The True Dissenter

SECT. I. The Premises.

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

As 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 am 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 endeavors 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 Abbeys, 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 compared 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 show) 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 repel the Pelagian Heresy; from them to Austin the Monks coming to Canterbury; from that time to William the Conqueror; and from him to Henry the 8th, and from Henry the 8th. to the end of Q. Elizabeth's 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 declared to be Apostolical, or de jure Divino, until King James first entered 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 thoroughly the Divine Right of a National Church Government in Thesi, and woeful experience showing him the mischiefs, that attended the Presbyterians in particular, he was easily induced 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 older 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 Christ's Pastors, 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 Human 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 exercised 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 days 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 preeminences of one Bishop or Priest above another are only by an Human Ordinance: whence it unavoidably follows, that the National Church Government which consists in the Superiority of one Bishop or one Priests being above another, can be but of Human Constitution.

Nothing can be more manifest, then, that anciently the Prelatic-Episcopal Office was but a Civil Office circa sacra derived from the King, who is but a Civil person; that all that belongs unto the Bishops, as they are of an order and office superior to that of the Presbyter, even the potestas Ordinis, & Jurisdictionis, is but Civil, derived 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 derived 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 observed, that it is not to be understood, as if the King were a Spiritual Pastor, whose office as such consists in praying, preaching, and administering 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 Country, 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, Egypt, 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, ) Thus Zerobabel, Nehemiah, Esdras, receive power from Cyrus Darius Artaxerxes for the restoring the worship of God in Jury. Thus do our ancient 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 ministering 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, confirmed 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 King 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 show 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 Governor 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 Style, 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 thief 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 Sovereignty but this, namely, That under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within these her Realms, Dominions, and Countries, 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 looked on those who did labor 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 ministering either of God's word or of the Sacraments, the which thing, the injunctions also lately set forth by Eliz. our Queen do most plainly testify: But that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always 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.

This is sufficient to evince that Kings never assumed to themselves any part of that spiritual power, which is given unto pastors by Jesus Christ, but only a Civil power, with all the Prerogatives belonging thereunto, whence what is derived from the Prince is but a Civil Power, called Spiritual or Ecclesiastical, not because it flows from one in the pastoral 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 had given them jurisdiction, 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 ancient story 'tis called. For I find that Patricius who was the first, that successfully attempted the setting up the Episcopal power in Ireland, and Palladius, who endeavored 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, 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 Emperors, 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 Emblem, and therefore worn by the Emperors; and by our Kings at their Coronation, and that in the times of our Saxon princes, for this consult Sir 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 anciently derived all their Episcopal power from the King were as such but Civil Officers. But to be more particular and express, I will further show.

2. That all that belongs unto the Bishops as they are of an Order, and office Superior unto Presbyters, even the Potestas Ordinis & Jurisdictionis is but Civil, and derived from the King.

Although the Bishops as such lay claim to no other power than that of Orders and Jurisdiction, yet anciently for several hundred years these Powers were the undoubted right of the English Crown, and our Kings have been the Absolute Lord's 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 looked 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 days the Civil magistrate was to excomunicate the Jews, for this consult Matth. Paris his History of Henry 3. ad an. 1245. and the Glossary on the word Excomunication; whereas 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 pastors. Furthermore it's very manifest, that the Kings of England regulated the manner of process in their Excommunications, showing 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 Abbeys. For the Saxon Kings, as well as William the Conqueror, and his Successors 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 Abbeys, but I will at this time only observe a 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 Diocese of N. On this it is that the Jesuit 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 duly 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 derived 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 of Temporal Preferments and Honors gave 'em the names of spiritual things and causes. This is excellently well delivered by Sir John Davis ubi supra. where speaking of the Ecclesiastical and Temporal Jurisdiction, saith,

This much Stockly, and Tunstal two Popish Bishops in Henry the 8ths days 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, and possessed themselves of most places of great Trust in the Civil Government: Chancellors 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 days as Matth: Paris reports, Omnes Scholares intactis Grammatices rudimentis, authoribus, & philosophis, ad leges properant audiendas, the which the Clergy did notwithstanding about the year 1052, in the Canons of Aelfric sent to Bishop Wulfin, 'tis express, that a priest should not employ 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 Honors, did addict themselves to the study of the Law, and that they might be the more successful in their endeavors, 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 entirely here in England, for by this mixture they gave unto our English Princes on 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 anciently 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 Human, and all their Episcopal Power derived from the King; That the Potestas Ordinis & Jurisdictionis, which is essential to the being of a Prelatic Bishop, was anciently looked on to be Spiritual in no other sense than Causes Testamentary and Matrimonial, and derived from the King only.

But, as I shall show in the following part of this discourse, ever since the first of King James, the state of the Church of England is much altered. 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 state 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 premised, I will now proceed to give a Just Description of the Church of England as now established, and show 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 Aphorisms.

Sect. I. The Present Diocesan kind of Churches, In consistent with and Destructive of the Presbyterian, and Congregational kind of Churches more Generally shewn.

BEfore I proceed to the proof of this General 'twill be necessary, that I tell the Reader, that though the present Diocesan Constitution be destructive of the Presbyterian, and Congregational kind of Churches, yet there is no such inconsistency between the Old English Episcopacy and the Presbyterian, or Congregational Church kind, for both Prebyterian, and Congregationalist can cheerfully submit unto any Bishop, as he is the King's Officer circa sacra; They all hold his Majesty's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical, affairs, and will submit unto such an Episcopacy as was in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's, and in King Edward the Sixths Reign. But it is the new species of Episcopacy, which was never by statute Law established before the 14. Car. 2. that is so very opposite unto, and destructive of the Presbyterian and Congregational kind of Churches.

Now that this Episcopacy is Destructive of the Presbyterian, and Congregational kind of Churches, or Church Government, is a truth so great, that it cannot but be matter of wonder, & surprise to thinking men amongst the Learned to see, that there are any, who in the least doubt it. For what more certain then that its naturally impossible to settle either the Presbyterian, or Congregational Church Government in this, or any other Nation, and yet not destroy the new Episcopal species, what man of sense can be persuaded to conclude, that though this Episcopal Church Form be de facto erected, yet no hurt is done the Presbyterian or Congregationalist; Or who can reflect on the strugglings, there have been in this Kingdom between these several Church Governments, and not be convinced of this.

The Canons in 1640 imposed the Et coetera oath, which had these words in it [ I. A. B. will never give my consent to alter the Government of the Church by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans and Archdeacons &c.] But could any man take this Oath, and yet consistently with it Consent to the setting up either the Pesbyterian, or Congregational Church Government? No verily and why, but that such is the Nature of the Episcopal Government and such that of the other two Governments, that neither of them can be set up but to the Alteration of the Episcopacy, unto which they are not to consent.

After this the Solemn League, and Covenant was imposed that was for a Reformation of the Government of the Church according to the word of God, and the best reformed Churches. This Oath I think was taken both by Presbyterians, and Congregationalists, but could either keep this Oath, and not root up the Diocesan Episcopacy? No, they could not, and therefore in it they swear that they will in their places endeavor the extirpating that very Episcopacy, to which the Et coetera oath did before oblige men.

But in 1662. there is another Alteration made, the Episcopal Government (not according to Bishop Usher's model, but according to this new species ) was de facto settled in pursuance of the act of Uniformity, which enjoined subscription of Assent and Consent unto it, on which occasion near two thousand Presbyterians, and Congregational Ministers left their places. And afterwards the Oxford Oath, obliging all these Nonconforming Ministers to swear they would not endeavor any alteration of the present Episcopal Government, on the penalty of not coming within five miles of a Corporation &c. did drive many from their habitations.

