Page images
PDF
EPUB

and from the Fathers of the Primitive Church, from the Councils held in thofe firft Ages, and from the Canons then made, down to the Time of the Council of Nice, and proved the fame alfo to be agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England, as contained in her Articles and Liturgy, notwithstanding fome of her pretended Sons (and I wish I could not fay Fathers alfo) who have given their Affent and Confent to that Liturgy, and fubfcribed those Articles, have taught and published contrary Doctrine; and having alfo fhewed that the Lutherans and Calvinifts have rejected this Form of Church Government, not thro' any Neceffity they had to do fo, but upon Principles unwarrantable, and difagreeable to the Word of God, and that whatever fome of their private Men may have faid or written in favour of Epifcopacy, yet even thofe very Men of the Calvinist Perfuafion have fubfcribed as an Article of Faith, that Superiority of one Paftor above another is unlawful, by which they condemn both the Primitive and the British Epifcopacy as unlawful alfo: And having likewife vindicated the Succeffion of our English Bishops from the Objections made against their uninterrupted Succeffion both by Papifts and Presbyterians, the latter of whose Objections have also been repeated and made use of by fome who ftile themselves Presbyters of the Church of England, and yet are not afhamed to lay fuch a Reproach upon their Mother which they are by no means able to prove, I conceive there is nothing more that is needful to be faid upon this Head, and fhall therefore in due time proceed to the next Particular mentioned in my Mindication.

FINI S.

APPENDIX.

IN

[ocr errors]

N my late Tract concerning the Independency of the Church upon the State, as to its pure Spiritual Powers, amongst fome Objections I had met with against the Notion of Schifm, as laid down in that Tract, agreeable to the Principles of the truly Ancient Catholick and Apoftolick Church, one of them, p. 89, § 48, ftands thus: Was the Church of England Schifmatick under Queen Elizabeth, when he in Parliament deprived feveral BiShops for not acknowledging her Supremacy? &c. To which I directly answered, That the Church of England was not Schifmatick under Queen Elizabeth, tho he in Parliament did deprive feveral Bishops, &c. which I endeavoured to prove, p. 93, by obferving, that Queen Mary when he came to the Crown turned out the Catholick and Orthodox Bishops, which her Brother King Edward had left in Poffeffion of the Bishopricks, fome of which fhe condemned to the Flames, and forced others to fly to fave their Lives. But it was the Catholick, Orthodox, Reformed Bishops that were ftill the rightful Bishops of the Church of England, &c. So that when Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown, and with the Confent of her Parliament turned out the Popish Bishops, and restored the Catholick Orthodox Bishops to their Flocks, she acted but as a good Prince ought to do. This is the Subftance of the Objection, and of the Anfwer I then made

it.

But

But I have fince received a Letter enforcing this Objection further, and I am told, that tho' this Reasoning may hold good if we carry our View no further back than Queen Mary's Reign, yet what shall we fay to Bonner, Gardiner, Heath, and Day, who were deprived by King Edward, not for any of thofe Errors or Corruptions in Doctrine and Difcipline which Popery had introduced, for they all complied with the Reformation fo far as was required of them, excepting only that Heath and Day refused to pull down their Altars and fubftitute Tables? I shall not trouble you here (adds the Writer of the Letter) with a Detail of what things were alledged against Bonner and Gardiner, but refer you to Mr. Collier's Hiftory for the Matter of their Indictment, and a Lift of their Judges, who acted, you know, by virtue of the King's Commiffion. This I fear will alter the Cafe with respect to the Schifm between the Churches of Rome and England, and (if I may be allowed to Jay fo) I cannot fee how the Church of Rome became fchifmatick in relation to the Church of England, till ber abominable Decrees in the Council of Trent rendred her heretical; and for as much as she then foreclofed all Means of Re-union by her corrupt Terms of Communion, she likewise became fchifmatical. On the ether hand, for as much as the Church of England had made a Schifm before that time by the uncanonical and arbitrary Deprivations of the Bishops before mentioned under King Edward, I must think she was fchifmatical in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.

To this Objection I therefore think it behoves me at this time to return an Answer,

And first I think proper to obferve, that the Church of Rome was both heretical and fchifmati

cal

cal from the Catholick Church long before the Council of Trent: And had made her Terms of Communion unlawful by establishing the Doarines of Purgatory, Tranfubftantiation, the WorShip of Saints, Angels, Images, &c. The Popish Bishops were therefore Schifmaticks before King Edward's Days, and therefore the Bishopricks were not here or elsewhere properly and legally filled by them, tho' they actually poffeffed the Jurifdiction and Revenues belonging to them, as the Arian Bifhops did in many Places in the Reigns of Conftantins and Valens. And therefore how unjustly foever Bonner, Gardiner, Day, and Heath, might be deprived by King Edward, when they had complied with the Reformation, yet it is certain they all reverted to Popery in Queen Mary's Reign, and thereby became heretical and fchifmatical, and fo loft a rightful Claim to their Bishopricks before Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown. Confequently fuch of them as lived until her Reign were not the rightful Poffeffors of the Sees which they pretended to fill, and fhe had a juft Right to affift the Church with the Civil Sword, in ejecting them, as well as other Popish Bishops, and to defend and fecure fuch Orthodox Bishops as the Church fhould put in their Places.

But tho' the Popish Bifhops be allowed to have been fchifmatical, and confequently to have been justly ejected yet, according to the Objector's Argument, the reformed Bifhops were fchifmatical also, and therefore had no better Right to the Bishopricks than thofe that were turned out to make room for them. To this then I anfwer in the next place, that admitting King Edward's Bishops were fchifmatical (as indeed I cannot deny it, according to the Principles laid down

in

in my Tract concerning the Independency of the Church) because they came into the Sees of invalidly deprived Bifhops, or communicated with those that did fo, yet when Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown they found the Sees all legally void, as being poffeffed only by heretical Popifh Bifhops, who had no Right to any of them by reafon of their Herefy and Schifm. Confequently there being no Orthodox Catholick Bilhops who could lay a better Claim to any of thofe Sees than themselves, if they then, or any of their Succeffors fince, openly renounced that Principle of Lay Deprivations which made them fchifmatical, and became in all other refpe&s truly Catholick and Orthodox, by maintaining and adhering to the Doctrine and Worfhip of the truly Primitive Catholick and Apoftolick Church of Chrift, they at that time, WHENSOEVER IT WAS, became the true rightful Bishops of the Catholick Church in England.

Another Point which the Writer of this Letter defires to be satisfied in, is, a Pofition, p. 92, where fpeaking of the Church of England, as reformed under King Edward VI. by the Affiftance of Martyr and Bucer, I fay 'twas a very good Reformation. And tho' I conceive it has fome Defects, and might be made more primitive, yet it has all things neceffary to Salvation. To this he fays,

"I believe it will be granted me that the Eu"chariftical Sacrifice is neceffary to Salvation, "fo then whatever Church has not the Euchari"ftical Sacrifice, has not all things neceffary to "Salvation. But our Church has not the Eucha"riftical Sacrifice: For if fhe does not offer what our Saviour inftituted to be offered in the Eu

"cha

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »