The True Dissenter, Chapter 1

The True Dissenter · Chapter 1

p. 3CHAP. I. Some things Premis'd which are fit to be considered in order to our clearer understanding the Historical Description of the Church of England. The Description given in several Aphorismes. What is required of all English men that hold communion with the Church of England particularly shewn.

SECT. I. The Premises.

IN giving a just Description of the Church of England, and of what she enjoynes as Necessary to Communion with her, I shall but do the part of an Unbiassed Historian. In my endeavours to know what the Church is, my Searches have been after the Truth of matter of Fact, touching what the Ecclesiastical constitutions and Rubricks, and Laws of the Land declare her to be.

They go the wrong way, who first frame a platform of what the Church ought to be, and argue against Dissenters from such a fancy; yet this has been the practice of some great men amongst the Dissenters [even of Mr. Baxter] in their opposing Dissenters.

p. 4As for my own part, I wish with all my heart I could find the Church of England to be what she ought to be. I'm sure 'twou'd be much more for my peace and comfort in this life, as all know that know me: but 'twould be an Idle thing in me to proceed on mistakes, and dangerous to walk by a Mistaken Rule.

I have spent some years in my endeavours to know what the Church of England is, and have been the more curious in my disquisitions, because the great Doctors of the Church are so lame, and imperfect in the account they give of it. I have impartially raveld into those broken Histories we have left us of the first plantation of the Gospel by Joseph of Arimathea; and I have consulted several Charters, given to divers Abbies, especially that of Glastonbury, where I find some intimations of the Gospel's being first preached in that Island; I have diligently perused Malmesbury's Antiquities of Glastonbury, Bede, and many other of our English Historians; and have carefully compar'd my own readings with Bishop Godwins History of Bishops, Archbp's Ushers Primordia, and Sir Henry Spelman, and have (as in another book, if God give life and opportunity, I intend to shew) framed some conceptions of the state of the Church from Joseph of Arimathea to King Lucius; from thence to the Coming over of Germanus, and Lupus to repell p. 5the Pelagian Heresy; from them to Austin the Monks coming to Canterbury; from that time to William the Conquerour; and from him to Henry the 8th, and from Henry the 8th. to the end of Q. Elizabeths Reign: and there I stop: For although the Church in all those periods ran through divers states, yet the Diocesan Episcopacy and the National Church Government by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, &c. was never either by the Civil or Ecclesiastical Authority declar'd to be Apostolical, or de jure Divino, until King James first entred the English throne, and then it was.

King James being brought up amongst the Scotch-Presbyterians, who were for the Divine Right of a National Church Government, was in his tender years imposed on to belive throughly the Divine Right of a National Church Government in Thesi, and woful experience shewing him the mischiefs, that attended the Presbyterians in particular, he was easily induc'd by Bancroft to yield unto what Q. Elizabeth would never endure, viz the Divine Right of the National-Episcopal-Church of England.

This being manifest (as I hope in the process to evince), the Notion, which in my enquiry about the present state of the Church, I was, by the Constitutions and Law now in force, directed to frame, appeared very new. I could not find it any p. 5older then the first of King James. For till then, parochial Churches were by the Law of the Land esteemed the only particular Churches of Divine Right. Parish Ministers were Pastors, and though denied the exercise of some part of their Power, yet not by any Law deprived of it. The Bishops were not acknowledged to be Christs Pastours, but only the Princes Ministers, and consequently their Superiority above Presbyters was not given them by Christ, but only by the King the supreme Head and Ordinary of the Church of England; the Government of which Church as National was but of Humane Constitution, owing to the Civil Magistrate alone for it's being what then it was.

That this may with the greater conviction appear to the Reader, I will give in short a true state of the National Church Government, that has been exercis'd in this Land. Which, on a diligent search into our old Historians, who treat of Ecclesiastical affairs, will be found to be what the Convocation in Henry the 8ths dayes declared it to be, which in effect is this, namely, That there are but Two orders only, viz. that of Priests, and that of Deacons instituted by Jesus Christ, That the Superiorities or preheminences of one Bishop or Priest above another are only by an Humane Ordinance: whence it unavoidably follows, that the National Church Government which consists p. 7in the Superiority of one Bishop or one Priests being above another, can be but of Humane Constitution.

Nothing can be more manifest, then, that anciently the Prelatic-Episcopal Office was but a Civil Office circa sacra deriv'd from the King, who is but a Civil person; that all that belongs unto the Bishops, as they are of an order and office superiour to that of the Presbyter, even the potestas Ordinis, & Jurisdictionis, is but Civil, deriv'd from the King, who, though but a Civil person, is the supreme Head and supreme Ordinary of the Church of England. These things I will distinctly evince.

1. That the King is but a Civil person, and what power soever is deriv'd from him is but Civil.

That the King is the supreme Head of the National Church of England is a Truth too manifest; and too sacred to admit of the least doubt. But then it must be observ'd, that it is not to be understood, as if the King were a Spiritual Pastor, whose office as such consists in praying, preaching, and administring the Sacraments, &c. The supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs belongs unto our King as he is supreme Civil Magistrate, and so it belongs to all such in every Countrey, whether Christian, Turk, or Pagan according to that in Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the Higher powers. Thus the Christian Churches in Thracia, Syria, p. 8Egypt, receive their Patriarchs and lesser Bishops from the great Turk (as Grotius in his Learned Treatise de imper. Sum. potest. circa Sacra. c. 10. Sect. 30. doth evince,Non is sum, qui damnare audeam tot Christianas Ecclesias in Thracia, in Syria, in Aegypto, quae patriarchas, aut minores Episcopos a Turcarum rege accipiunt; neque novam esse hanc Christianorum patientiam docet nos Barlaamus Episcopus Cyracensis, cu…us haec sunt verba, Pontificatus quilibet quomodo Bulgarensis dependet á principite illius g…ntis; & Tribalensis a suo principe: Antiochenae verò patriarchae Armeniorum Rex dominatur: Hierosolymitano autem et Alexandrino Aegyptiorum imprissimus princeps. Nullus enim horum pontificatum recipit non probante, non decernente, & consentiente suo seculari pincipe.) Thus Zerobabel, Nehemiah, Esdras, receive power from Cyrus Darius Artaxerxes for the restoring the worship of God in Jury. Thus do our antient writers record that the Abbey of Glastonbury received a Charter from Cadwalla, a Pagan, but their King. From which I infer, that the supremacy belongs to Princes as they are Civil Magistrates, and that therefore it is somewhat different from that spiritual power, which consists in the ministring the word of God, and Sacraments.

But I need not insist farther on the proof of this, seeing what I here affirm is but the established Doctrine of the Church of England. In the Admonition added by Queen Elizabeth to her Injunctions, confirm'd by Act of Parliament the fifth year of her Reign, the Queen in explicating the true meaning of the Oath of supremacy, saith, That she would, that all her loving Subjects should understand that nothing was, is or shall be meant, or intended by the same oath, to have any other duty, allegiance, or bond required by the same oath than was acknowledged to be due to the most Noble Kings of famous memory Henry. 8th. her Majesty's Father, or p. 9King Edward the Sixth her Majesty's Brother. So far the Admonition.

Now if we consult the Book of Martyrs, we shall find, that in a conference between Archbishop Cranmer and Dr. Martyn; the Archbishop doth shew what was meant by the Supremacy in the days of these Princes. Martyn demanding of the Archbishop, who was the Supreme Head of the Church of England? the Archbishop replies, Christ is the Head of this member of the whole body of the Universal Church. Why, quoth Martyn, you made King Henry the 8th supreme Head of the Church; Yea, said my Lord, of all the people of England as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal. And not of the Church, said Martyn? No, quoth Cranmer, For Christ is the only Head of the Church, and of the Faith and Religion of the same. The King is the Head and Governour of his people, which are his Visible Church. What, quoth Martyn, you never durst tell the King so? Yes that I durst, said Cranmer, and did; and in the publication of his Stile, wherein he was named Supreme Head of the Church, there was never other thing meant.

By this we may clearly see what was in the days of thefe two Princes intended by the King's Supremacy, which is more fully expressed in some other clauses of the Admonition, & in the 37th Atricle of the Church of England. In the Admonition its further added, That the Queen will challenge no other Soveraignty but this, namely, That under p. 10God to have the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within these her Realms, Dominions, and Countreys, of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be, so as no other foreign Power shall, or ought to have any superiority over them. Besides her Majesty look'd on those who did labour to notify to her loving subjects how that by the words of the said oath, it may be collected, That the Kings or Queens of this Realm possessors of the Crown, may challenge Authority and power of Ministry of Divine Offices in the Church, I say her Majesty esteems all such persons, as thus interpret the oath, to be perverse and malicious persons, and their interpretation Sinister and malicious. Finally in the 37th Article established not …ll only by the 13. Eliz. c. 12. but also by 14. Car. 2. it is express, That where we attribute to the Queens Majesty the chief Government, by which Titles, we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended: we give not to our Prince the ministring either of Gods word or of the Sacraments, the which thing, the injunctions also lately set forth by Eliz. our Queen do most plainly testifie: But that only prerogative, which we see to have been given alwayes to godly Princes in Holy-Scriptures by God himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical, or Temporal, and restrain with the Civil sword, the stubborn and evil doers.

p. 11This is sufficient to evince that Kings never assum'd to themselves any part of that spiritual power, which is given unto pastours by Jesus Christ, but only a Civil power, with all the Prerogatives belonging thereunto, whence what is deriv'd from the Prince is but a Civil Power, called Spiritual or Ecclesiastical, not because it flows from one in the pastorall office, nor because the matters about which the power is conversant is purely and Evangelically spiritual, as Praying, Preaching, and Administring the Sacraments are, but from the quality of the persons entrusted with Ordinary Jurisdiction, and because the matters about which this power is exercised have some subserviency unto what is Evangelically spiritual.