But why could not these Prerbyterians, and Independents give in their Assent and Consent to the Episcopal Government, was it not because 'twas inconsistent with that kind of Government, which was either Presbyterian or Congregational, which they believed to be of Christ's Institution? Moreover our Governors who were sensible that these different Governments and Oaths were inconsistent, to the end they might secure the present Episcopacy, do pass a severe Act against all attempts for the setting up either the Presbyterian, or Congregational Church's Government. This was done the 13. Car. 2. c. 1. where 'tis enacted That to the end no man hereafter may be misled into any Sedition or unquiet demeanour out of an opinion—that there lie's any obligation upon him from any Oath, Covenant, or Engagement whatsoever to endeavor a change of Government either in Church or State—if any person or persons shall maliciously, and advisedly by writing, printing, preaching, or other speaking express, utter, publish, declare, or affirm—that—there lie's any obligation upon him, or any other person from any Oath, Covenant, or engagement whatsoever to endeavor a change of Government either in Church or State— that then every such person and persons so aforesaid offending shall incur the danger and penalty of a proemunire — And it is hereby declared that the Oath usually called the Solemn League and Covenant was in itself an Unlawful Oath &c. So far the Statute. And what greater care can be taken to secure the Episcopal Church Government? For this very reason also in the Act of Uniformity all the Clergy must abjure this Solemn League and Covenant, and all declare, that they will on no pretence whatever endeavor an alteration of the Government of the Church, and not only the Clergy, but all Mayors, and Aldermen of Corporations, yea and all the Vestry of every Parish and all Nonconformist Ministers, that will live within five miles of a Corporation, must declare that [they'll not endeavor an alteration of the Church Government ] which words plainly import as much objectively as the Et coetera -Oath (though [not endeavoring] be somewhat less than [not consenting] as a Reverend Divine hath observed.

From this consideration that there are several Statutes, which oblige men by Declarations, Oaths, &c. to the present Diocesan Church Government against an alteration of it, an Argument of great weight doth arise, which proves that the Species of the present Episcopacy is different both from the Presbyterian, and Congregational Species.

The Argument I thus form. Either these Declarations, Subscriptions and Oaths do oblige the Declarer, Subscriber and Swearer to a Church of a Species different from the Presbyterian or Congregatinal, or they do not. If not, then our Governors obtain not their end in destroying the solemn League and Covenant; for a man may consistently enough pursue the ends of that Covenant, in erecting either the Presbiterian, or Congregational Government, and not act contrary to the abovementioned Declarations, Subscriptions and Oaths, for those Governments are of the same Species with the present Episcopacy. Besides on this supposition no hurt was done to the Church of England in the late times of Usurpation, for the same Species stood still, yea you may depose Lord Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, Archdeacons, &c. and put down their Courts, and share of the Lands without an Alteration of the Species of the present Episcopacy; yea further should all Diocesan Bishops be deposed, and a Congregational Bishop set up in every Parish, the Species is not altered: Furthermore, one that hath declared, and subscribed, and taken the Oath that he will not endeavor an alteration of the present Government, may do all that in him lieth to pull down Diocesans, and say that he did swear only not to endeavor an Alteration of the Species but not of the Degrees; and so not act contrary to his Oath or Subscriptions. Yea the Assembly of Divines, and all those who were for Bishop Ushers Model, were not only for Episcopacy in genere, but for an Episcopacy of the same Species. But doth not this contradict common Sence? What are the Presbyterians and Congregationalists Episcopal Men, and yet suffer the loss of all, because they subscribe not unto that Species of Episcopacy which they are for.

But if the present Episcopacy be of a different Species, not only from Presbytery, and Independency, but from Bishop Ushers Model; If the present Episcopacy, Presbytery and Independency be of different Species, then the putting down one and erecting of another contrary Species, is the destroying one to the Exaltation of the other, and if the present Species of Episcopacy be distinct from the Congregational, and the Episcopal Species be erected and not the Congregational, 'tis impossible to obey the Law in conforming unto the Episcopal Species, and yet at the very same time, in the very same act, keep alone to the Congregational Species.

This much flows from the Consideration that Archbishop Laud and the Convocation in 1640. did impose the Et coetera Oath to prevent an Alteration of the Episcopal Species of Churches; and the Imposition of the Covenant for the altering that Species; and the Abjuring the Covenant and subscribing unto the present Episcopacy, and declaring and swearing they'll not endeavor an alteration of the present Episcopacy.

There are other Considerations that evince the same, on which I will at this time insist, ingenuously confessing tha I am owing to the Learned Mr. B. for the Topics on which I proceed, and though, since his late shameful Tergiversation, his Authority is not worth a straw, yet his Reasons remain herein impregnable, and because as expressed by him they are very strong, I will for the most part keep his words, though I will not confine myself unto them.

It must still be remembered, that the great point in controversy is, Whether the Diocesan Churches and Bishops be of the same kind with the Presbyterian, or Congregational Churches, and Bishops, but more especially, Whether the present Episcopal Churches, and their Bishops be according to the Congregational species? I express it thus, because those who contend with us carry it that way, and therefore I will for the future in this part of the Controversy keep to it as thus worded.

That the matters in debate be brought unto the fairer issue, we must consider in what predicament a Church and a Bishop are, which we shall find to be in that of Relation, unto whose Essence or Definition there belongeth the Subject, the Fundamentum (seu Ratio fundandi), and the Terminus. Now where these are not the same, or any of these, the Relation is not the same: because where an Essential ingredient is wanting the Essence is wanting. Again, it must be noted, that many natural Relations are so founded in an Act past, that the Relation resulteth from it without depending on anything future. As God is Creator, Quia jamcreavit; Pater est qui genuit. But there are other Relations, which are founded in mere Undertaking, Mandate Authority, and Obligation to future Actions: As he is a Tutor, a School-Master, a Pilot, a Bishop, a Husband, &c. who by Mandate and Undertaking is Authorized, and Obliged to such and such works, implied in their names. And in these cases nothing more specifieth the Offices than the work of the Office; which is the nearest end. And these nearest ends are ever essential to such Relations, I say, the nearest ends, not remote ends. Besides, it must be further noted, that though Relatio in forma Relationis non recipit magis & minus: ex. gr. Titius non est magis pater quam Sempronius: yet quoad Subjectum & aliquando quoad Fundamentum, & Correlatum it may recipere magis, & minus, so that magis & minus shall change the Species. This is in such case wherein the alteration of Quantity altereth the Capacity of the Subject quoad finem essentialem, For instance, To the being of a house some quantity is necessary to the end, which is Habitation, and there is no house properly that is no bigger than an egg shell; so to the being of a Ship or Church. So also in Societies, the whole world, or a kingdom is too big to be a Family. And a Family too little to be a Kingdom. These differ principally in their Ends, and next in the Quantity of the Subject matter, because every Quantity is not capable of the same essential end.

These things being premised I will proceed to some other Arguments, which I will so distinctly form, that if possible I may at the same time show what manner of Church the Lay-Dissenters generally, and their Dissenting Brethren, who are for Lay conformity, do say is of Divine Institution; and by comparing the one with the other see whether these Church's Dissenters are for, be of the same kind with the present Episcopal. But this in the next Section, where I must be more particular.

SECT. II. The Difference between the present Episcopal Churches, as to Kind, and Form.

IN showing the difference (seeing I design to be Argumentative in my procedure) I will first give you my Reason for a specifical Difference between the Episcopal, and Congregational Churches, and 'tis this.

Where the specifying Ends differ, there the species of Relations differ.

But in the Churches in Question the Specifying ends differ. Ergo.

The Major being unquestionable I will manifest the truth of the Minor, by showing in two distinct columns what are the Ends of a particular Church in the Judgment of those, who are for the Congregational species, and of those, who are for the present Episcopal.

