q. Eliz. &c.
23. Who maketh National Churches in abſolute Hereditary Monarchies, where are no Parliaments to ſignifie popular conſent?
24. If every Law of Order be eſſential to your Church, few Conformiſts are of it: If only the true eſſentials, why are not we alſo of it?
25. How ill agree you with Mr. Cheny▪ who maketh it Atheiſm, Infidelity, Blaſphemy, Impiety, to aſſert Church-making conſent or confederacies beſides Baptiſm?
26. But the beſt is you leave us in hope of Reformation; for if Parliaments will but conſent for us to take down Dioceſanes lower, and to reform Pariſh-Churches, and alter Liturgy, &c. we are the National Church ſtill. And one prevailing Vote may prove us all conſenters; and make the Church quite another thing.
§. 14. Yet he ſaith [Page 299. By this deſcription any one may ſee how eaſily the Church of England is diſtinguiſhed from the Papiſts on one ſide, and the Diſſenters on the other.]
Anſw. I am one, and I cannot ſee it, nor ſo much as ſee how to know the Church it ſelf, nor who is a Member of it, nor how any man can know it: but he ſeems to me to make it a Church inviſible. But I ſee the Diſſenters muſt be none of it.
1. How was the Church of England known from Papiſts, in the beginning of H. 8. or in the middle, or in the end? or how known when it began?
How was it known in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths days, when the Papiſts came to Church? or now as to Church-Papiſts? How ſhall we know to which Church the late Biſhop Bramhall and other Doctors belong, who would have the Pope Govern▪ us according to the Canons as Patriarch of the Weſt, & principium unitatatis univerſalis, and all go for Schiſmaticks that deny it. Some call this the New-Church of England, differing from the old one which was before Biſhop Laud.
2. How ſhall one know how far conſent is neceſſary to a Member, and diſſent unchurcheth him? Lately a Doctor was accuſed for ſaying he ſcrupled to call the King according to the Liturgy, Our moſt Religious King: Mr. Jole of Sarral was ſuſpended for not oftner wearing the Surplice, and denying to pray in the Litany for [Our moſt Gracious Queen Katherine, and James Duke of York. But theſe are ſmall diſſents; The ſenſe is the Churches Law and Doctrine, and not the ſound of words in various ſenſes: I have oft ſhewed in how many contrary ſenſes the Conformiſts take the 39 Articles, the Liturgy, the words of Subſcription and Declaration, and the Oaths impoſed? How ſhall one know among all theſe, who are, or are not of your Church? When you tell us that it is [Agreeing in the Faith, Government and Worſhip which is eſtabliſhed by Law] and then ſpeak ſo hotly againſt the need and being of any common Government, ſave the Civil, at all eſtabliſhed over the Church as a. National body, and never diſtinguiſh any neceſſary parts of Faith, Government and Worſhip, from the reſt, nor tell us how to know them? And when Conformiſts diſſent in ſo many things; ſome from Lay Chancellours Government by the Keys, ſome in the ſenſe of the Articles, and the Noncon…o…ists ſay they conſent to all that Scripture requireth, and the meer Circumſtantials determined by Law, how ſhall you be known? Either it is in the Eſſentials only, or the Integrals alſo, or alſo in all the Laws de Accedentibus, that the Church of England by agreement is made that One Church.
1. If it be only in Eſſentials, is there either Confeſſion, Rubrick, Canon, or any Writer that hath told us which be thoſe, and all thoſe, and only thoſe Eſſentials? I never met with man that pretendeth to know them, and therefore never met with man that can thus tell, whether he be of the Church of England or not? nor that can tell of others, and who is not?
