SECT I. Of Church Power, and in whom lodg'd. HE Iffue of the Debate betwixt the Church T and the Diffenters, I have frequently reminded you, and every attentive Perfon fees, depends abfolutely and intirely upon this fingle Point-Is there any other Lawgiver or King in the Church of GOD befides JESUS CHRIST, Or, is there not? Is there Power and Authority vefted in any Man or Body of Men on Earth, to make and to injoin new Rites of Chriftian Worship, and new Terms of Chrif tian Fellowship, befides what CHRIST, the only Lawgiver, hath himself made and injoin'd; or, is there not? Could you but be engag'd to give a plain and direct Anfwer to this one Point, it would foon end the Debate. But for Reasons best known to your felf, yet very obvious to the World, you are deaf to my repeated Solicitations on this Head; and will not, cannot be either perfuaded or provok'd to speak your Sentiments freely and openly upon it. You ftrenuously contend that there is fuch a PowER; but are greatly at a lofs, 1. Where to place it? And, 2. How to limit and confine it? These are two things which it indifpenfibly lies upon you to fix clearly, and to afcertain; before you can, with any Grace, cenfure our Separation as unjustifiable and wrong. But tho' in multiplying Words, your Talent is not common, and you expatiate diffufely upon things of little moment; yet here, where the Point lies, and you faw, and even felt it, yoù artfully endeavour to evade. However, with much Difficulty, a few Conceffions are extorted from you, which, in Part, fhew the World your prepofterous Scheme, and which prove you to be really (as I fhall presently fhew) no Advocate for, no Friend at B 2 all all to, the true Church of England, the Church eftablifhed by Law; but to be a Betrayer, an Oppugner of it, a dangerous Underminer of its very Bafis and Foundation; and that, if your Principles take place, it must presently be overthrown, and its Hierarchy and Frame be utterly deftroy'd, For, with regard to the first of the above Points, viz. In WHOM this Power of making and enjoining new Ceremonies and Rites of Worship, and new Terms of Communion in the Church of Chrift, is vested-You affirm, 1. " That 'tis NOT in the "CIVIL MAGISTRATE; he has NO SUCH POWER "at all." But, 2. " 'Tis in the PASTORS and "GOVERNORS of the Church." + Now, FIRST, If it be NOT in the CIVIL MAGISTRATE, and HE bas, as you affirm, NO SUCH POWER at all; the Confequence is inevitable, that then the prefent eftablished Church of England is illegally, unjustly, tyranically established: That it is an Ufurpation upon the Rights of Chriftians, and upon the civil Liberties of Mankind; and that the very Bafis on which it ftands, with its whole Frame and Conftitution, are fundamentally, effentially and notoriously wrong. For, That the prefent Church of England was conftituted, form'd and establish'd by the Civil Magiftrate, and ONLY by him, viz. by Q. Eliz. and her Parliament, every Gentleman, not a perfect Stranger to our Hiftory and Conftitution, indifputably knows. When we talk of the Church eftablished by Law; by what Law, I pray, do we mean established? Is it not by a Law enacted by the Crown and Parliament, and enacted by no Authority or Power but theirs? Is not the A&t of Uniformity the grand Pillar or Foundation on which the Church of England refts? Was it not that alone which established its prefent Liturgy, with all its Ceremonies and Forms? But by whom was that Law made? Was it not by the Civil Magiftrate; and made by him alone z the Bishops in the Houfe of Lords and the Clergy I Defence, p. 18, 19. + Ibid. p. 10. 3 in Convocation labouring earneftly against it. To fay then, as you do, that the Civil Magiftrate has NO POWER to decree Ceremonies and Forms of Worship, is to say that the Act of Uniformity was a tyranical unrighteous Act: That it was enacted by those who had NO POWER at all to do it; confequently, that the Church established by that Law was an unwarrantable Establishment, a fpurious illegal Thing. This is the deftructive Tendency, Sir, of your Principles and Scheme. You root up Foundations, overthrow our Constitution, and demolish totally the very Church you feem zealous to defend; fo that you never fpoke, perhaps, a truer Word than when you were pleased to defcribe yourself as a forry. Advocate for the Church *. But you afk, Why are we to regard only the Establishment of Queen Elizabeth? "Why is King Edward's Reformation overlook'd? Not for any Advantage which you can poffibly get by it. For in the Reformation under that Prince alfo, "The Majority of the Bishops and inferior Clergy (directly contrary to what you affert) were on the Side of POPERY." And it was the Parliament alone, without the Convocation, which establish'd the reform'd Liturgy and Service Book then. A But at Queen Elizabeth's Reformation, when the prefent Church was form'd, erected and establish'd, *Defence, p. 128. Your learned WARBURTON in his Alliance, &c. honourably and frankly owns, "That the Church bath refign'd