These are most of the Differences in their Ends. And is it not Notorious that these Essentiating Ends of the two sorts of Societies are distinct, and therefore the Societies are Essentially distinct.

But seeing it is most manifest that there is a specific Difference between a Congregational, and Diocesan Church, I need not insist much on this, the great thing to be evinced is, That a parochial Assembly as in pursuance of Law now formed, is not a single Church, but part of one; upon which reason it is mainly Istick, that the parochial Assemblies, as by Law established, do differ from a Congregational Church in the Specifying ends.

Now here it must be noted, that although Parochial Communion is sensible and external, Local or Presential, yet it is not personally of a whole Church, for a Parish is but a part of a Diocesan, which is but a single Church, the Parish wants the Personal presence of a Pastor amongst them; for as I shall show hereafter, they have no Pastor at all with them, nor any other Governing Officers to constitute them an Organical Body, so that they are not related to the same Pastors as those, that are their Ordinary Teachers, Governors, and Guides in public worship, as Labouring amongst them, and being ensamples to the Flock.

I argue this

A divers Fundamentum, vel Ratio fundandi, proveth a diversity of Relations.

But a Congregational Church, and a Parish Assembly as in pursuance of the Law of the Land formed and framed, have fundamenta that are in specie divers. Ergo.

I might fairly enough affirm, that the Controversy lying between a Congregational, and Diocesan Church, if I show that the Congregational and Diocesan Church have fundamenta, that are in specie divers, the present Parish Assemblies have fundamenta very different from Congregational Churches, for our Discourse is of Organical Churches, and its undoubtedly true, that where there are no Governing Officers there is not an Organical Church, and yet that the Governing Officers, by Law established belong not to a Parish as such, but to a Diocese, and that therefore the Parish fall's not under consideration but as 'tis a part of the Diocesan. But that my Argument may be the more convincing, I will have a more special regard unto the frame and make of our present Parish Assemblies as in pursuance of the Law they are now erected, in showing the different fundamenta of a Congregational Church, and the Diocesan, and so stick to this, that the Parish Assemblies do want the fundamenta of a Congregational Church.

Now the fundamentum of the Relation of a Particular Congregational Church is either 1. of the Relation of the Church to God. 2. Or their Relation as fellow members one to another. 3. Or of their joint Relations to their Pastors or Bishops. 4. Or of their Pastors relation to them. For a Church is not only compounded of various materials, but its Form is a compound of these Four Relations set together, and everyone is essential to it, so that where any of these is wanting, the form is wanting. As these four Relations are Essential to the Form of a particular Church, so the foundation of every of these Relations is Mutual consent. The which Mutual Consent must be in order to the abovementioned specifying Ends.

1. The Relation of the Members, Pastors, and the whole Church to God, is founded in God's Consent and theirs. God's Consent is signified by his Scripture Institution and Command, and therefore cannot be said to consent to any Church form, but what is agreeable to his revealed will in the Scriptures. 2. By his qualifying and disposing the persons, and so Consent 's not to the Notoriously vicious and uncapable, for they are not qualified, nor duly disposed unto it. 3. By his providential giving them opportunity. The Relation of all these to God is secondarily founded in their own consent, that it may be a contract. They give up themselves first to God.

2. The Relation of Members to each other, is founded in an Explicite or Implicite Consent amongst themselves, for after they have given up themselves to God, they give up themselves to one another.

3. The other two Relations, which is of Pastor to the People, and of the People to the Pastors, is founded on mutual Consent, for the specifying Ends already said of such a Relation.

These being the several Fundamenta of those Relations that are essential to the form of a Congregational Church, we will examine whether they may be found in the present Parish Assemblies.

1. Then, as the Parish Assembly is formed after the Diocesan model, God consents not.

2. Nor do the people Consent, for their Ordinary meeting together is not because of any Mutual Consent either explicit, or implicit for any Church ends, but because they inhabit in such a Parish, and the Law requires them to go to Church. The Parishioners do not explicitly nor implicitly give up themselves to God, nor to one another to hold personal Communion together in all the Ordinances of Christ according to the order of the Gospel. That they do not consent Explicitly is granted by all, and that they cannot be interpreted to consent implicitly, unless by some overt act they discovered so much, is very clear. But by what overt act do they show that they consent implicitly? It is true, they actually convene and meet together at the Parish Church, but this is not for the Essentiating Ends of a particular Church; they meet not there as related to a Pastor that doth ordinarily Teach, Govern, and Guide them, as I will more fully show by and by.

3. Nor is there a mutual Consent between Pastor and People. As for the Parish Minister he is so very much obliged to the Diocesan Constitution by Declarations, subscriptions, and Oaths, that he cannot be esteemed implicitly to consent to be their Pastor, for he is sworn unto the Diocesan, as the only Pastor of the Diocese, and the Vestries the principal men of the Parish, declare the same too. Besides nothing more clear than that the foundation of their assembling together is their being Baptized Christians, Living within such a Parish, over whom a Minister is imposed by the Patron and Bishop. Thus they differ specifically in the Fundamenta of the Relation.

Another Argument to prove that the present Parish Assemblies are not Congregational Churches, is taken from the Consideration that they want such a Specifying Governing Head. Every Society, Corporation, or Body politick hath a supreme Governing part, and as is the Governing part, so is that Society or Organick Body. If the Governing parts of several societies are specifically different, the Bodies Politick are also specifically different. A Corporation is specifically different from a Community or Inorganick Assembly, If then the Parish Assemblies as particular Assemblies are Inorganick, and fall under Government on no other account than as they are parts of a Diocese, they are of a different species from Congregational Churches which are Bodies Politick. But the Parishes as they are particular Assemblies are not Organick, they have no Governing Head with them. Or thus.

If the Parish Assemblies that in pursuance of the Law are de facto framed, have not a Presbyter or Pastor over them, they differ in specie from Congregational and Presbyterian Churches. But the Parish Assemblies, &c. have not a Presbyter or Pastor amongst them. Ergo.

In proving the Minor, two things must be done, 1. We must consider what is Essential to the Office of a Presbyter or Pastor▪ and 2. Shew that the Parish Minister wants what is essential to the Office.

I. As for what is Essential to the Office of a Presbyter or Pastor. The Presbyter or Pastor, being made after the image of Christ, he is Teacher, High Priest, and Ruler of his Church: Every Pastor has all these Offices in a Subserviency unto Christ. He has Authority and Obligation to Teach: To be the Churches Guide in public worship, in Prayer, Praise, and Sacrament of Communion. He hath Authority and obligation to Rule the flock by the word of God and exercise the Church Keys of Discipline. Under this head, I must with the Learned Mr. B. grant.

1. That no Action whatsoever as performed at the present, or for some excepted season, is essential to the Pastoral Office. A man ceaseth not to be a preacher or Pastor as soon as the Sermon is done, and he is out of the Church. When a man is asleep, or on a journey he endeth not his Office. Nor yet when he is interrupted by sickness or persecution. Nor doth a Church cease to be a Church when the Assembly is over. There is a difference between the Constitution, and Administration; the status, and Exercitium; the Office, and Exercise. Yet

2. The exercise as intended, and as the Relative End, or Terminus of the Obligation, and Authority, is essential to the Office. For when it is a Relation, that we Question, and that consisteth in Obligation and Authority, there is no doubt but 'tis ad aliquid, and is specifyed by the Action, or exercise to which men are obliged, and authorized. And it Being a Calling which we speak of, and that durante vita capacitate, it must be such Action as is intended to be ordinary, and constant. So that though the Power, or Habit may be pro tempore without Action, or Exercise; yet this Power, or Office, to which Exercise, as intended is Essential, cannot be where there is a Stated, or Ordinary, and constant suspension of the Exercise. If the Exercise be by Law or Custom Statedly suspended durante vita, there an Essential of the Power, and Consequently the Power itself is null'd. Where there is a Stated suspension of the Exercise, there the Obligation is taken away: and whosoever consents to such a stated suspension of the exercise, must be interpreted to disclaim the Authority, and Obligation to exercise, or consent to live in the neglect of a duty to which by Office he is obliged. Yea moreover, he that consents not to do the work of a Minister, the whole work, and that for more than a trial or present occasion, and is not obliged and authorized to that work, at least statedly as his intended ordinary course of life, is no Minister of Christ. He is no Gospel Presbyter.

II. But the Parish Ministers as such, are under no obligation to Teach, neither have any Authority or Obligation to Rule.

1. As Ordained priests, they have no Obligation to Teach. This is manifest from Canon 57. which ordains, that the Sacraments are not to be refused at the hands of. Unpreaching Ministers, that is from those that have not the Ability to preach, or by Preaching to Teach the People. The Unpreaching Minister being ordained Priest receives at his Ordination the entire office of a Parish Priest, but yet may not have an Ability, and therefore not an Obligation to Teach; though an Ability and Obligation to Teach is Essential to a Congregational Pastor, yet a Parish Minister may be vested with the entire office of a Parish Priest without ability and Obligation to teach, any otherwise than a Child of six years old can by reading Prayers and Homilies.

2. The Parish Minister hath not received neither Authority, nor Obligation to Rule the flock by the word and exercise of the Keys of Dicipline. 1. That he hath not Authority nor Obligation is sufficiently proved from the present book of Consecrating Bishops and Ordering Priests and Deacons. 2. The Exercise is durante vita statedly suspended, and so cannot be considered as intended, which yet is essential to the Office. 3. I might here be large and enumerate several particulars, which show, That the Parish Minister hath no part of the Ruling Power left him. But I wave it as unnecessary. Because what appears is enough.

3. I must muster up again thus much, A Parish Minister as such, differs from a Congregational Bishop, because he hath not the same Foundation for the Relation. Ubi non est idem fundamentum, ibi non est eadem Relatio. There is not the same Election, no nor Consent. Election, or at least Consent of the people is the Foundation of the Congregational Bishops Office over the Congregation. It is necessary to his pastoral Relation to that Church. But the Parish Minister is by the Patrons choice, the Bishop's approbation, institution, and induction fully settled in Title and possession, yea a complete Parish Minister without the people's Knowledge or Consent. So that as a Parish Minister, his Office in Relation to the Parish is not founded on their Consent.

This much may suffice to show, that such are the Kinds of Presbyterian, but especially of Congregational Churches (which is by most said to be of the same kind with our Parishes) I say, such are the kinds of these Churches, and such the Form of their Government, that they differ tota specie from the Diocesan, or present Parish frame; yea such is the kind of the Diocesan that it it destroys both the Presbyterian and Congregational kinds of Churches. I will in the next place consider the difference between these Churches as to their Matter of which each Church is composed and made up.

Sect. III. The different Matter, of which the Parish, and Congregational Churches are composed.

TOuching the Matter of the Congretional on the one hand, and the Episcopal Churches on the other, there is a very great difference. That none are fit matter for particular Churches, but Baptized Christians is the Judgment both of Episcopalians and all the Nonconformists. And that nothing less then the Profession of a Saving Faith gives right to Baptism, and consequently to Church Communion, is held by both the Church of England, and all Dissenters.

But yet the Practice of the Church of England is very different from their Principle, for they admit to Communion all Baptized Christians, that are the Kings born Subjects, living within the Bounds of their Diocese, and not excommunicate, how wicked, profane, and debauched soever, and (as has been already shewn) this the Inferior Clergy must do: But the Congregational keeping exactly to the Church of England Principle, admit none to Church Communion, but such as make the profession of Saving Faith, credibly significant of the thing professed. So that really and de facto the matter of these Churches do differ in specie, the one made up of such as are visibly Regenerate, and the other of those who are Regenerate, and visibly Unregenerate also.

This very thing has occasioned many troublesome thoughts to divers Learned and Thinking Men of the Church of England, That they must require the profession of Saving Faith from all they baptize, and yet in contradiction to this their avowed Principle, admit all manner of debauched Persons to these Sacred Ordinances. For hereby as their practice in Admissions to the Sacrament of the Supper is dissonant from their Principle, so their Principle justifies the Congregationalist in his separation.

Mr. Humphrey a great Antiseparist, An. 1669. in a Paper of Animadversions upon the late Parkers Ecclesiastical Polity gave us a just account of this point in these words,

So far Mr. Humfrey in his Animadversions on Parker's Ecclesiastical Polity: but since in a late Treatise entitled, The Ax laid to the Root of Separation. Sect. 2. p. 35, 36. He is more express in these words, 'If the Common Opinion be received, and a profession of no less than True Grace, or a Regenerate Faith, be the Rule of Admission to the Church and Sacraments? I do not see in the first place, but we must all give up the cause of our mixed Churches (Parochial or National) to the Separatist. They who require such a profession in the Adult as necessary to give Right to Church Communion, and do indeed understand themselves, will say, it must be a profession de presenti, Serious, Intelligent, resolved, with whatsoever else is needful to make it credibly significant of the thing they profess. So that the Person Professing must be indeed Regenerate to be able to make it, and the Persons that receive him, must look on him as Regenerate upon his making it: and what more can be imagined, for the yielding to the Congregationalist his whole Foundation? It is true, that some will persist, and say, the Independent doth require also a Church Covenant besides this Profession: But this is in good earnest to impose upon them. The Judicious among 'em will avouch, That let but a man make his Profession of the Baptismal Covenant, and his Profession be only thus qualified, which Mr. Baxter in his Books still insists upon; and there is nothing besides, but what on necessity doth arise upon a man's joining merely in a Society, is, or can be required of any. It is this Profession individuated into a particular Congregation is all they do, and will stand upon, even so understood, so qualified, so explained. But now such a Profession as this, will they all say, is incompatible with our Parochial, National Churches. There are none can make a Profession of what they have not. There are but few here and there that are Regenerate, and consent indeed to the Covenant, in the Sence as the Baptismal Covenant is understood. There are but few that are Elect, in comparison of the multitude of others. And seeing there are none but these few (as I say) are able to make such a profession; it is they who ought and must be gathered out of the rest into their select Congregations. And what can be offered with more reason, if this indeed were Christ's Rule of Communion? I must for my part, protest therefore, as one that loves to be plain and single hearted; I see not in good earnest, but either we must come off from this Rule, or we must come over to their gathered Congregations.

All this and much more doth this Learned and Reverend Author freely, and with much Strength of Reason and Sincerity profess. Here then lies a difference between the Matter of Congregational, and that of Parochial Assemblies, or Diocesan Churches. The Congregational Churches are made up of such matter as the Generality of Protestants, the Church of England, and especially Mr. Baxter affirm it ought to be, but the matter of the Parish Assemblies is such as all these Worthies say it must not be. The Congregational Churches are for their Matter made up according to the Rule of all Protestants generally, and of the Church of England in particular. But the matter of Parochial Assemblies, or Diocesan Churches is contrary to the Protestants and Church of England's Rule. Now then do I after Mr. Humfrey assume, that the Church of England, (and Mr. Baxter together) must come off from this Rule, or go over to the Congregational gathered Churches.

But to make this as plain as I can, it must be observed that in this part of the Controversy Mr. Humfrey (who either hath more clear apprehensions, or is more sincere than Mr. B.) doth not only confess that the Episcopalians are under a necessity of going over to the Congregationalist, or of altering their Rule; but in opposition to the Congregationalist proposes another Rule of Church Membership or Communion: which Rule, because it doth (as I am well assured) find good acceptance amongst some very Learned and Judicious Men of the Church of England way, I will in short give a just account of it, and show that according to this Rule the matter of Parochial or Diocesan Churches differ in Specie from, the congregationalists, and that whilst the Congregational keep to the said Protestant Principle, they cannot hold communion with Mr. Humfrey 's Churches.

The Notion this Worthy Divine hath of a Church, is more large than what hath been commonly received; for whereas it hath been generally held by all Protestants, That the Church, even that Church which is that Corporation of Christians, unto which the World is to be brought in by the Preaching of the Gospel, consists only of the Regenerate and Elect. Mr. H. adds, that it consists moreover of the Unregenerate, that is, of Multitudes, whereof the Elect are but a Few. Not that the Unregenerate, reduplicative qua unregenerate, but specificative, as they fall under some certain Qualifications, are Church Members.

He distinguisheth between the Mystical Church, and the Congregate Church, or Church Political, and saith, that as none but the Regenerate are Members of the former, so the Unregenerate also may be Members of the latter, but then that this may be cleared up, his discourse is of a Twofold Covenant, an Universal and Particular: the Universal Covenant or Law, which is the Instrument of God's Government over all the World, and is the Rule for all men to obtain Life by, is that Covenant which God made with Man after the Fall, offering Life on easier Terms than the Covenant of Innocency did.

Of this Covenant or Law there have been three Editions, 1. An edition before the Law. 2. Under the Law. 3. Under the Gospel. And as the Administration of this Covenant has been threefold; so has the Faith, which is the Condition thereof, been diversifyed. But in every Edition, Saving Faith is the Condition thereof, so that no one can be in this Covenant without Saving Faith, and whosoever are in this Covenant, they are Regenerate, and of the Mystical Church.

The particular Covenant, which is the Instrument of the Conventional Gorvernment which is over some certain Persons, as they are gathered, or join'd together into Societies, unto which they are called out of the world for the glorifying God's name in that worship and service of Him, which he hath instituted by his positive Law, precepts, or Ordinances in order to their acknowledging him to be their God in a peculiar manner, is not a Covenant that gives right to Life, but such as gives right to the outward Ordinances and privileges of the Gospel. So that this particular Covenant is a step towards the Universal, and all those that perform the condition thereof are brought but into the way to Life.

To be in this particular Covenant, or under this Conventional Government, and to be a member of a Congregate Church is the same, which Congregate Church he makes to be the immediate Recipient of outward Ordinances.

Thus you see there are two distinct Covenants, which entitle to distinct privileges on distinct Conditions. There is the Universal Covenant, which gives right to eternal life, on a Regenerating Faith, so that none are in this Covenant but the Regenerate, the Elect, who are members of the Mystical Church. And there is a particular Covenant, or the Covenant of Advantage; which gives right to outward Ordinances and privileges, and such persons, that have a Faith short of Saving Faith, may be in this Covenant, the Unregenerate as well as Regenerate and so are members of the Congregate or political Church, for that Faith which is the Condition of this Covenant is not a Regenerating Faith. Nor is it the Shadow or Outward Shape of a Saving Faith, but a Faith specifically different from Saving Faith and a real thing, of which a man may make a Sincere profession, and remain Unregenerate. But though the man that hath this Faith only remains Unregenerate, yet he is in a much better Condition than such as have it not. For this Covenant is a Covenant of Advantage in divers Respects, for it gives Right to the outward privileges, and Ordinances of the Gospel. So that now you may see why, though it be said that the Unregenerate may be in this Covenant yet not qua unregenerate, but Specificative, viz, as Unregenerate Believers.

The Author looks on this Political Church as a School wherein such persons as are wrought on by the Gospel so far as to receive that Faith, which is the Condition of this Covenant of Advantage, and are Baptized, may there, by the use of of the Ordinances as a means of Grace be brought up to that Sincerity of Heart, and Life, which yet they have not and which God hath made the Condition of their Salvation.

That then which lies on this Learned Author as his principal work is to show, what this Faith is, which falls short of justifying Faith, and yet is the condition of the Covenant of advantage, and entitles to Baptism and other outward Privileges of the Gospel, and that the whole of this Notion is a Scripture Notion.

The Faith, which falls short of saving Faith, and gives right to Baptism and Church Communion consists in an owning the true God and his worship in opposition to all False God's and false Religion, and consequently a subjection to the ordinances of that Worship Himself hath appointed, whereby they are converted from Heathenism to Christianity.

This is obvious in his Book, but in one place he is more particular, where he produces the British Divines in the Synod of Dort for the making an initial Faith, as they call it (intending by it a Faith, yet short of saving Faith) to be a ground for our taking men to be qualified Members, but finding the main thing wanting, which is to tell then unto what Degree such a Faith must come, which is short of Justification, and yet gives Right to Baptism; he does adventure to pitch the measure and fix the point, when it hath been supposed that no Stint could be set, till it came to saving. It is a Faith (says he) receiving the Doctrine of the Gospel, and advancing to that Degree as makes a man willing to come into the Society of Christians. That is, A Dogmatical Faith made perfect by consent upon the account of General Grace, as the fundamentum juris doth give Title to Church Communion.

This Faith, which he insists upon makes them willing to submit unto Christ, to come into his School, and be governed by the Laws thereof. A man receives the Christian Doctrine so far as to conform himself outwardly unto it. He believes that Christ is the Son of God. He owns the Trinity, and stands not actually guilty of any such Notorious Sin, as, if he were in the Church, he must be turned out for it. He is one that is a Saint by reparation from Paganism unto Fellowship with the Political Body of Christians, and yet is not so by separation from all Ungodliness unto Fellowship with the Mystical Body of Christ. And he is one that together with his entering the Covenant of Advantage, doth engage himself also Conditionally, though not Absolutely to the Terms of the Covenant of Life, saying Amen to the Sanction of it.

Now in this account Mr. H. has given us of a Faith, short of what is saving, we may easily see wherein he differs from others, who go not the common way, and wherein this Faith of the Unregenerate differs from the Faith of God's Elect.

It differs from the other Notions that some have given us of it in this, They make the Faith short of saving to be the outward Shell, or Carcase of saving Faith, but he makes it specifically different from saving Faith, and in assigning the difference he tells us, That though this Faith be Consensu formata, yet the Consent, which is essential to this Faith, differs specifically from the Consent of saving Faith: Actus specificantur ab objectis, and the Consent of the Dogmatical Believer is but to observe the external part of Religion. All these outward Rules and Laws that are for the Regulating his outward Conversation he will regard and obey, but to go further he will not absolutely promise. He indeed Conditionally engages himself to the terms of the Covenant of Life. He expects not the Remission of Sin, nor Salvation, but on his having that Faith, which is the Term of the Covenant of Life.

Here I confess it must be acknowledged that an unregenerate Man may go so far, and remain Unregenerate, and though Unregenerate, may yet make the Profession of so much Faith without Hypocrisy. The Profession may be Serious and Credibly significant of the thing professed, though in other respects he too manifestly shows himself to be Unregenerate.

But saving Faith goes further, it purifies the Heart, it brings all the Powers of the Soul into subjection to our Lord Jesus Christ. He consents not only to the External Duties of a Christian, but moreover he engages to subject himself to all the Laws of Christ, even to those which are for the regulating the very propensities and Dispositions of the soul.

Thus we see he offers something plausible in his Adventure and speaks more intelligibly than either Mr. Blake, Sir W. Morrice, or any others, that have gone before him. For he endeavors to stint the measure of a Dogmatick Faith, which he saith is a Faith Consensu formata, and this Consent absolutely is only to submit to the external Government of Christ, to those Laws and Rules, which respect the outward Conversation and this he saith is sufficient to give right to External privileges and Advantages, for by this Faith, a man is brought into the School of Christ, and so has many advantages above the Pagan, Mahometane or Jew. He is outwardly a Christian and as such hath a Right to the outward privileges as the Outward Jew long ago had.

This Covenant of Peculiarity, of which the Dogmatick Faith is the Condition, was, he saith, made first with Abraham, until which time the whole world was only under the Universal Covenant, a Covenant of Grace which gave to the Regenerate Believer a Title to Justification and Eternal life. But God made this Covenant with Abraham, and afterward by Moses, and enlarged it in this Gospel day.

The Author gives many notable Reasons to confirm the truth of this as to the Jews, and from the consideration, that the Gentiles are graft in on the same olive the Jews once were, argues very learnedly to prove, that 'tis thus now in this Gospel day. And in his discourse touching the General Grace of God, by the participation of which the Christian Church in the first notion of it, (saith he) should be defined, he tell's us 'tis a strange thing that Divines should be able to to see, How Christ, how the Spirit itself (or its help) can be the fruit of Universal Grace, and yet their eyes be holden as not to see the External Ordinances to be so, while they make the Church to consist of Regenerate only.

Note here, when Mr. H. endeavors to define General Grace so exactly as he does by that Free Act or Favor of God whereby he respects all men with the vouchsafement of the same means of Salvation, so far as he will, he is not to be understood, as if he placed it inan equality of means vouchsafed alike to every Individual person, which were an impertinent abuse of him, who accounts it General, because vouchsafed to the Reprobate as well as to the Elect, and affirms that God will's if man will's, or that all should have the means and the same means in this sense, viz, not so as that they actually have them, or shall enjoy them (for some have the Gospel sent them and some have not) but so as they have a right to them if they be willing, and no Minister can refuse them. This alone serves his purpose, Go teach all nations baptizing them gives them a Right by virtue of Christ's Commission, though providence perhaps gives them never any possession.

There is one thing more to be regarded in his Notion, and but one thing, and that is his taking the Covenant of Advantage Complexly, so as to include the Covenant of Life together with them, and so there is no man can enter this Covenant, but his Faith must be Saving, and his Obedience Universal. But if the Covenant of Advantage be taken precisely, such a Faith as receives the Doctrine of Christ in oposition to all other Religion, and subjection to the Ordinance (as the Condition, of the Covenant of peculiarity, or God's Conventional Government) and a Life without Scandal is all that is of Necessity to a man's Admission. But then he also distinguisheth between What is required of persons, that come into the Church, or to the Sacraments; and what is required so as else they may not come: and saith, no more is necessary to a man's coming so as without it he may not come, but what is necessary only to the Covenant of peculiarity considered precisely in Contra-distinction to the Covenant of Salvation, though, that is also necessary to the person that comes, which is required also in their complex Consideration.

This I think is the Substance of Mr. Humfreys notion fairly and impartially stated, for the clearer understanding of which, we must carefully keep in mind these distinctions.

Between the

• Mystical Church.
• Political Church.
• Covenant of
  • Salvation,
  • Peculiarity, or Advantage.
• Grace
  • General.
  • Special.
• Dogmatick Saving Faith the Condition of the Covenant of
  • Peculiarity.
  • Life.
• Distincy Privileges of these 2 Covenants
  • 1. That of Peculiarity. The means of Salvation.
  • 2. That of Life, Justification, and Salvation.
• Unregenerate
  • Reduplicative.
  • Specificative.
• A Being in the Covenant of Peculiarity
  • Complexly.
  • Precisely.

These Distinctions (I say must be heedfully minded, for the hinge of all turns on them. The discourse is of the Political Church, which is more comprehensive than the Mystical, taking in some of the Unregenerate, who are to be considered Specificative, they performing the Conditions of the Covenant of Advantage, or peculiarity that is, thoseof the Unregenerate, who have a Dogmatick Faith Consensu formatam, whereby they own God, receive the Christian Doctrine; and subject themselves to the Ordinances of Christ, which they are enabled to do by General-Grace, have a right to Baptism and the Lord's supper, though not to Justification and Life. Now if we consider the Covenant of peculiarity Complexly, taking in the Covenant of Salvation, so none are members of the Church, but the Regenerate, and Regeneration is required of all that come into the Church, though not as a Term of their Admission.

This in short, if I mistake him not, is the Author's Notion which indeed deserves Consideration, it being an ingenious attempt for the vindicating the practice of such as admit those to the Sacraments, who have on them the visible marks and characters of Unregeneracy.

Having thus impartially given the just State of his Notion, I will now show that though it may give some Colour to the Practice of the Conforming Clergy in some Parishes, yet 'twill not remove those difficulties that lie in the Congregationalists way. Not that I design here an Examination of his Notion, for I am in this Treatise but giving a True state of the Controversy between the Church of England and the Congregational. But this much I must observe.

1. That according to the Principles of the Generality of Protestants, even of the Church of England herself as well as of Congregationalists, the present Parishes want fit matter for a particular Church, and so want an Essential. For Mr. H. ingeniously confesseth, that if those, who have not the Marks of Regeneration on them be not fit matter for Gospel Churches, the Parishes want fit matter, and so are not particular Churches of Christ's appointment and not to be communicated with.

2. That according to Mr. Hs. own Rule, the present Parishes want fit matter for a Gospel Church, for though Mr. H. doth hold that the Unregenerate are fit matter for a Gospel Church, yet not as such, and so its not every Unregenerate person is fit matter, but some only, even those who have that Faith, which is the condition of the Covenant of Peculiarity. A profession of which Faith (if required, for where therere is no reason of Questioning a Person, his willingness or offering himself is this profession with Mr. H. ) is necessary to an admission to Church Communion. But we see no such profession in the Church. Besides Mr. H. adds, that those who have a Right to the Sacraments must subject themselves to the Government of Christ, and not lie under Scandal, nor be actually guilty of such Sins for which they must be excommunicated if they were in. But to an Admission unto Parish Communion 'tis sufficient that you are the Kings born Subject, that have been baptized, and not excommunicated, though of a very scandalous Life and Conversation, and grossly ignorant of the First Principles of the Christian Religion. So that Mr. H 's Rule is too short and too narrow for the Church of England 's Practices, and would not in the full at least excuse the Parish mixit Communions, nor can his Treatise be looked on therefore as a satisfactory Plea for the same, the edge of his Ax being so far blunted as it hurts not those who are now called Separatists.

In a word, so long as the Congregationalist can defend the Old Church of England (which is the true Protestant Principle) about the fit matter of an instituted Gospel Church, their withholding Communion from the mixed Parish Assemblies will be sufficiently justified even by Mr. Humfrey himself, who labors so very hard to confute it.

SECT. IV. The Dissenters cannot approve of those Terms of Communion imposed on them by the Church of England.

1. THe Ceremonies imposed as necessary to our holding communion with the Church of England, are in the judgment of the True Dissenter parts of external Worship, and because not particularly instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ, Unlawful.

It must be here confessed that the Church of England is as much against the introducing any Human Inventions into the worship of God, as the Dissenter can be. She holds all Uninstituted Worship to be Unlawful. To make Ceremonies Parts of Worship she disavows. And that she may defend herself against the Old Nonconformists, and the present true Dissenter she denies the Ceremonies in controversy to be parts of Divine External Worship.

For indeed the Controversy between the Church of England and the true Dissenter lies in this, whether the imposed Ceremonies are parts of external Divine Worship? Or whether they are but Decent Circumstances of Action?