Sir John Davies in his Irish Reports in case of praemunire has an excellent discourse about this, where speaking of the things and causes now called Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as Causes Testamentary, Causes of Matrimony and Divorce, and the like, he saith, Shall I express plainly and briefly why these causes were first denominated, some Spiritual, or Ecclesiastical, and others Temporal and Civil? Truly they were so called, not from the Nature of the Causes, but from the Quality of the persons, whom the Prince had made Judges in these causes. The Clergy did study spiritual things, and did profess to live Secundum Spiritum, and were called Spiritual men, and therefore they called the causes; wherein Princes p. 12had given them jurisdiction, Dr. Godolphin in his Abridgment. c. 11. §. 44. agrees with Sir John Davies.Spiritual Causes, after their own name and quality, &c. So far Sir John Davies.

The which being so, what can be more manifest than that the Episcopal power is Civil, a Magistratick power, and so in antient story 'tis call'd. For I find that Patricius who was the first, that successfully attempted the setting up the Episcopal power in Ireland, and Palladius, who endeavoured it, reinfecta, in Scotland are said to have come from Rome with a Magistratick power, the Episcopal power being but Magistratick; which is no more than what that learned Lawyer Jacobus Gutherius suggests, when he affirms, That the Heathen Roman Pontifs were vested with a Magistratick power, Vide Guther. de Vet. Jure Pontif. lib. 2. c. 1. & l. 1. c. 4.and had the name of Pontiffe rather a posse & Facere, as the learned high priest Scaevola observes, than a Ponte Sublicio as Varro and some others have it: which Magistratick power was not (saith Guther) given the Bishops until the time of Valentinian the first, and then it was.

This passage of Guther necessarily leads me to the Consideration of that Title given the Emperours, and also to our Princes even that of Illustrious Pontiffs, which signifies nothing more then a Magistratick Power circa Sacra, of which the Vestis Dalmatica was an Embleme, and therefore worn by the Emperours; and by our Kings at their Coronation, and that in the times of our Saxon princes, for this consult p. 13Sir Henry Spelman his larger Book of Tythes c. 29. §. 9. and Dr. Godolphin in his Abridgement c. 1.

This I presume is sufficient to evince, that the Bishops, who antiently deriv'd all their Episcopal power from the King were as such but Civil Officers. But to be more particular and express, I will further shew.

2. That all that belongs unto the Bishops as they are of an Order, By potestas Ordinis here is meant the power of giving Orders.and office Superiour unto Presbiters, even the Potestas Ordinis & Jurisdictionis is but Civil, and deriv'd from the King.

Although the Bishops as such lay claim to no other power than that of Orders and Jurisdiction, yet antiently for several hundred years these Powers were the undoubted right of the English Crown, and our Kings have been the Absolute Lords and Disposers of it.

That the power of Jurisdiction was ever derived from the Temporal Princes unto the Bishops is too plain to need proof, yea that Excommunication was look'd on to be but an Act of Civil Jurisdiction is also very manifest. For as amongst the Monks Excommunication was an exclusion from common conversation, excommunicatione punire est a mense communi, & refectorio communi arceri, so in Henry the 3d dayes the Civil magistrate was to excomunicate the Jews, for this consult**Judaeos verò ad remittendas usuras, per saecularem compelli praecipimus potestatem & donec illas remiserint, ab universis Christi fidelibus per excommunicatioris sententiam eis omninò denegetur. M. Paris. ubi vides hanc excommunicationem per saeculcre brachium inflictam esse. Wats his Glossary. Matth. Paris his History of Henry 3. ad an. 1245. and the Glossary on the word Excomunication; p. 14whereas if Excommunication had been esteemed an Ordinance of Christ, cutting any off from the Body of Christ, the Jews who never were of the Body could not be cut off, neither should it have been an Act of the Civil Magistrate but of the Spiritual pastours. Furthermore it's very manifest, that the Kings of England regulated the manner of process in their Excommunications, shewing whom they might, and whom they might not Excommunicate, and for this reason Lay-chancellours have been ever since entrusted with this Power.

And that both the Powers of Orders, and Excomunication belong unto the Prince is evident from what is inserted in the several Charters, given unto divers Abbies. For the Saxon Kings, as well as William the Conquerour, and his Successours have given both these Powers to whomsoever it pleased them.

Thus Edgar, Edmund, Ethelslane, Edward, Elfred, Cuthred, Ethelard, Ina, &c. gave unto Glastonbury the Power of Orders as well as Jurisdiction, and in the Popes Confirmation of Edgards Charter the Donation of these Powers is express too, Ordinatio vero tam Monachorum, quam Clericorum in Arbitrio Abbatis, & Conventus sit. Malmesbury. de gest. Reg. Anglor. lib. 2. c. 7. & 8. The like may be seen in several other Charters given unto Abbies, but I will at this time only observe p. 15a passage I find in those pat…ents by which Bishops in Edward the sixth his Reign were created, and it is this, namely, And we will and by these presents grant to the said N. now Bishop of N. That he may Lawfully, freely, and quietly be able lawfully to ordain and promote whatsoever fit Clerk wheresoever born within the said Diocess of N. On this it is that the Jesuite Sanders, as both Heylin and Dr. Godolphin do note, grounds his Assertion, that the very Power of Orders was by the 1. Edward. 6. c. 2. recognized to be in the King. In the same Patent Power is also given duely to correct, reform, and punish whatsoever Delinquents or criminal persons, by Eclesiastical Censures, and other lawful remedies of Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions.

Thus we see that the potestas Ordinis & Jurisdictionis, though the whole of the Antient prelatick Episcopacy consisted in the enjoyment of it, is deriv'd from the King, who is but a Civil Magistrate and that that Orders and Excomunication are but Acts of Civil Power and Jurisdiction. Before I dismiss this point 'twill be expedient to inquire, How the Civil Magistrate possessed himself of these things, which really are spiritual and belong only unto spiritual Pastors, but not unto civil Magistrates.

That we may arrive to the full knowledge of this, we must have recourse to the Usurpations of the Romish Clergy, who to the end they might possess themselves p. 16of Temporal Preferments and Honours gave 'em the names of spiritual things and causes. This is excellently well deliver'd by Sir John Davis ubi supra. where speaking of the Ecclesiastical and Temporal Jurisdiction, saith, This distinction first began in the Court of Rome, where the Clergy having by the spiritual Jurisdiction gotten great wealth, their wealth begat pride, their pride begat Ingratitude towards Princes who first gave them their Jurisdiction, and then according to the nature of Ungrateful persons, they went about to extinguish the memory of the Benefit? for whereas their Jurisdiction was first deriv'd from Coesar, in the Execution whereof they were Coesars Judges, so as both their Courts and Causes ought still to have born Coesars image, and superscription as belonging unto Coesar; they blotted Coesars name out of the stile of their Courts, and called them Courts Christian—and the Causes, which in their Nature were meerly Civil, they called Spiritual and Ecclesiastical. So as if the Emperour should change his Courts and Causes again, say Reddite Coesari quae sunt Coesaris, they would cry out on the contrary part, Date Deo quae sunt Dei. Our Courts bear the name and title of Christ —And this point of their Policy is worth the observing, that when they found their Jurisdiction in Matrimonial Causes to be most sweet and gainful of all other, to the p. 17end that Caesar might never resume so rich a perquisite of their spiritual Jurisdiction, they reduced Matrimony into the number of the Seven Sacraments. So far Sir John Davies. Moreover they immixed Spiritual and Temporal Causes, to the end they might with the greater colour give unto Temporals The name of Spiritual, and under a pretence of asserting their Spiritual Rights, usurp Temporal Domination, and the Rights of Temporal Princes.

This much Stockly, and Tunstal two Popish Bishops in Henry the 8ths dayes in their Letter to Cardinal Pool have observed, for they tell the Cardinal, that the Pope of Rome did by usurpation make a pretence to be over all, Vendicating to himself a Spiritual Kingdom, but then changed it into a Temporal, preaching thereby the Flesh for the Spirit, and an Earthly for an Heavenly.

In pursuance of this design, the Clergy instead of applying themselves to Divinity fell to the study of the Law, Hinc est quod vetus judicum Secularium habitus idem per omnia Paramenta & adhuc ferè est cum Ecclesiasticorum viro rum Ornamentis. Wast's Glossary on the words, Clerici & Coifa.and possessed themselves of most places of great Trust in the Civil Government: Chancellours and Judges being chosen out of the Clergy, whence 'tis, that to this very day our Judges when on the Bench are vested with priestly Habiliments, as Dr. Wats in his Glossary assures us.

This Practice of the Clergy continued until Henry the Thirds dayes as Matth: p. 18Paris reports,Ne Causidicus sit, vel lites agat. Spelmans councils. Omnes Scholares intactis Grammatices rudimentis, authoribus, & philosophis, ad leges properant audiendas, the which the Clergy did notwithstanding about the year 1052,Aures nostras abhorrenda fama circumstrepit, & inculcat assiduè, quod relictis quinimò procul, & abjectis philosophicis disciplinis (ut ad praesens divina scientia tacemus) tota clericorum multitudo ad audiendas seculares leges concurrit. Epist. Innocentij. quarti. in the Canons of Aelfric sent to Bishop Wulfin, 'tis express, that a priest should not imploy himself in worldly affairs, nor be a Lawyer. And Pope Innocent the 4th finding the Clergy's following the Law to prove rather prejudicial then profitable unto his chair, he sends out his Letters to England, Scotland, Wales, Spain, France, &c. in which he mentions how great a reproach it was that the whole multitude of the Clergy should mind nothing as it were so much as the Law. This Letter is in the Additamenta to Matth: Paris.

All this I mention, that the Reader may see, how the Clergy being ambitious of worldly preferments and Honours, did addict themselves to the study of the Law, and that they might be the more successful in their endeavours, they lay a claim to Spiritual Regiment, and mingling Temporals with Spirituals, namely, Causes Testamentary, Causes Matrimonial and such like, with Ordination and Excommunication, that under a pretence of vendicating to themselves a Spiritual power they might usurp the Temporal, the which for a long time in several instances they did, but yet not so intirely here in England, for by this mixture they gave unto our English Princes p. 19on occasion to assume to themselves under the Notion of Temporal what was really Spiritual. The Priests making the Power of Orders and Excommunication to be but of the same spiritual nature with Causes Testamentary and Matrimonial, our Princes who knew that Causes Testamentary, &c. belonged unto them could not but think that matters of the same kind, viz. Orders and Excommunication, was as much theirs.