ber INDIPENDENCY, and made the MAGISTRATE her SUPREME HEAD; without whofe Approbation and Allowance she can direct, order and decree nothing, p. 87. And that the Clergy are now under the MAGISTRATE'S Direction, P. 74. Accordingly, an Act in the 2d Parliament of Charles II. in Scotland, to which all the Bishops concurr'd, and none of the Laity protested against it, enacts, "That the Discipline of the external Government and Polity of the Church is in bis MAJESTY and bis Succeffors, as an INHERENT RIGHT of the Crown; and that they may fettle, enact and limit fuch Conftitutions, Acts and Orders concerning the Adminiftration of the external Government of the Church and the Perfons employ'd in the fame, and concerning all ecclefiaftical Meetings, and Matters to be propos'd and determin'd therein, as they in their ROYAL WISDOM fhall think fit. + II Defence, p. 140. Neal's Hift. Pur. Vol. 1. p. 45, 51. you you alledge, ("Though the Bishops did, in"deed, in fome of her firft Years oppose the Reformation, which they had before approv❜d, yet "they did not long stand out- +". That the Ma jority of the Bishops did either before approve, or afterward comply, is, I believe, quite repugnant to Fact; but whether true or not, is not at all to the Purpose: For when the Reformation was actually accomplish'd, and the Church with its Liturgy and Forms was established; their ftanding in or out afterward, for a longer or shorter Time, makes nothing for your Point. The Work was done without them; this is all I afk; this you are forced to grant. The Bishops then had no Hand, no 'Share at all, in making and establishing the present Church of England; but with all their Might oppos'd it. It was done by the Civil Magiftrate (who had NO POWER, you fay to do it) and done by him alone. "At her Majesty's Acceffion, and even after Religion was "reftor'd to the fame State as under King ED"WARD, the UNIVERSITIES were fo entirely loft, "that there were scarce Two of the fame Opinion with "the Reformers. As to the Bishops and Clergy (Bifhop Cox adds) they were UNANIMOUS for POPERY, firm as a Rock, 66 66 -Stat Clerus Totus, "But if the Reformation was carried on, it was "not, fay you, perfected without the Bishops |." True, because it was never perfected at all. That glorious Work remains to immortalife, perhaps, the Name of its prefent Governors. But to whatever + II Def. p. 140. Only one Bishop conform'd himself to the Queen's Commands, and was continu'd in his Place, viz. Kitchin of Landaff. Fuller's Ch. Hift. B. ix. p. 59. and B. vii. p. 414. *Neal's Review, &c. p. 58. Vide alfo Fuller's Ch. Hift. B. ix. P. 56. II Def. p. 139. Per Perfection it hath been at all brought fince its first Establishment, it was brought only and entirely by the Authority of the Crown and Parliament; our excellent Conftitution acknowledging No legislative Power or Authority but theirs +. "And as for the XXXIX Articles, thefe, you "alledge, were fome Years after pafs'd in a Convoca"tion of the Bishops and Clergy §." Whether they were pass'd in a Convocation or not, with regard to their Authority, is of no Moment at all. Their unanimous Affent, adding not the leaft Grain to their Obligation on the Subject; nor their moft zealous Diffent in the leaft detracting from it. But did not your Heart fmite you, Sir, at the very Mention of thefe ARTICLES; the XXXIVth of which declares exprefly against you. That your Church-Ceremonies were ORDAINED by the Authority of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE. The fame also your XXXth Canon. You have feveral Times fubfcrib'd the Truth of this Article, and fworn to this Canon. With what Countenance then durft you thus publickly oppugn and contradict it; and in open Defiance of our Articles and Statutes, our Conftitutions and Canons, and your own repeated Subfcriptions, prefumptuously declare, That the CIVIL MAGISTRATE + Synods and Convocations have in all Ages of the Church feldom done good; often much Hurt; have generally obstructed, not promoted Reformation; which hath mostly been carried on by LAY-Councils and Hands. The Sentiments of a learned Father, who had feen much of thefe Church-Proceedings, may not be unworthy to be here remember'd, Sic fentio, fi verum fcribendum eft, &c. My Opinion is this, if I may be allowed to speak the Truth; that all CONVENTIONS of Bishops are to be avoided. For I never faw any Good come of any SYNOD; nor that it did not much more Mischief than it hindered. For Truth, in such Assemblies, is generally born down by a Spirit of Strife and Vain-Glory. Greg. Nazian. Epift. ad Procop. § Ibid. p. 140. *“We hold it the Part of every private Man, both Minister and other, reverently to retain the Ufe of the Ceremonies prefcrib'd by Public Authority; confidering, that things of themfelves indifferent do, in fome fort, alter their Natures, when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful MAGISTRATE; and may not be omitted, at every Man's Pleasure, contrary to the LAW." Canon xxx, bas 1 |