All sound Protestants affirm that no Ciuil or Ecclesiastical Power can justly add anything to the Worship of God. They all hold, that all uninstituted Worship is False Worship unlawful Worship. If then the true Dissenter can prove, that the imposed Ceremonies are by the Church of England made parts of External Worship, they obtain their point. And that they are made parts of External Worship, the Dissenter urges the Churches making them direct, or immediate expressions of the Reverence of the Heart unto God.

Their Argument runs thus,

What is a direct or immediate expression of the Honor and Reverence of the Heart to God, is a part of External Worship.

But the imposed Ceremonies are direct and immediate Expressions of the Honor and Reverence of the Heart to God. Ergo,

They are parts of External Worship.

The Proposition is undeniable, and there are Arguments innumerable to prove the Assumption, and such as are taken from what several Sons of of the Church of England say of their Ceremonies, when they tell us that the Decency of Circumstances doth lie in the expressing of Reverence and Devotion unto God.

The True Dissenter is as much for the Decency of those Circumstances that belong to Religious Actions as they are Actions, as the Church of England can be, but then they hold with such as Bishop Abbot, that Decency doth most immediately respect Men, not God, and that Decent circumstances of Actions, when used in Public Worship, are of the same kind with those Decent Circumstances used on any Solemn civil occasion, and not being expressive of the Reverence of the Heart to God are no parts of Worship, but respecting Men, and suited to the Solemnity of the Assembly, are no other than what becomes every solemn Assembly, though met on civil occasions.

A Decent Habit, Posture, and Place in convenient time belongs to all Solemn Assemblies, whether met for Religious or Civil ends, and indeed what is judged most Decent in Civil Assemblies is in many respects made the Rule of Decency in Religious Conventions: whence 'tis, that as in divers Counties there are different Customs observed in their civil meetings, so there are proportionally a like difference in their Religious Assemblies. Not that in every particular, but in some things only, there is an exact agreement, and in most things some Similitude and Likeliness.

But the Church of England making their Ceremonies expressive of Reverence and Devotion unto God, do make them more than mere Decent Circumstances of Action. They clothing them with Significancy and making them expressive of inward Worship do make them parts of External Worship in which as such, because not Divinely instituted, the true Dissenter cannot communicate with the Church of England.

II. The True Dissenter doth also refuse to communicate with the Church of England in her Liturgick Worship. Not that they esteem it unlawful merely because there are in their Liturgy Stinted forms of Prayer, but because they believe that many of those particular Prayers contained in their Liturgy are both for matter and manner unsound, and because these Forms are imposed as the only public Prayers of the Church to the exclusion and suppression of the use of all other Prayers.

The Dissenters are misrepresented by those, who say they are against the use of all prescribed Forms of Prayer, as if they would not hold communion with any that use them, how sound soever for Matter and Form, and though used with, but not to the exclusion of Spiritual and Free Prayer: I say, when they are thus represented they are abused, and a fair account of their Principles touching these things is not given.

But this they hold, I. They cannot communicate with any in those Prayers that are known to them to be very corrupt and superstitious, and yet imposed as sound. Nor 2. Can they confine themselves to any particular Form of Prayer how sound soever to the exclusion of the use of Spiritual and free Prayer.

Sect. V. Wherein the True Dissenter doth agree, and wherein he differs from the Church of England.

I. THey agree with the Church of England in the Doctrinals of Religion; taking Doctrinals as distinct from those Doctrines that Relate to the Constitution of particular Churches, Ministry, Ceremonies and Discipline. They are for Decency in Worship; as much 〈◊〉 for the use of Decent Circumstances of actions as the Church of England, and are not against prescribed Forms of Prayer as such. Besides they do believe, that there are many sound Believers and good Christians of that Communion, who do belong to the Mystical Body of Christ, and shall be saved in the day of the Lord, yea comparing the Church of England with all the Churches in the World, (excepting the Protestant Reformed Churches abroad and in Forreign Plantations, and the Dissenters at home) they esteem the Church of England in most things to be more agreeable to the Rule of the Word than those other Churches.

II. The Dissenters do further hold, That 'tis the incumbent duty of all men to do what they Lawfully can, for the Peace of Christians in this Kingdom.

III. That if they could Conscientiously hold Communion with the Church of England in all Ordinances occasionally, 'twould be their Duty to do so constantly. Not that they think it Duty to communicate constantly with every Church with which they may Lawfully hold communion occasionally. But they judge the Frame and Constitution of the Church of England, its Ministry and Government to be such, and the Circumstances in which English men-stand with reference to the Church of England, that in this case, If complete Communion occasionally was Lawful, Fixed Communion would be a Duty. The Reasons for this are these.

1. The holding complete Communion with the Church of England occasionally supposes the Terms of Communion with the Church to be Innocent and Lawful, which once granted, constant Communion on the account of its being enjoined by Lawful Authority becomes a Duty.

Government is so very necessary for the conserving Peace in the World amongst men as men, that in whatsoever we can lawfully, we ought to show our Regards and the Honorable Respects we bear both to the Government, and them that are in Authority. The doing this is to obey Natures Dictates, besides, the Fifth Commandment, and the Example of Jesus Christ and his Apostles direct us unto this. In all things lawful we ought to obey the Higher Powers, not only for Wrath, but for Conscience sake.

What a man to escape the Wrath of a Magistrate may lawfully do, that for Conscience sake, and to escape Divine displeasure, he ought to do. In a matter of this Nature we ought to be serious, and deliberately consider, That if to escape the Penalty of a Twenty Pound a Month, we can lawfully hold Communion with the Church once a Month, whether, if the same Penalty should be by Law against abstaining from Church every Lord's Day, we should not think it as lawful every Lord's Day. If it be answered in the affirmative, as I presume it will be by those who judge it lawful to communicate once a Month to escape Wrath (for the same Cause will have the same Effect,) then 'twill follow that we must do as much for Conscience sake. We must do all that lawfully we can for Conscience sake, as well as for Wrath. In all things▪ we must needs be obedient.

2. The Peace both of the Church and State makes constant Communion a Duty, if occasional Communion be lawful: For whatever lawfully we can do for Peace we must do. If it be possible, saith the Apostle, As much as lieth in you live peaceable with all Men. Rom. 12.18. Follow Peace with all Men, Hebr. 12.14. The very advantages, which the Nation where we live, and all men who profess the Protestant Religion both at home and abroad will be partakers of, is sufficient to oblige all good Men to do what lawfully they can for peace.

Shall we do more for escaping the wrath of men than for Conscience sake to evite the displeasure of a Terrible God? Is not the public Weal more to be regarded than the Advantages of private Families, and yet will we do more to prevent a private mischief than a public? Is not the peace of Church and state more to be valued than that of a single family, and yet will we conform to obtain the peace of Families, and refuse to do so for the peace of the whole Kingdom and Churches at home and abroad.

Constant Communion with the Church of England is enjoined by Authority, and 'tis what will contribute to the peace of the Kingdom, and to the Healing our Breaches, to the strengthening the Protestant interest at home and abroad, to the weakening popery, which proves so fatal unto Civil States, and therefore unless Conformity, or Lay-communion be unlawful, it must be done.

These things are so plain and manifest, that even the Conformists call for it, and Mr. Baxter and Mr. Humfrey (men of great Learning and Judgment among Dissenters) affirm and Practice it, and therefore when ever they Preach, 'tis in conjunction with the Church of England. They disavow the gathering from the Church. But then

II. Their disagreement may be reduced to those three Heads, as must be brought here again into remembrance. 1. The matter. 2. The Form of instituted Churches, and 3. The Terms of Communion.