This may serve to evince, That antiently the National Church Government was but a Civil Government, circa sacra: That the King, though but a Civil person, is the Supreme Head of the Church of England, that the Episcopal Order is but Humane, and all their Episcopal Power derived from the King; That the Potestas Ordinis & Jurisdictionis, which is essential to the being of a Prelatick Bishop, was antiently look'd on to be Spiritual in no other sence than Causes Testamentary and Matrimonial, and deriv'd from the King only.

But, as I shall shew in the following part of this discourse, ever since the first of King James, the state of the Church of England is much alter'd. For which reason in my giving a Description of the present state of the Church of England I could go no higher in my Inquiries than the first of King James, but yet thought it requisite to say somewhat concerning the Antient p. 20state of this Church, lest some Reader should think that what I say of the present state is to be understood of the state of this Church throughout all ages.

These things premis'd, I will now proceed to give a Just Description of the Church of England as now established, and shew what is required from all English men that will hold communion with her.

SECT. II. A just description of the Church of England as now by Law established given in several Aphorismes.

Aphorisme. I. The Church of England as by Law established is a National Church made up of Twenty Six Diocesses, and Two Provinces of which the King is the Supreme Head.

I Have read somewhere of a Distinction by the Clergy between the National Church of England as a Church, and as Incorporate with the state, maintaining the former to be jure divino, the latter only p. 21jure humano: the Archbishop of Canterbury to be the Head of the One, and the King the Head of the other. Moreover they add, That the greatest part of the Popes Usurpation was on the Law of God, robbing the Archbishop of the supremacy he had over the kings of this Realm, as seems to be intimated in a clause of the 25th Henr. 8th. c. 21. where this Power is restored to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his successours, who by their discretions may grant unto the King and his Successors all such Licences, Dispensations, Compositions Faculties Grants, Rescripts, Delegacies for Causes not contrary to the Holy Scriptures and Laws of God, as heretofore had been used and accustomed to be obtained by his highness, or by any of his most noble progenitors at the See of Rome.

By this clause it seems that at least some part of that Supremacy, which the Pope of Rome usurped and exercised over the Kings of this Realm, is given the Archbishop of Canterbury and his successors, and by some it has been asserted to be in the Bishops over the King jure divino: which sort of supremacy over the Prince, is doubtless more pernicious than the Papal it self, for it exalts the Vassal above his Soveraign.

In pursuance of some such principle as this, some of the Clergy in Queen Elizabeths time strugled for several Preheminences, p. 22and took unto themselves an unlimited Power, making an Invasion on the Legislative Power of the Kingdom.

Thus some of the Clergy contrary to the express words of the Act for Uniformity the first of Queen Elizabeth, made alterations in the Common prayer book; for whereas in the said statute it is enacted, That all and singular Ministers in Cathedrals, or parish Churches—shall be bound to say and use the Mattins, Even-song,—Celebration of the Lords supper, and Administration of each of the Sacraments, and all other Common and open prayer in such Order and Form as is mentioned in the said book so authorized by Parliament in the fifth and Sixth years of the reign of King Edward the Sixth, with One alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the Form of the Letany altered, and Corrected, and two sentences only added in the delivery of the Sacrament, and None other, or otherwise. But although it were thus enacted, yet in the Common-prayer book then set forth, there were many alterations more than were specifyed in the said Act. The Form of the Letany is not corrected nor altered; Moreover there is some detraction from the very Matter of the Book, which is contrary to the statute; The following prayer is left out, [From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestible enormities, Good Lord deliver us.] Besides concerning Addition and Alteration p. 23specified in the Act, there be divers and Sundry alterations well nigh in fifty material points, as may be seen in a Treatise entituled, Certain considerations drawn from the Canons.

After this Whitgift openly, and boldly invades the Parliamentary Power, for when the Parliament in the 13. Elizabeth c. 12. required subscription to the Articles of Religion with this Exception, viz. To the Articles of Religion, which [only] concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments, where the word [only] must needs exclude somewhat (saith the Learned parker of the Cross part. 2. (c. 8. Sect. 3.) which what can it be but matter of Ceremony, and of Church Government to which the honourable state of the Parliament would bind no man, because they saw them controverted, not only by private men, but also by whole Churches, notwithstanding which (as Mr. Parker add's it's not unknown that our Reverend Fathers the Bishops require a subscription, not only to Faith and Sacraments, but also to the Discipline, Communion Book, Ceremonies, and all things else, so imposing articles of their own, which no subject by the Law is permitted to do, whence it sufficiently appeareth that a transcendent Power above the Law has been claimed by the Bishops, even in Queen Elizabeths days. Moreover after the 19th or 20th year of her Majesties Reign they add one momentous clause to the 20th Article of Religion, which was not in p. 24the Books of Articles printed in Latin or English in the years 1562 and 1571 The Clause foisted in is this, namely, The Church has Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies; and authority in Controversies of Faith. And by the Church they understand the Bishops and their Clergy, whereby they plainly insinuate; that the Clergy without the Parliament may add what Ceremonies they please to the established worship, and declare what is Heresie, what not, which is directly opposite to the first of Elizabeth.

There is also in the 2d part of the Homily of The Right use of the Church, somewhat that seems to favour the Clergy's supremacy, as if they had a Power over Kings, and might Excommunicate them, and oblige all godly men and women to avoid and shun their company until they be reconciled to the Church. And according to the Example of our Saviour Christ and the primitive Church, which was most holy and godly and in the which due discipline, with severity was against the wicked, open offenders were not suffered once to enter into the house of the Lord, nor admitted to common prayer, and the use of the Holy Sacraments with other true Christians, until they had done open pennance before the whole Church: And this was practiced not only upon Mean persons, but also upon the rich, noble, and mighty persons yea upon Theodosius, that puissant, and p. 25Mighty Emperour, whom, for committing a grievous, and most willful Murder, saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milain reproved sharply, and did also Excommunicate the said Emperour, and brought him to Open pennance. And they that were so justly exempted and banished (as it were) from the house of the Lord, were taken (as they be indeed) for men divided and seperated from Christs-Church even given to Satan, the Devil for a time, and their Company was shunned and avoided of all godly men and women, until such time as they by Repentance, and publick pennance were reconciled. So far the Homily, In which, Ambrose his Excommunicating the Emperour is justified and to it 'tis added, That the godly must shun the Company of the Excomunicated, the which shews what some of the Clergy have been aiming at, even in Queen Elizabeths days. The learned Parker in his discourse of the Cross lib. 2. c. 1. Sect. 21. agrees with me in this particular, for in evincing that some did subject the King to the Clergy he thus expresseth himself, What mean's else the Licence, which the King must have in some cases under the Archbishop's hand? What meaneth else their tying him to the Canons of the Church, as well as to the word of God? What meaneth else the New Tenent, That Bishoplike Authority over their Brethren is not from the Prince or at his Pleasure (as heretofore hath been taught) p. 26but even Jure Divino, which Q. Elizabeth would never endure. So far Parker.

By this little light, we may see from what principles the Assertion of the Divine Right of Episcopacy doth flow, and whither it tends.

But what struglings soever there have been to introduce such doctrines about the Divine Right of Episcopacy and the prelatick Power which is destructive of his Majesty's supremacy; yet it must be acknowledged, that touching the Government of the Church of England as National, I am in the right in affirming the King to be the only supreme head on Earth of the Church of England, which word [only] is exclusive of a Domestick as well as of a forreign, yea of an Ecclesiastical, as well as of a Temporal Supremacy.

Aphorisme II. This National Church ever since the first of King James has been, and now is declared to be a National Church of Divine Right. But the Spiritual guides are at a loss how to make it out.

THough Queen Elizabeth could not be prevail'd with to acknowledge the Divine right of a National Church Goverment, yet King James was soon engaged to be for it. Whosoever will consult the Constitutions p. 27and Canons Ecclesiastical agreed upon with King James his Licence, the first year of his reign, will find this to be So. For Can. 3. 'tis ordained, that, Whosoever shall affirm that the Church of England by Law established under the Kings Majesty is not a True, and Apostolical Church &c. let him be Excommunicated ipso facto, and not be restored but only by the Archbishop after his Repentance and publick Revocation of this his wicked Errour.

But more expresly in the 7th Canon, Whosoever shall affirm, that the Government of the Church of England under his Majesty by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons and the rest that bear Office in the same, [namely, Lay-chancellours, Officials, Commissaries &c.] is Antichristian or repugnant to the word of God, is excommunicated ipso facto, and so to continue till he Repent, and publickly Revoke such his wicked Errours. So far the Canon. And what is this less than an Assertion, That the Government of the Church of England as National by Archbishops, Bishops, &c. is Apostolical, and agreeable to the Word of God?

'Twill be here expedient that I give the Reader some further light touching the true meaning of the Canons, & shew what strength they receive from the Law of the Land. And That I may give a just account of the genuine import of these Canons, I must beseech you to observe on what Occasion those Canons were agreed on; for Occasio legis p. 28indicat & mentem Legislatoris, & sensum legis. The occasion of the Law must direct us in the interpretation of the Law.

It must be then noted, that in Q. Elizabeths days the old Nonconformists struggled mightily for a Reformation of the Church of England. They found fault with the Constitution of the Government as it was by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, Lay-chancellours &c. asserting all these offices to be repugnant to the word of God and Antichristian. They also gave other forms of Government, which they affirmed to be of Divine Institution. They did moreover find fault with the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church. And with their book of Ordering Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and frequently petitioned for a Reformation, and when all attempts for the obtaining the Countenance of Authority fail'd, they without the Magistrates leave endeavoured Reformation amongst themselves, which essays of the old Nonconformists, though countenanced by those of the Church of England that are called the Calvinistical party, yet met with great opposition from Whitgift and Bancroft.

When King James came to the Throne he finding the Church in this Divided posture, commands a conference at Hampton-court between the Bishops and some Learned Divines, who, (though Conformists yet) did favour the Disciplinarians; at which p. 29time some things were altered for the better, but the King being zealous for the Church of England, and very much influenced by the Bishops, Soon after called a Convocation in which with the King's licence such Canons were agreed on, as did most directly oppose the principles the old Nonconformists had of Church Government, Ceremonies &c. So that whereas the Nonconformists affirm'd that the National Church of England as Governed by Archbishops, Bishops &c. was not an Apostolical Church, they in the third Canon Excommunicate such by an ipso facto Excommunication. And whereas the Nonconformists also asserted, That the Government of the Church by Archbishops, Bishops &c. was not of divine Right, but repugnant to the word of God, and Antichristian, they Excommunicate all these by the 7th Canon. In like manner the Book of Common prayer with all the Scrup'led rites and ceremonies, and the Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons, are more strictly established then ever, and all persons whatsoever obliged under pain of an ipso facto Excomunication to give in their Assent and consent to every thing contained in them by the 4th, 16th, and 8th Canons.

In some considerations against subscription published soon after the book of Canons, I find that the old Nonconformists express themselves much to this purpose for p. 30they say, That when as the Discipline and Government Provincial and Diocesane, ministred and exercised by the late Archbishop deceased, and his suffragans, was diversly handled, disputed, and controverted, not to be agreeable but repugnant to the Holy Scriptures, and necessary also for the repressing of Vice, the encrease of Faith and Christian Religion, to be Changed; they hereupon justly fearing, that the most vertuous and Christian Queen deceased, upon Sundry complaints made in open Parliament against their most unjust grievances, would have reformed the same their manner of government; they presently upon new advice and consultation taken, boldly and constantly avouched the same their Government, to have been from the Apostles time, and agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore also perpetual, and still to be used and in no case to be altered by any King or Potentate whatsoever.

By means of which this their enclining to the Popish opinion, and holding their Jurisdiction to be de jure divino, and professedly maintaining in the Homily (whereunto also subscription is urged) That the King and all the Nobility ought to be subject to Excommunication, their is now at length grown such a main position of having a perpetual Dioscesane provincial Government in the Church, that rather then their Hierarchy should stoop, they would cause the Kings supremacy, which he has over their said Jurisdiction to fall down to the ground: In p. 31so much as by their supposition the King has no Authority, no not by his supreme Power, to alter their said Government at all. And to this end and purpose (as it seemeth) in their late Canons have they devised and decreed this book of Ordination to be subscribed unto. So far the Considerations against subscription. From all which we may conclude, that they judged that the true reason of calling this Convocation, was the many debates against Episcopal Government, the many petitions for its removal, and that the Divine right of Diocesane and Provincial Bishops was asserted to prevent an Alteration of the Diocesane, and provincial Government and at last establish'd by their new Canons, the which sufficiently shews, that the great design and intendment of the abovemention'd Canons, is the establishment of the Divine Right of the national Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops &c.

Thus you see that by the Canon-Law the Divine and Unalterable right of the Diocesane Episcopacy was established, I say by the Canon-Law, for the Canons have the force of an Ecclesiastical Law. Though the Canons were not (as the Common prayer and Rubricks, are now) put into the Body of an Act of Parliament, yet they are in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, and therefore must be acknowledged to have the force of a Law.

By the 25. Henry 8th. c. 25. The Clergy p. 32called to Convocation, by the Kings writ are enabled to Enact, promulge, and Execute all such Canons, Constitutions, or Ordinances provincial, which are confirmed by the Kings most royal assent and licence.

In pursuance to this statute, the Convocation Anno 1603 was assembled, by the Kings writ, and when assembled, they did desire his Majesties royal assent unto their Canons according to the form of the foresaid statute of 25th Henr: 8. c. 25. And the King by his letters patents under the great seal of England did ratify and confirm them. Who then can say that these Canons thus confirmed by his Majesty have not the Power and strength of a Law?

There are I confess some who say, that no Canons can be of legal force, but such as are in pursuance of the 27th Henr. 8. c. 15. drawn up by two and thirty Commissioners of the Kings appointing, and confirm'd by the Kings Letters Pattents, the which thing has not yet been done, for as 'twas neglected all the raign of Henry the 8th, so, although in Edward the sixths days a committee of these Commissioners did compose a Book, yet 'twas not confirmed by the King; and the Convocation of 1603. was not an assembly of Commissioners, and therefore not of legal establishment.

But this is grounded on a manifest Errour, for the work of these 32 Commissioners p. 33was not to make new, 'twas only to reform the old Canons. New canons were (as I have proved) to be made by the Convocation, and so were the Canons in dispute; and although it be further objected, that in the Statute of 25. Henr. 8th c. 25. the Clergy of the whole Realm, which, they say, must be a National Synod, are only enabled to enact Canons, and that the Convocation of 1603. was only Provincial; I must say, That nothing is more common than that the Provincial constitutions of Canterbury have been all along received by the Church of England. Whoever reads Lyndwoods provincial Constitutions, all which are, (by the 25. Henr. 8. c. 19. excepting such as are contrary or repugnant to the Laws, Statutes, and Customs of this Realm, or to the damage and hurt of the King's Prerogative Royal, in force, and whatever pretence the Province of York may have for a plea of exemption, yet that doth not in the least invalidate the force of these Canons. It can only prove that that Province is not obliged by them, it cannot prove that they are not of force in the Province of Canterbury.

But whosoever is well acquainted with the antient Constitution of our National Church, will see little in these objections, whence I conclude that what is enacted by the Canons of 1603. are of legal force. But though the National Church government by Archbishops, Bishops &c. has been ever p. 34since the first of King James declar'd to be de jure divino, yet the spiritual guides of the Church are at a great loss how to make it out. They are at a loss how to make the two Provincial Churches of Canterbury, and York to fall so into one as to become One National Church of Divine right: for their assertion, That the National Church considered as a Church not incorporate with the state, is of divine Institution, supposes the Church of England to fall under a purely spiritual consideration, and that none can be a governour in it but a Clergy man, one in the Priestly and Episcopal office.

It's this that is the main difficulty. If the National Church, or spiritual polity be of Divine Right, then there must be by divine Appointment some spiritual person, a man in Holy Orders, one or more that must be it's Constitutive Head, or Regent part. But this notion is exclusive of the Prince, who is not in orders, and exalts a vassal in Orders above the King, which were a position therefore manifestly Traiterous, and dangerous for any to assert. And no wonder if upon this consideration Dr. Stillingfleet, and his complices be put to silence, whereas if this had not been something to hamstring them, they could not have been at any such loss about the Constitutive Regent Head, being as easy (otherwise) to be found out for the National, as it is for the finding out such a Head to the Provincial or Diocesane Church.

p. 35If the National Government of the Church be considered according to its Antient constitution, as it is but a Civil Government circa Sacra, it becomes one by being united in one Head, the King; but this pleaseth not those, who are for a Divine right, they must have a man in orders to be supreme head of their national Church, and were it not for the Treason, that is in the notion, I am apt to think, they would be bold in assuring us, that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the supreme Governing Part. They have gone very far towards the asserting this much, for the Archbishop is made primate of all England; and Metropolitane, and as such hath a supereminency, and some Power even over the Archbishop of York.

In the year of our Lord 1072, or 1073. on an equal Scanning the controversie between Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas Archbishop of York it was resolv'd, that the Archbishop of York should be subject unto the Archbishop of Canterbury in all things, relating to the Christian Religion, that the Archbishop of Canterbury, might call a Council and apoint where it should be held, that the Archbishop of Tork, his suffragans and inferiour Clergy should be present, and shew themselves Obedient; That the Archbishop of York should receive a fatherly blessing from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and swear Canonical Obedience unto Canterbury. p. 36A particular account of this we have in Malmesbury de gestis pontif. Anglor. in the life of Lanfrank. and in Matth Par. the which Dr. Godolphin also observes in his Abridgement.Ʋbi tandem antiquarum auctoritatibus scripturarum probatum est, & ostensum quod Eboracensis Ecclesia debeat subjacere Ecclesiae Cantuariensi, & ipsius Archiepiscopi, ut primati totius Britanniae dispositionibus in omnibus quae ad Christianam pertinent R…ligi…nem, fideliter obedire: Ita quod si Archie…is. Cantuar. concilium ten…re vol…erit, ubi…que sibi utile vis…m fuerit, Eborac. Archiep. cum o…ibus suis suffraganeis, & subjectis Clericis, s…i praes…nti… e…beat ei…s{que} canonicis disp…sitionibus obediens existat. Benedictionem, etiam Episcopalem ab ipso debeat accipere, & ei canonicam professionem addito jura…ento praestare. Matth. Paris. in vit. Guil. Conquaestor.

To this let us but add the 139th Canon, and we shall find great Representatives of the Kingdom, the King, Lords, and Commons, are not the Church of England by Representation; but a National Synod of the Clergy, for it is there ordain'd, That whosoever shall hereafter affirm, That the sacred Synod of this Nation [not the Parliament] in the name of Christ, and by the King's authority assembled, is not the Church of England by Representation, let him be Excommunicated and not restored until he repent and publickly revoke that his wicked Errour.

Thus they have lying by them both a Body and an Head for a National Church, not incorporate with the state, They have a spiritual National Church by Representation, and a Spiritual Head, viz, a Sacred Synod and the Archbishop of Canterbury, but durst not own their Head, lest they fall into a premunire, and so whenever provoked to shew their Head, they seem, to be as men under an unaccountable surprize and amazement.

p. 37Aphorisme III. In this National Church of England, which is now by Canon Law declared to be of Divine Right, A Diocesane Church made up of many scores or hundred Parishes, having no true Pastoral Churches under it, is a particular Church of the lowest rank or species, de jure Divino, and as such established by Statute-law.

NOw there is not within this Kingdom a particular Church of Christs Institution, but what has many Parishes in it, according to this Doctrine. For there are no more Particular Churches than there are Diocesses nor any more pastours of Churches than there are Diocesane Bishops, that is, there are six and twenty particular Churches, and Six and twenty pastours in the whole Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales, and no more. A Diocesan Bishop and a Pastour of a particular Church, do in the Episcopal Dictionary signifie one and the same thing.

That I may make this the more plain, I must shew what the Church of England means by a Diocesane Bishop, and prove that they hold the Diocesane Bishop to be de jure Divino.

p. 38The Diocesane Bishop is of an Order distinct from, and Superiour to that of the Parish Minister, Episcopacy is not meerly a Degree above the Parish Priest, but an Order, as Archbishop Laud in his Letter to Bishop Hall observes, Here lies the main of the Cause (saith the Archbishop) whether Episcopacy be an Order, or Degree. An Order certainly, if it be of Divine, and Apostolicall Institution. For that which is but different by Degrees and Circumstantially, cannot be other than juris positivi. Now that which is proper to the Episcopal Order is the Potestas Ordinis & Jurisdictionis. The Power of Orders belongs to the Bishop as he is a Bishop, not as he is a Bishop, of this or the other place. So that as he is a Bishop, I mean Universally so over the whole world, he may consistent with the Order of Churches, Consecrate Churches, confer Orders in any place of the earth, that is, delegate Curates by giving them Power to Preach and dispence the Sacraments, and administer Confirmation. But the Power of Jurisdiction is appropriate unto him, as he is confin'd to his See, and by this he acts as Ecclesiastical Judge in matters Spiritual.

If this Episcopacy be a Divine Institution, the potestas Ordinis & Jurisdictionis is deriv'd from God unto the Bishop, not from the Prince, and therefore it cannot be said, that he receives it from his Election, (which is by a Conge D'eslire from the King) but p. 39from the laying on the hands of the Archbishop. For though he be elected, and the Temporalties are granted him (saith Godolphin in his Abridg: c. 3. …. 6) yet he is not a Bishop before Consecration. After his Election to the making him a Bishop, 'tis necessary he receive a Confirmation, Consecration, and Investiture from the Archbishop or Metropolitan, and after the Confirmation of his Election by the Archbishop, he hath the potestatem Ordinis & Jurisdictionis. So far Godolphin.

By making the Episcopal a distinct Order from the Priestly, and appropriating this double Power to the Episcopal Order, it necessarily follows, that to the priestly Order there belongs only the office of preaching and administring the Sacraments; They have not any Power to confer Orders, or exercise Discipline, the utmost of their Power is but Declarative, and Suasory, or Executive, that is, they may preach, exhort, admonish, administer the Sacraments and execute the Bishops Orders, but have no Power to Ordain, confirm, or Excommunicate.

Here it must be carefully noted, that so long as the Bishops, and Priests are affirm'd to be of one and the same Order, differing only in Degree; whatever belongs to the Order belongs as well to the Priest as to the Bishops, though in a higher degree to the Bishop, whence the Power of Orders and p. 40Jurisdiction belonged to the Priest, though for Order sake the Bishop was entrusted with the Exercise of it; and the priestly Ordination valid, though not so orderly; but by making the Episcopacy to be a distinct Order from that of the Priests, the very Power of Orders and Jurisdiction is denied the priest, who, as such cannot be a Pastour, at most he is but a Semi-pastour, the Bishops Minister or Curate, his ordination no more valid than that of a Deacon, for he has no other Power for the conferring Orders, than the Deacon has, and the Diocesane Bishop is not a Bishop of Bishops, he is not according to this Notion Episcopus Episcoporum, he is but Episcopus gregis, the priests being but ministring, not Governing officers under the Bishop.

This notion I confess has a consistency in it, but to prove it scriptural is the great difficulty, and it's no part of my province in this place to enter on the controversy about the Divine Right of Episcopacy, my present work is only to evince, that the Law has established this Episcopacy de facto, and declares it to be juris divini, not juris divini mediati (as the Italian Papists affirm it to be) but juris divini immediati. This Distinction I mention to shew the difference between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome; For I'le not do the Church of England the least wrong, in the Description I give of her.

p. 41It must therefore be here Observed, That the Romanists, who acknowledge the Episcopal Order and the Priestly to be one and the same, do derive the Episcopal Power, as distinct from, and superior to that of the Priestly power from the Pope, and so deny the Episcopacy to be juris divini immediati, as may be seen in the History of the Council of Trent, and affirm it to be juris divini mediati. They say, that the Pope is primarily and immediately intrusted by Jesus Christ with the Episcopal power, and that the Bishops lean only on him immediately for it. But the Old Church of England look'd on the King, as the great Trustee of Episcopal Power, that the Episcopal was but a Civil Power lodg'd with the King and deriv'd from him to the Bishops. And now the Episcopal Power is said to be derived neither from the Pope, nor the King, but immediately from Jesus Christ: for the Episcopacy is an order distinct from the Priesthood, & juris divini immediati; and it is my business to evince that according to the Law the Episcopacy is juris divini. The which I will do first more generally, and then more particularly, by shewing that both the Power of Orders, and Jurisdiction is now only in the Bishop.

In order to the proof of this, Two things must be observ'd. 1. That from the very beginning of the Reformation there have been a sort of People endeavouring the p. 42Establishment of the Divine Right of this Episcopacy, and as preparatives to such an establishment, they either openly pleaded for the leaving in some passages in the Common prayer book, and Book of Ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as might in due time be improved for the advance of this Divine Right, or subtilly foisted in such passages as would most effectually suit their design, and as they had time so they did more publickly contend for this Right.

The Truth of this may appear from what has been suggested under the first Aphorisme, and from the History is given us of Whitgift's Extramagistratical imposing the Three Articles, with the steps they made in King James his days, but especially in King Charles the first, and his late Majesties Reign.

But 2. As on King James his entring England, the Clergy had arriv'd to a greater boldness, touching their asserting the Divine Right of Episcopacy, So this Prince was by Principle every way prepared for the encouragement of these Bishops, and furtherance of their designs.

This much the King discovered assoon as he came into England, for in the Conference at Hampton Court (as Dr Barlow reports) King James taxed St Jerome for asserting, That a Bishop was not divinae ordinationis, the which emboldened Bancroft, Bishop of London to say, that, unless he could prove his Episcopal Ordination lawfull out of p. 43the Scriptures, he would not be a Bishop four hours.

And in the same year the King issuing out writs to assemble a Convocation of the Clergy, it was ordained by the 36th. Canon, That no person should be received into the Ministry but he that would subscribe to the 3 Articles, two of which were to this purpose, That the Book of Common Prayer and Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of God, and that he alloweth the Book of Articles of Religion agreed upon by Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces, and the whole Clergy holden at London in the year 1562. And that he acknowledgeth all and every of the Articles therein contained, being in number 39. besides the ratification, to be agreeable to the word of God. By which subscription they allow of all things contained in the book of Homilies, and of all things contained in the book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and Ordering Priests and Deacons, that is, they by their Subscription approved of the Divine Right of Episcopacy, which I thus evince.

In the preface to the Book of Orders it is affirm'd, That it is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture, and antient Authors, that from the Apostles times there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.

p. 44I grant that these words admit of a contrary sence, for without laying the words under a violence they may be understood of Two Orders only, namely, of the Order of Bishops or Priests, and that other of Deacons, according to what is in the Necessary Erudition of a Christian man. And it will admit of a contrary sence too [these Orders] namely [these three Orders, Bishops, Priests and Deacons.] In Queen Elizabeths dayes, when a Subscription was not requir'd either by Statute, or Canon Law to any Special sence, it was free for any to take it in either sence, and I question not but some took it in the One, and some in the other sence. But assoon as a Subscription was enjoyned to signify an Approbation of the three Orders, the case was alter'd, and this was effectually done by the 36th Canon.

For the evincement of this take the words of some Old Nonconformists in their Considerations against Subscription. But how doth the Subscription (you will say) to the book of Ordination, approve the Orders and Degrees of Provincial and Diocesane Bishops, to be by Divine Right rather than by Humane Ordinance? How? (say they) why thus: It is evident (saith the preface of that Book) to all men diligently reading holy Scriptures, and antient Authors, that from the Apostles dayes, there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church, Bishops, Priests, and p. 45Deacons. Yea, and by the whole order of prayer, and of scripture read, and used in the Form of Consecration of an Archbishop or Bishop, it is apparent that the Order of an Archbishop or Bishop consecrated by that book, is reputed, and taken to be of Divine Institution; and therefore seeing the names of those Orders of Ministers must necessarily be taken and understood of such Orders of Ministers as be set forth and described in the body of that book, it must needs be intended, that the Ministers, by their Subscription should approve of the Orders of Ministers, mentioned in that book, to be of Divine Institution, and consequently, that Provincial, or Diocesane Ministers or Bishops have not their Essence and Being from the Nomination, Gift and Authority of the King. Besides, if we should otherwise understand it of such Bishops, as are mention'd in the Scripture, then for the Ministers to Subscribe to the book of Ordination, would no way justify those Officers, or Degrees of Ministers, which are described in that book, but would indeed utterly subvert, and overthrow them. Because the Orders and Degrees of a provincial and Diocesane Bishop, of a Priest and a Deacon mentioned in that book, be of a far differing Nature, from those Orders and Degrees of ministers,, which are mention'd in the Scriptures, they only agree in the name, and differ in nature. So far the Considerations against Subscription.

Furthermore the Ministers of Lincoln p. 46Diocess refuse to subscribe unto the 39th Article of Religion for these following Reasons. First, because the Book of Consecration of Archbishops, Bishops &c. doth not (whereas the Article saith it doth) contain all things that are necessary, but omitteth some things, which by the Ordinance of God ought to be observed in the Ordination of Ministers, for the Priest receiveth not in his Ordination any Authority to govern the flock, and exercise the Discipline of Christ, but only to preach the word and administer the Sacraments. Besides they affirm, that there are some manifest untruths avouched in it (whereas the Article saith it hath nothing in it of it self ungodly.) As when it saith, That it is evident to all men diligently reading the Holy Scriptures, and antient writers, that from the Apostles times there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church, [viz, Bishops, Priests and Deacons.] Futhermore it contains Sundry Popish Errors and superstitions, as 1. That it alloweth and establisheth the Offices of Archdeacons, and Archbishops. 2. That Deacons, Priests, Bishops, and Archbishops are made several Orders, and Degrees of Ministry.