2. To ſay it muſt be conſent alſo in the Integrals that is neceſſary ad eſſe, is a contradiction: and is to make Integrals Eſſentials. To ſay that it muſt be conſent in all Laws of Accidents alſo, is to make that an eſſential part which is no part. Our looſe confounding Diſputers, when they have loſt the truth in ſuch contradictions, may ſay as Mr. Dodwell doth to me, that I Cavil: But will that anſwer help down all abſurdities with reaſonable men? It's plain that as the Papiſts Doctrine of defining Church-Members and Chriſtians, by no Eſſential Articles of Faith, but by Probable Propoſal of more or leſs doth make their Church inviſible, ſo doth this definition of the Church of England by Doctor Stillingfleet make theirs, and leave us uncertain who is of it. It makes me think what I hear Oliver the Uſurper ſaid to a Biſhop that now is (as I am credibly told, [Doctor how know you that you are a true Miniſter of Chriſt?] who anſwered him on Mr. Dodwell's Principles, [Becauſe I have received Ordination by uninterrupted ſucceſſive conveyance from true Biſhops, from the Apoſtles:] Saith he; Are you ſure they were all true Biſhops and the ſucceſſion uninterrupted? Doctor will you take your Oath that you are thus a true Miniſter?] At which when he ſtuck, [Come, come, Doctor, ſaith he, there is a ſurer and a nearer way.]
Certain I am, that if Agreement in the ſenſe of the 39 Articles, or in all Forms and Ceremonies be neceſſary to conſtitute a Member of the Church of England, abundance that ſubſcribe are none, that now go for ſuch: But if not, I pray tell us why ſuch as I alſo are not Members of your Church. Do I more differ from you than Doctor Heylin, Mr. Thorndike, Mr. Dodwell, and in a word than the party which adhered to Arch-biſhop La…d, differed from the party which adhered to Biſhop Abbot, Whitgift, and the Parliaments of thoſe and after-times? If the Church of England as ſuch a one, be conſtituted by no ſupreme Church-Government, we are all of it, ſo far as we conſent to the Aſſociation, and none as it is one Political body. And what then becomes of its Laws, and all the Treatiſes of its Church-Policy?
§. 15. But yet the Doctor ſtops not here: I unavoidably introduce Popery if I make a Conſtitutive Regent Church power, neceſſary to a Church: for then the Univerſal Church muſt have ſuch.]
Anſw. 1. It's not neceſſary to an equivocal ungoverned Church, ſuch as our Worceſterſhire Aſſociation made: But to a Political Governed Church it is.
2. Mark here all you that go the Political Church way, that your Doctor accuſeth you more than the Nonconformiſts, even of certain opening the door to Popery. What if I had ſaid ſo by you? Is it ſuch men that thus make you agents for a Pope?
3. Doth this Political deſcription of Parochial, Dioceſane, Provincial, Patriarchal Churches, alſo bring in Popery?
4. Then either our Archbiſhops have no power, or they have it from no ſuperiour, or elſe they infer a Pope.
5. I again tell the Doctor as I did Mr. Cheny; It is diſingenious to ſay this to me, when I have written ſo much againſt Johnſon the Prieſt, in my firſt, and ſpecially my ſecond anſwer, which none replyeth to, without any confutation or notice of it▪ I have fully proved that Chriſt's Catholick Church hath himſelf for an Eſſential Head, ſometime viſible on earth, leaving viſible Laws, and now viſible to the Courtiers in Heaven, and coming viſibly to judge all; and there is no other. Indeed if the doctrine of Mr. Dodwell and many ſuch hold, who deny that the power floweth immediately from Chriſts Law or Charter to the Church, and not from the Ordainers or Electors, who do but determine of the Receiver and Inveſt him, then all the Doctors in England cannot anſwer the Digreſſion, Cap. 14. of the Book called [The Catholick Hierarchy,] proving that ſuch a Prelatical ſubordination of Churches, inferreth a Pope: But I have fully ſhewed the vanity of that inference as to us.
But remember that the Doctor and I are agreed, that [A Nation conſenting in an Aſſociation of particular Churches, may be called a National Church (equivocally,) Though it can make no Laws unleſs its conſent alſo ſet up a Supreme Church-Government. Meet Agreements are not Laws.
§. 16. He next would make the unwary Reader think that he anſwereth my Queſtion, 1. What is the ſame Rule that all muſt walk by, viz. that the Scriptures are the Foundation of our Faith.—2. But our Church requireth Conformity to the Rules appointed by it agreable to the word of God.]
Anſw. But it ſeems the Scripture then is not the whole rule, but part: the fundamental part. 2. Which did Paul mean? Was your Churches Rule then made? 3. Doth your Church require this ad eſſe, or but ad melius eſſe? If the firſt, all Canon-breakers are diſmembred? And, is that according to God's word? If the later, why am not I of your Church? 4. But how comes that Church to command and bind, which hath no ſuch Ruling power?