1. Some Dissenters judge that the Parish Assemblies, of which a Diocesan single Church is made up, want fit matter for a particular instituted Gospel Church, and so are not particular Churches. Not that they hold that there is not one good Christian that holds Communion with the Parish Assemblies. But the Assemblies as made up of all Baptized Persons not excommunicate, how ignorant, how wicked, and how scandalous soever they may be that live within such Parish Bounds are unfit matter for a particular Church of Christ 's Institution. And yet of such (as hath been noted in the foregoing Chapter) are the Diocesan Churches made up. Now all know that there cannot be a Christian Church where there is not Christian matter. The matter is an Essential Constitutive ingredient. If then in the Parish Churches there are not a competent Number of Christians, that is (saith Mr. Baxter ) a competent number of Regenerate Persons, (for in the Dictionary of all Protestants generally a Christian and a Regenerate Person are of the same signification) or as Mr. Humfrey (who would be thought to widen the Church, and with whom an Unregenerate Believer is a Christian) of such as have a Dogmatick Faith (i. e.) such as do own the Doctrines of Christ, and in opposition to the worship of False God's, and False Religions do close with Christ 's Worship, his Ordinances and Institutions, and submit themselves to Christ 's Government, and abstain from such notorious Sins for which Church Members are to be cast out) they are not fit matter for the Building a particular Church. I add, if the Parishes wanting fit matter for a particular Church, according to the old Protestant Rule, must want the Essence of a Church; how much more then must they want it, if they want what is fit matter according to Mr. H 's Rule.

Mr. H. a great Antiseparatist (as I but now said) doth protest, that if by the old Protestant Rule we must judge who are fit matter for a particular Church, the cause must be yielded up unto the Congregationalist, for that the Parishes do most undoubtedly want fit matter. But

2. Whether the Parishes want fit matter, or not, 'tis past doubt that the Form of their Church constitution is opposite unto, and destructive of both the Presbyterian and Congregational Church Species.

Here I will (as before I did) confine my Discourse to the Opposition there is between the Form of the Parishes, by Law established, and the Congregational.

That they are of different Species, that, the Parochial Form as suited to the Diocesan Model, is different from, and destructive of the Congregational kind of Churches being already proved, I will show, How the Dissenters do from this consideration argue against communicating with the Church of England in their Parish Assemblies.

That the Reader may the more clearly comprehend the scope of the Dissenters Arguments, he must carefully observe, that the Dissenter esteems the Form of the Parish Assemblies as Diocesan to be Uninstituted, to be violations of the Second Commandment, yea destructive of Christ's Institutions: that is, the kind of the Diocesan Church, Ministry and Discipline to be destructive of Christ 's instituted Churches, Ministry and Discipline.

The Lord Jesus Christ, who eminently is King of Saints, hath instituted particular Churches to Rule and Govern them. A particular Church is a particular Polity, in, and over which the Lord Jesus Christ rules. Now that same Lord, who is their King, is their Lawgiver, and he has shewn after what Form his Church shall be made. He has given us the fashion of the House, the Laws and Ordinances. He has appointed Offices, and given commission to his Officers, and laid down Rules for the exercise of their Offices. Christ hath prescribed the several Offices, he has shewn the several Works, and the divers Powers of these Officers, and how they shall enter on their Office.

And whoever will narrowly search into this thing will find, That the Lord Christ hath so formed, and framed his Churches, that they may obtain the great end, for which they were ordained, to wit, the perfecting the Saints, the edifying the Body of Christ, till we all come in the Unity of the Faith, and of the Knowledge of the Son of God, unto a Perfect Man, unto the measure of the Stature of the Fulness of Christ; and the Officers appointed for this great Work are such, who in an especial manner bear on them the Image of Jesus Christ 's Mediatorial offices, of Prophet, Priest and King, (as before hinted) being the Churches Teachers, Guides in Worship and Governors. Besides the Churches thus formed and framed according to Christ 's own Appointment, are enriched with Special and Peculiar Privileges, which none else without the Guilt of the Highest Usurpation, can lay any claim unto. All which aright considered, it undoubtedly follows, that to break down Christ's Instituted Form of Churches, depose his Officers, destroy his Offices, lay aside his Laws and Rules of Government, set up a New Species opposite unto, and inconsistent with Christ 's Churches, make new Offices, set up new Officers, and lay a claim to all those Privileges which are peculiar to Christ 's own Instituted Churches, is a complicated Sin, in whose Bowels there is all imaginable aggravations. It is a Sin as odious as that of Witchcraft, yea 'tis a rejecting the Lord Christ, and a saying we will not have this Man to reign over us. In fine, the doing all this in the Name of Christ makes the Iniquity the more hanious; for to do so is to set Christ against himself, and a committing the worst of Villanies in the name of the most Holy Lord.

This much is so very plain, that in Thest all agree to the Truth hereof, even Papists as well as all manner of Protestants.

If then the Congregational kind of Churches, or the Presbyterian be of Christ 's appointment, seeing the present Diocesan is so very inconsistent with and Destructive of them, 'tis impossible that either Presbiterian, or Independent that understand themselves, and know what the Diocesan Constitution is, should be able conscientiously to hold Communion with any in the destructive Diocesan frame: For to do so is to communicate with them in what is set up to the Destruction of Christ's Kingdom.

I will illustrate this by a fami • iar comparison. Let us suppose the Monarchial Government to be established on the surest foundations, and the whole Nation under an Oath to be true to this Government, and Faithful to their Prince; can any Persons notwithstanding this, go about to form themselves according to a Republican Model, change the old Offices, depose the Kings Officers, Rule and Govern themselves by other Laws, and this be done consistently with their Allegiance. Is not this an abhorrent thing in the very thoughts? Is not this a casting off their Prince from the Government, and a destroying the Monarchy? In like manner the Diocesan and Congregational kind of Churches, being according to us, as inconsistent with each other, as the Republican and Monarchical Government, if the Congregational be of Christ 's Institution, what can the breaking down the Congregational Bounds, changing the Congregational Offices, deposing their Officers, setting up new after the Diocesan Model, and governing by other Laws and Rules, but a rejecting of Christ, a destroying his Government, and open breach of our Allegiance to him?

The thing is too plain to be more largely insisted on, and those who are for the Divine Right of a Diocesan Ep ••• opacy see this clearly enough, who therefore allow not any of their Members to communicate with us, or any kind of Churches opposite to theirs.

3. If the constitution of the Church of England had been sound both in Matter and Form, yet so long as their Terms of Communion are such as are in the judgment of the Dissenter sinful, 'tis unlawful for them to hold Communion with the Church of England. A Church, which for its constitution is sound, may impose such sinful Terms of Communion, whence it unavoidably follows, that those, who are conscientiously persuaded of the Sinfulness of the Terms, ought not to communicate with the imposing Church.

That we must not sin for the Sake of Communion with any Church is granted by all, the Controversy then as to this part of it lies here, whether the imposed Ceremonies, and Liturgy made necessary both by Ecclesiastical and Canon Laws to Comunion be sinful? If sinful, we may not communicate with the Church of England, if not sinful, yet, so long as Dissenters lie under plain, and manifest Convictions of Conscience, that they are sinful, they must not communicate with the Church in their Liturgies and Ceremonies.

This is the Protestant Doctrine, and unless the Church of England can prove the Matter and Form of their Churches to be agreeabl • to the Divine Rule, and their Terms of Communion to be Lawful the true Dissenter must be c • eared from the reproach of being a Schismatic.

In a word, the Disease of the Churches this day in England, and the chief grounds of the present Division lies here. The Diocesan Churches, as above described as to their Matter and Form, their Ministry and Discipline are by Law established, as of Divine Right, as the only Churches and Ministry for English men in this Kingdom to fix their Communion with. The strict imposing the Controverted Ceremonies, and the severe punishing all those, who do not incorporate and fix their Communion with the Church of England on Her own terms, and punishing all those that worship God in any other way than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England is the great reason of the present Divisions that are amongst us.