By this its manifest, that the old Nonconformists did conclude, That by enjoyning subscription unto the book of Ordination, the Divine Right of the Diocesane Episcopacy was asserted, for, by These orders [viz. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons] p. 47they were to understand these Three Orders, Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

That the Episcopal Clergy understood these words in the same sence is too plain to need proof, for which reason I will only mention the Reasons urg'd by Archbishop Laud to evince the truth of this. To observe all that has been said by Sutcliff, and Bilson, Downam, and the many Episcopal writers whose books are extant, would be a work as troublesome as it is unnecessary: But this Archbishop in his letter to Bishop Hall thus argues, The antient word in the Fathers is Ordinatio Episcopi; and our phrase is of any of our Brethren the Bishops, he is one of our Order; and why doth the Church of England Ordain, or Consecrate every one that is made a Bishop, if it be but a Degree of the same Order? for when a Bishop is translated, or made an Archbishop, there is then no consecration, because they are Juris positivi. So far the Archbishop.

In fine, as King James, and the subscribing Clergy in his days, were for the Divine Right of the Diocesane Episcopacy, so was King Charles the first, as may be seen in Whitlock's Memoirs, and several other places.

Thus we see that in the Opinion of …ll the Learned whether Conformist or Nonconformist, the 36th Canon, which requires subscription to the Article of Religion enjoynes p. 48our allowing of the Diocesane Episcopacy to be juris divini.

But here it must be noted, that although the Divine Right of the Diocesane Episcopacy was then by Canon established, yet the Episcopalians had not arriv'd unto the utmost point they aimed at, for they acknowledged that the Parish Presbyter receiv'd the Potestas Ordinis immediately from Christ, but the potestas Jurisdictionis was deriv'd unto him mediate, viz. mediante Episcopo, whence all Ordinations, by the Presbyters were valid, as Bancroft himself acknowledged.

From this concession of the Bishops the old Nonconformists took the advantage to assert the Pastoral Office of the Presbyter, and to prove that every Parish Presbyter according to the Rule given by the Episcopal, must be acknowledged to be vested with the pastoral Power, whence they concluded, that the Parishes were substantially, and essentially congregational Churches.

This I will make as plain as possibly I can. The Learned Parker in his Ecclesiastical Polity, lib. 3. c. 10. gives us a just account of this Controversie between himfelf, and Downam, shewing that the Episcopalians of his time did hold that Jurisdiction was derived unto the Presbyter immediately from the Bishop. The which that they may with the greater Clearness prove, they distinguish between the Power of Order, and Jurisdiction; and again, between p. 30the Power it self, and the Excercise of the Power, affirming that the Power of Orders is deriv'd to the Presbyter immediately from God, but the Power, of Jurisdiction Mediate, and at his Institution; That the Priest receives the Power of Orders as a simple Presbyter, and the Power of Jurisdiction as a Pastour, but then they so frame their notion as to make the pastoral Office of the Presbyter to be but an Episcopal delegation, which is to be exercised under the Bishop as the Bishop shall direct, whence 'tis that they look'd on the Bishop to be the principal or special Pastour, but the Presbyter to be a less principal Pastour, made so by an Accidental Assignation of the Bishop; the Bishop was, they said, a Pastour Essentially, and the Presbyter a Pastor, only Accidentally. They did not at first deny a Presbyter to be a Pastour, but yet so minc'd the matter that they left him little more than the name, and the execution of the Bishops mandates.

But these Episcopalians granting that the Power of Orders was deriv'd immediately from God to the Presbyter, the learned Parker takes the advantage of it to prove, that the parish Presbyter derived his Jurisdiction immediately from God. But in the first place he shews how the Bishops deal with the Presbyter, even as the Pope deal't with the Bishops, who according to the Popish notion derive their Power from p. 50God mediante Papa, Nihil aliud Jurisdictio est quam Ordinis exercitium.and so receive it immediately from the Pope: and then shews the vanity of their distinctions, asserting that Jurisdiction is nothing but the exercise of Orders. Recte enim adversus Bellarminum Guil. Whitakerus [qui dicit non conferri potestatem Jurisdictionis, quando confertur potestas Ordinis, is parum ab insano est]Whence to assert that the Power of Juridiction is not conferr'd when the Power of Orders is conferr'd, is to act the part of a mad man, as the famous Whitaker in his controversy with Bellarmine observes; and even as the Bishops prove, that the Power of Jurisdiction is deriv'd immediately from God, so he proves that the Presbyter receives both the Power of Orders and Jurisdiction immediately from God. And in his 15th (which is his last) Argument, he shews that the Bishops derive their Power from the Presbyters,Excepta Ordinatione (i. e.) excepta Presbyterorum electione, qui eum in praefidem eligerent, ita nil- facit Episcopus, quod Presbyter non facit nisi ex Ordinatione & Electione Presbyterorum nisi quod illi Ex communi …onsci…su Pre…byterorum collatum …st. not the Presbyters from the Bishops. The Bishops, saith he, were not from the beginning, Presbyters were long before them: and as St. Jerome observes, a Bishop hath no other Jurisdiction than what he receiv'd from the Presbytery. Quid facit Episcopus (saith St. Jerome excepta Ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter? That is, as Parker expounds it, the Bishop doth nothing more than a Presbyter, but by the Ordination of the Presbytery who chose him to that Office.

Moreover this learned Parker proving even from the Episcopal concessions, that the Parish Presbyter was vested with the Power of Jurisdiction, deriv'd immediately p. 51from God, he,Vide Parkers Eccles Pol. l 3. c. 16. § 2. p. 167. Church Covenant p. 36. Mr. Hookers Survey of the sum of Church Discipline. part. 1. c. 4 p. 47. 48. as the old Nonconformist generally, did look on the Parish Minister to be a Pastour, and the Parish Assembly to retain the Essentials, and Substantials of a true particular Church, which they assert is Congregational. Of this judgement were the New England Ministers, and in special the Learned Hooker.

The Episcopalians finding themselves thus pinch'd by the Nonconformists, they do not only deny the Presbyter to be vested with Jurisdiction, but moreover deny him the Power of Orders, so that whereas formerly they esteemed an Ordination by Presbyters to be valid, they alter their opinion, affirming, that the Potestas Ordinis & Jurisdictionis belongs only to the Diocesane Bishop; that the Parish Priest is no Essential nor Accidental Pastor; that the Diocesane Bishop is the only Pastor of the Diocesan Church which is a particular Church of the lowest rank and order, and the Parish Minister is but the Bishop's delegate, or curate.

The bringing the Government of the Church to this point, was the attempt of Archbishop Laud but he was decapitated before a settlement of this sort of Diocesane Episcopacy could be established. But soon after his late Majesty's Restoration, those of the Episcopal Clergy who were appointed by his Majesties Commission to review the books of Common prayer and p. 51of Ordering Bishops, Priests and Deacons, did their utmost to frame all things according to Arch bishop Laud's model; and in all those places where they found the word [Pastour] in the Common Prayer book spoken of the Parish Priest, they blot it out giving them no better name than Priest, or Curate. Thus in the Letany, the old Common Prayer book has it in these words [that it may please thee to illuminate all Bishops, Pastours, and Curates,] in the new it is [all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons]; and at the Communion in a Prayer for the whole state of the Church militant here on Earth, in the old 'tis [Give Grace to all Bishops, Pastours, and Curates,] but in the new [give Grace to all Bishops and Curates.] Moreover in the book of Ordering Bishops Priests, and Deacons, they have made such momentous alterations as do plainly evince that the Bishop is the sole Pastour.

In the Preface to the book of Ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, besides what I have already noted, there is a momentous difference between the old and the new; for whereas in the old it's said [that it is requisite that no man, not being at this present, Bishop, Priest or Deacon, shall execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following,] in the new its thus, [no man shall be accounted or taken p. 52to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said functions except he be called —according to the forme hereafter following, or has had formerly Episcopal Consecration, or Ordination.]

By this very alteration its manifest, that though the old book was against such men's Executing the Functions, that were not Episcopally ordained, yet they did not with the new deny them to be of the Priestly function; and the new, by denying them to be of the Priestly Function, doth insinuate that there is nothing of the pastoral Office left the Parish Priest, for so long as the Pastoral Power belonged to the Parish Minister, their Ordinations were esteemed valid though irregular, but now its not so.

Again in the old book, in the Ordering of Priests, the Epistles and Gospels to be read were such as did shew their Office to be Pastoral, for Acts 20th from the 17th. verse to the 36th. which shews the Office of the Presbyter to be the same with that of the Bishop; and Matth. 28.18, 19, 20. and John 20.19, 20, 21, 22, 23. which speak of the Power of binding and loosing, was used to assure us, that they esteemed the Priestly Office to be Pastoral, but are in the new book taken out of the Ordering of a Priest, and inserted in the Consecration of a Bishop. The which makes it very mainifest that they p. 54depriv'd the Parish Priest of the Pastoral Office, giving it wholly to the Bishop.

Whoever will consult the Exhortation and observe those two or three lines which precede that part of it, which Mr. B. Quotes, will find that the design of the Holy Lessons taken out of the Gospel, was to shew them the Dignity and Importance of that Office, unto which they were call'd, for the Bishop tells them, That you have heard Brethren, as well in your private examination, as in the exhortation which was now made to you, and in the very Lessons taken out of the Gospel, and the Writings of the Apostles, of what dignity, and of how great importance this office is whereunto ye are called, the which words plainly direct us to conclude, that the Alterations of the Lessons do plainly shew an Alteration of the Office, and that though by the old Lessons the Office was Pastoral, yet by the new Lessons it was not so.

Besides in the old Exhortation, they were called [Messengers, Watchmen, and Stewards, and Pastours of the Lord,] but in the new the word [Pastours] is left out. And whereas in the old the Bishop did ask, whether he did think in his heart, that he was truely called according to the Will of God and the Order of the Church of England, to the [Ministry of Priesthood; in the new it is to the [Order] and Ministry, making thereby Priesthood an Order of it self distinct from those of Deaconship and p. 55Episcopacy. And when the Bishops with the preists present lay their hands on the Ordained, the Bishop is more particular and express in shewing what his office is, for to what is in the old book they add, Receive the Holy Ghost [for the Office of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands.]

In the Ordaining and consecrating of an Archbishop or Bishop in the Collect, to shew what they mean by Bishops, by way of Explication its added in the new, to all Bishops [the Pastors of thy Church,] and that it may be a truth past doubt that the Bishop is of a distinct Order from a Priest he is to be Ordained again, and therefore the two Bishops, who present him to the Archbishop say [most Reverend Father in God, we present unto you this godly, and well learned man to be [Ordained] and consecrated Bishop] and in that Prayer for the Bishop [Almighty God &c] whereas in the old book 'twas [Replenish him so with thy Truth —that he may faithfully serve thee in this office to the [Edifying of thy Church,] in the new it is [to the well Governing thy Church.] And when the Archbishop and other Bishops present …o lay their hands on the elected, and …ccording to the old book were to say [Receive the holy Ghost &c] in the new its added [for the Office, and work o… a Bishop in the Church of God now …mmitted unto thee by the imposition p. 55of our hands in the name of the Father &c.]

Now let any impartial or unbyass'd Reader duely weigh all that has been urg'd out of the Canons of 1603. and the accompt I have here given of the steps, our Episcopalians made in the latter end of Q. Elizabeths reign, but more especially in King James, King Charles the first, and his late Majesties reigns, especially the great Alteration of the book of Ordering Priests and Deacons, he cannot but conclude with me, that now that Law, which establisheth the Book of Consecrating Bishops, and Ordering Priests and Deacons, hath settled the Episcopal Order as distinct from the Presbyters, and hath taken from the Presbyter the Power of Government and placed it only in the Bishop, who according to the Book of Consecration receives his Office as Bishop [i. e. as of an Order distinct from and superiour to that of Presbyters] by the imposition of Episcopal hands, yea so very strict is the Act of Uniformity in this point, that it doth not only establish the book with the alteration of the Epistles, which sufficiently argues a Translation of the Pastoral Power from the Presbyter to the Bishop, but moreover, though ever till now Presbyterian Ordinations were esteemed Valid by the Civil Magistrate, though irregular, yet now they are in effect declared Null and void, not only by establishing the abovementioned alteration in the preface to the p. 56Book of Orders, but by an express clause in the very Act it self, where 'tis enacted, That from and after the feast of St. Bartholomew, which shall be in the year 1662. No Person who now is incumbent, and in the possession of any parsonage or benefice, and who is not already in holy Orders by Episcopal Ordination, or shall not be, before the said feast day of St. Bartholomew, ordained Priest or Deacon according to Episcopal Ordination shall have, hold, or enjoy any Pasonage with cure, or other Ecclesiastical Promotion within this Kingdom, &c. but shall be utterly disabled, and ipso facto depriv'd of the same, and all his Ecclesiastical Promotions shall be void as if he were naturally dead. So far the statute of the 14. Car. 2. but what can be more plain than that there is an essential alteration made on the Presbyters Office, for hereby, though formerly they being vested with the Power of Orders, in being denied Jurisdiction, nothing but the exercise of the Power was denied them, for Jurisdiction is but the exercise of Orders as Parker, and the Archbishop Spalatensis and before them the learned Whitaker against Bellarmine have proved, I say hereby both the Power and Exercise is taken away.

That the Presbyters Ordination is by this clause of the statute made void and null as if the man had been naturally dead is express, and that this doth most plainly p. 58infer the nullity of their Power of Orders and Juridiction is also as undoubtedly true, so that the Presbyters Office is an office without the Power of Orders and Jurisdiction, he wants an Essential of the Pastoral Office, and the Bishop alone is the Pastor of the Particular Diocesane Church which is a single particular Church, I say, [single] Church for it hath but one Pastor, that is, It's a particular Church of the lowest order, and the Parishes are but parts of this single Church, their Ministers but sub-half-Presbyters who have no other Power, but what is deriv'd unto them from the Bishop. All which doth now most exactly accord with the Instrument of the Bishops by which they gave Institution to a parish Priest, which is in these words, Instituo te ad tale Beneficium, & habere curam Animarum de tali parochia, & accipe curam tuam & meam. Vide Cooks Reports 4. 79. a. Digbie's case.

Here 'tis manifest that the Bishop has a special cure in the Parish, which he transferr's on the Parish Minister for saith he Accipe curam tuam & Meam.

This may suffice touching the Form of the Diocesan Constitution, I will now very briefly speak of the Matter of a Diocesan Church.

p. 59Aphorisme. IV. All Baptized Christians, not excommunicate, whether Papist, or Protestant, whether Heretick, or Schismatick, Drunkard, Adulterer, or otherwise debauched, that are Subjects of this Realm, … live within the Bounds or Limits of any Diocess, are the Matter of which a Diocesan Church is made up.

1. THat the Diocesan Church is made up of Baptized Christians is too manifest to need proof. And that whoever is baptized must, if Adult, personally (if an Infant, by his Godfathers and Godmothers) profess to renounce the Devil, the World, and the Flesh, is plain in the Rubrick about Baptism.

But yet 2. it must be acknowledged, that by the 68th. Canon made in the year 1603. No Minister shall refuse or delay to Christen any Child according to the form of the Book of Common Prayer, that is brought to the Church to him upon Sundays, or Holy Days to be Christned, convenient warning being given him thereof before, on pain of being suspended from his Ministry the space of three Months. And in the 29th Canon, no Parent p. 60shall be urged to be present at the Baptizing his own Child, So that let the Child be of Jewish, Pagan, Mahometan, or notoriously debauched Parents, and brought to the Parish Minister to be Christened according to the Common Prayer-Book, this Child is a Member of that Diocesan Church, in which it was baptized, or afterwards, in which it shall live.

3. How wicked soever any Baptized or Christened Inhabitant within the Diocess may be, yet if not Excommunicated, or doth say he doth humbly and heartily desire the Lords Supper, he is to be admitted, if he will take it according to the form in the Common Prayer Book prescribed.

The Truth of this is not only confirmed by the Rubrick, but by constant Practice of the whole Clergy, who admit the vilest Adulterers, Drunkards, and other Prophane Persons to that Sacred Ordinance. Besides

4. That all such, unless Excommunicated majori excommunicatione, remain Members of the Diocesan Church, is clear from what is enjoyned all Ministers in the 68th Canon, who are obliged to bury any Corps, that is brought to the Church, or Church-Yard in such manner, as is prescribed in the Common Prayer Book, I say, any Corps, unless the Party deceased were denounced excommunicate majori excommunicatione, for some grievous or notorious Crime, and no p. 61Man able to testifie his Repentance. At which time the Parish Priest or Curate must pronounce him a Saint in these Words [for as much as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great Mercy to take to himself the Soul of our Dear Brother here departed.]

But to do the Church of England right, it must be acknowledged, that the new Rubrick saith that [the Office ensueing [viz. that to be read at Burials] is not to be used for any that dy unbaptized, or excommunicate, or have laid violent Hands on themselves:] So that all that have been Baptized, and not Excommunicate, nor have laid violent hands on themselves, what Wickedness soever they have been otherwise guilty of, they must to the very last moment of their Lives, be esteemed Members of the Church of England.

5. They must be Subjects of this Realm, and Inhabitants within some one of the 26 Diocesses. A Subject because the Church is not of larger Extent than his Majesties Dominions, an Inhabitant within some one of the 26 Diocesses, which restrains it to English Subjects, but then it must be observed that all English Men, excepting what live either in Scotland or Ireland, if in any place beyond the Seas do belong to London Diocess…; As for Exempt peculiars, some of which belong to no Diocess, we speak not of them, nor do they make any such Alteration in the State of the Church, as to p. 62militate against any thing I have urged. And so much touching the Matter of a Diocesan Church.

Aphorisme V. There are certain things imposed by Canon and Statute Law, as necessary Terms of Clergy and Lay Communion.

1. THere are several things required of the Clergy as necessary Terms of their being admitted unto the Exercise of the Ministerial Office.

1. They must Assent and Consent to every thing in the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of consecrating Bishops and Ordering Priests and Deacons, to the Book of Articles and Homilies. This much is enjoyned by the 36 and 37th Canons, and the Act of Uniformity. And this Subscription must be Absolute without any Reserves. To subscribe so far as agreeable to the Word of God, or Law of the Land is not sufficient.

In his Maj…sties Declaration prefixed to the Book of Articles 'tis express, That no Man must Print or Preach to draw the Articles aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof. And p. 63shall not put his own sence or comment to be the meaning of the Article, But shall take it in the Literal and Grammatical sence. And my Lord Ch. Jus. Coke saith, That he heard Wray▪ Ch. Jus. R. R. pasc. 23. Eliz. report, That where one Smith subscribed to the 39 Articles of Religion with addition [so far forth as the same were agreeable to the word of God] that it was resolved by him, and all the Judges of England, That this subcription was not according to the statute of 13. Elizabeth, because that statute required an Absolute subscription, and this subscription made it Conditional. And Godolphin in his Abridg. Eccles. Laws. c. 13. §. 8. saith, That the addition [so far as agreeable to the Law of the Land▪] is not good, the old learned Parker suggests the same thing, complaining that such as offer'd to subscribe [so far as agreeable to the Law] were not admitted. And even in this very day a Doctrinal interpretation, will not be allowed. But.

2. All the Clergy must declare their satisfaction in the above described Diocesane Constitution, as to Declare that they will not endeavour any alteration of it, whereby they all do sufficiently discover to the world that they approve not of Congregational Bishops, nor do they look on the Parishes to be any other than parts of the Diocesane Church, nor themselves p. 64to be no Pastors, to be but sub-half-presbyters, for the making the Parish an entire Church, or the Assuming to themselves the pastoral Power is destructive of the Diocesane Constitution.

3. They must all swear to observe all the Canons. This much is required from them when they are to take the Oath of Canonical Obedience unto their Ordinary. Canonical Obedieddience is such obedience as the Canons and Constitutions rightly made and published do require. So Lind-wood; Canonica Obedientia est Obedientia Secundum Canones & Constitutiones rite editas & publicatas. The Rule then of their Licita & honesta (for they swear to be obedient to their Ordinary in omnibus licitis & honestis) are the Canons, and their swearing Obedience thus, is to swear that they will be obedient secundum Canones. I might here be very particular in shewing what they are bound unto in swearing to observe the Canons, but I wave it as easy for any to do, and somewhat foreign to my purpose.

II. The Terms required of the Laity.

1. All those who bear office, as Majors and Aldermen in Corporations, commission'd Officers in the Militia, must swear to the present Government of the Church. And so must the Vestry men, who are the principal▪ and most famous part of the Parrish. All these do so fully declare their p. 65approbation of the present Church Government that they never endeavour an alteration of it.

2. All the Laity are required to approve of the Government of the Church, as Apostolical, to hold Communion in their Rites and Ceremonies as approvers of them, and to fix in the Parish as a part of the Diocesane and not to hold Communion with any others that are English men.

In Can. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 'tis ordained, That whoever shall affirme that the Church of England by Law established is not a True and an Apostolical Church [i. e.] A Church formed and … according to Divine institution] or whoever affirms, that its worship contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and administration of Sacraments is a Corrupt Superstitious, or Unlawful worship of God, or that any of the 39 Articles are in any part Superstitious, or Erroneous, or such as he may not with a good Conscience subscribe unto, or that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England are such as being Commanded by lawful authority, men who are Zealously and godly affected may not with a good Conscience approve them, use them, or as Occasion requires subcribe unto them, or that the Government of the Church of England by Archhishops and Bishops, &c. is repugnant to the word of God, or whoever shall affirm or teach that the Form or Manner of making and consecrating of Bishops, Priests p. 66or Deacons containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Word of God, are to be Excommunicated ipso facto, and not to be restored until they repent and publickly revoke such their wicked Errours.

In the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Canons all such are accursed, who shall separate themselves from the Church of England, and combine themselves together in a new Brotherhood, or whosoever shall affirm, That such Ministers as refuse to subcribe to the Communion Book, and the Adherents may truely take unto them the names of another Church, not established by Law, and dare presume to publish it that this pretended Church hath of Long time groaned under the burden of some certain grievances imposed upon the members thereof beforementioned by the Church of England, or whosoever shall maintain, that there are within this Realm other Meetings, Assemblies or Congregations of the Kings born subjects than such as by the Laws of this Land are held and allowed, which may rightly challenge to themselves the name of True and Lawful Churches, let them be Excommunicated and not restored but by the Archbishop after Repentance and publick revocation of such their wicked Errours. So far these Canons, which plainly enough shew that the Conformists, who are sworn to them, do hold the Church of England to be in her Constitution, Government, p. 67service, Administration of Sacraments &c. so very agreeable to the word of God, that what persons soever presume to assemble together, and erect Churches of different constitution, worshipping God in any other manner than is prescribed by the Law of the Land, cannot possibly make their Assemblies true Churches, but if they affirm them to be true Churches, they fall under the curse.

And doth not this make it apparent that the Conformity of the People, as well as Clergy is required as an Overt act of their approving the Episcopal Church constitution, Government, and way of worship, and indeed of disliking all other waies, that are observ'd by any of the Kings borne subjects in this land. Now that which is a further confirmation of all this, is, that in the 98th. Canon, All such as will not personally promise and avow, that they will faithfully keep, and observe all the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, as also the prescript, form of Common Prayer, and likewise subscribe to the Three Articles, unto which the Clergy are required to subscribe, are in the esteem of the Church of England Factious, and therefore whenever they find themselves griev'd or oppressed by their inferiour Governers are denied the Relief of an Appeal.

Furthermore by the 27th Canon, All those, that refuse to kneel at the Reception of the Sacrament, and to be present at publick p. 68Prayers according to the Orders of the Churh that is, as the 18th Canon shews, All those, who refuse reverently to kneel when the General Confession, Letany, and other Prayers are read; and will not stand up at the saying of the Belief, and how at the name of Jesus, testifying by lowly Reverence their inward Humility, Christian Resolution, and due acknowledgement that the Lord Jesus Christ the true and eternal Son of God is the only Saviour of the world, nor say in their due places and audibly with the Minister, the Confession, the Lords Prayer and the Creed, nor make such other answers to the publick Prayers as are appointed in the book of Common Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments, All such as refuse to do either of these things, are to be denied the Communion and what Minister soever shall wittingly admit them, he is lyable to a suspension. But doth not this sufficiently evince, that all these things, viz. Kneeling at the Sacrament, a reverent joyning with the Church in her Prayers, Bowing at the name of Jesus, making Responses &c. are made necessary terms, of our Communion with them. All these things are sine quibus, non.

Now as our Lay conformity is by Canon Law strictly requir'd as an overt act of approving of their Church state, Ceremonies, &c. so is all this enjoyned by Statute Law too.

In the 1. Eliz. c. 2. which by 14. Car. p. 692. is applicable to the present Common-Prayer book, and book of consecrating Bishops, and Ordering Priests and Deacons, 'tis enacted, That if any person or persons whatsoever shall by any open words declare, or speak any thing in the Derogation, Depraving, or Despising of the Book of Common Prayer, or of any thing therein contained, or any part thereof, that then every such person, being thereof Law-fully convicted shall forfeit for the first Offence, an hundred marks, for the second four hundred marks, and for the third all his Goods, and Chattels, and Imprisonment during life. Besides in the same Statute 'tis enacted That all and every person and persons inhabiting within this Realm, &c. shall Diligently and Faithfully endeavour themselves to resort to their Parish Church—upon every Sunday—and then and there to abide Orderly and Soberly during the time of Common Prayer upon pain of punishment by the Censures of the Church. But can any man of Common sence think that the Law which requires our diligent and faithful resorting to Church, our sober and Orderly demeanour at Church in the time of Common Prayer, doth not exact our Presence as an overt act of our Approving the worship which we must be present at? The Learned in the Law tell us, That though a man go to p. 70Church and abide there during the whole service, yet may he be lyable to the penalty of this Law, for there are four Adverbs in the Statute. 1. Diligently, which denotes Attention, 2. Faithfully, Devotion. 3. Soberly, Gravity, and 4. Orderly, Decency. All which ought to be observ'd, so that if he walk or talk in the Church [or deport himself irreverently] thereby shewing his Dislike of the Service, during the service of God there, he may be punished, upon this Act, as if he were absent. See Cok. Ch. J. B. R. Rolles 193. c. 41. Foster's case. and Cawley on. 1. Elizabeth c. 2.

Whoever will consider the many Laws that strictly enjoyn our constant communicating with the Church of England in her worship, and most severely forbids our publique worshipping of God in any other way, cannot but see that the Diocesane Church frame, Ministry, and worship is set up as the best yea as the Only way in which the Kings borne subjects are to worship God publickly. These Statutes that forbid all other wayes of worship, do it thus, that they shall not meet above four besides the family on pretence of the exercise of Religious worship in any other way or manner then according to the Liturgy, and practice of the Church of England, the which shews that the Law doth not only call for our communicating with the Church of England, as Approvers of whatever is by p. 71Law established in that Church, but such Approvers as content themselves with the Church worship alone. They must be fixed members of the Diocesan Churches, and constantly hold communion with them in the Liturgick worship, and not be at an Assembly where the worship is in other manner then according to the Liturgie and practice the Church of England on pain of five shilings for the first offence and as much more as the Magistrate shall judge meet to put on him for the preacher, or House, or Poor, not exceeding ten pounds.

Thus you see that the Local presence of the Laity are both by Canon, and Statute Law required as an overt act of our approving their Church, frame, Worship and Ceremonies, and this much is enjoyned on grievous penalties, both on Soul and Body, the which shews that our Lawgivers have been greatly concerned for our closing with the present worship and abiding only by it.

Its a Rule laid down by Bishop Tailor, that the Gravity or Lessening the sin of Disobedience unto Humane Laws is to be measured by the Penalty. He commits a great Sin that breaks a Law which is established upon great penalties. His reason is, Because 'tis regularly to be presumed, that the Supreme Power puts much upon it, when he is so earnest for its Observation. Rem, quae culpa caret, in damnum vocari non convenit, p. 72saith the Law Chap. 2. de conf. If there be no fault there ought to be no punishment, they are Relatives, and ought also to correspond in their degree. Quis dubitavit hoc sceleratius commissum (saith Austin) quod est gravius vindicatum? Ut juxta mensuram delicti sit, & plagarum modus, Deut. 25.2. When Ecclesiastical punishments are superadded to a Civil Law, or a Civil punishment to an Ecclesiastical Law, it is to be presumed that the Law-giver puts much upon it. He can by no means more amply and more earnestly signifie his purpose of obliging strongly thn by using both the Temporal and Spiritual Sword. See Bishop Tailors Duct. Dubit. lib. 3. c. 1. n. 16. 19.

Seeing then the Magistrate hath used both the Temporal, and Spiritual sword to oblige the People to rest satisfied in confining themselves to the publick worship by the Liturgy, what can be more manifest then that they would have us joyn with them as Approves of the Diocesan Church kind Ministry and worship?

This much I count is enough to shew what is required of the People as terms of Communion with the Church of England; and what I have laid down in these five Aphorismes may serve to shew so much of the state of the Church of England as the Dissenters are concerned to know. For in the Description of this Church I have shewn what kind the single Churches by p. 73Law established are of, namely Diocesan; A particular Church of the lowest rank, and order is made up of many score or hundred Parishes under one Pastour, the Diocesan Bishop; whose Parish Ministers have no Governing Power committed to them, nor are their Parishes any more than Oratories or Chappels of Ease unto the Bishop; The matter of which these Churches are made up, are such baptized Christians as are the Kings born-Subjects, and not excommunicate, and live within the limits of the Diocess, how wicked, how sinful, and debauched soever they be: The things they impose on the People, as Terms of Communion are their approving the Diocesan Church Frame, the Liturgick worship, and Ceremonies, and a submission unto the Diocesan Bishop.

The next part of my work is, to give a true account of the principles of Protestant Dissenters about the Ministry, Worship, and Discipline of the Church of England, and what is the state of the Churches of these Dissenters.