« PreviousContinue »
Schism, when they were met together in the fame Church, i Cor. xi. v. 18.) being, as his present Grace of Canterbury * describes some High-Church Priests, a new Sort of Disci“ plinarians risen up among ourselves, who « seem to comply with the Government of « the Church, as others do with that of the “ State; not out of Conscience of their Duty,
or any Love they bear to it, but because
they cannot keep their Preferments without “it: They hate our Constitution, and revile “ all such as stand up in good Earnest for it; « and yet, for all that, go on to subscribe and
rail.” Which Passage, from so great an Authority, cannot be too often quoted.
But to proceed to the Description of these three High-Churches, in their Order.
1. Dr. Bungey's High-Church stands distino guished from the true Church of England, by their Arminian Doctrines, contrary to our old Orthodox Calvinistical Articles; by their Enmity to the Act of Toleration, and to the Principles on which it is grounded; by their claiming an independent Power in Priests to make Laws, and govern the Church; which is contrary to the Laws of England, that place the Power of making Church-Laws in other
* The late Dr. WILLIAM WAKE.
Hands, and particularly contrary to the Oath of Supremacy, which makes his Majesty Supreme Head of the Church; by teaching the Doctrines of Hereditary Right, and Passive Obedience, contrary to the Judgment and Practice of the Legislature at and since the Revolution, and to the Determination of the House of Lords, on the Impeachment of Dr. Sacheverel, and their Condemnation of the Oxford Decree ; and by a Spirit of Faction against the present Establishment in State, and against his Majesty's Measures ; by Rebellion and Perjury; by Uncharitableness to all Foreign, and more especially to Domestic Protestants ; and by an implacable Fury and Malice towards all Difsenters among us, besides Jews and Papists : In which they act contrary to the known loyal Principles of our Church; to its Opinion of am Foreign Protestant Churches, which it esteems true Churches; to its Principles, which all tend to preserve Liberty and Property; and to its known charitable and peaceable Temper, and Regard to tender Consciences.
2. The Second High-Church is Mr. Lefley's High-Church. At the Revolution feve ral Bishops, who were deprived by Act of Parliament for not taking the Oaths to the Goveroinent, made an open Separation from the
Church Church of England; and pretended, that they and their Adherents were the Church, charging those who filled their Sees with being Usurpers, and setting up Altar against Altar; and also charging them, and their Adherents, together -with all the other Bishops, Clergy, and Laity, who joined in the fame Communion with the ufurping Bishops, with Schism. Hereby also they distinguish themselves in Principles from the Church of England; which, being a legal Establishment, afferts to the Legislature (which has a Right to preserve their Peace) a Right to deprive Bishops for Crimes again?t Law. They do not indeed so much diftinguish themselves in Principles from Dr. Bungey's Church, as they do from the true Church of England: For the Doctor's Church equally contends with Mr. Lesley's Church against the Parliament's Right to deprive Bishops, and calls it Usurpation on the Rights of the Church; but is for Submission to such usurped Exercise of Power; and contends Schism to be on the Side of those, who separate on a Principle of defending the Rights of the Church, against an Usurpation of those Rights.
This new separate Church agrees with Dr. Bungey's Church, in the other Principles before-mentioned, which diftinguish the Doc
tor's Church from the true Church of England. But in point of Honesty, or Adherence to those Principles, it greatly differs from the Doctor's Church ; wbich goes on to subscribe, and swear, and practise contrary to what they do subscribe and swear ; Mr. Lesley's High-Church honestly practising, in several respects, according to its villainous Principles.
3. PROCEED we now to Dr. Brett's HighChurch. Soon after King GEORGE's Accession to the Crown, the Bishops of the lastmentioned High-Church did all, except ones allemble in a Synod, where they resolved upon making Four Alterations in the CommonPrayer-Book : 1. To mix Water with the Wine in the Sacrament. 2. A Prayer for the Dead. 3: A Prayer for the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament. 4. An Oblatory Prayer, which goes upon the Ground that the Eucharist is a proper Sacrifice. All which Dr. Brett is not only an Advocate for, as an Author, but (perhaps) as Titular Archbishop of Canterbury, exercised his Authority in injoining. This has split the last High-Church into Two Churches, Dr. Brett, and his Followers, adhering to the Bishops, or Church-Governors, of their Church, in Behalf of Wine and Water, buc, and Mr.
Lesley, Lesley, and his Followers, adhering to one Bithop only, in Behalf of Wine, &c. contrary to the Determination of their own Bishops, and all their own Principles, about the Authority of Bishops and Clergy
To render my Account of our feveral HighChurches of England more complete, I fall, by way of Supplement, observe, that there is a Distinction in Dr. Bungey's Church; and his High-Church may be divided into Two High· Churches. Some of his High-Church are Swearers to the Government, and fay the Church Prayers for his Majesty King George and his family, continuing at the same time disaffected to him, and Enemies to his legal Title. Others of the Doctor's High-Church are Non-fwearers; and though they come to the Church, disown joining with the Swearers in the Prayers for the King and his Family ; wbich Practice of theirs the profound Mr. Doda well has defended in a Book; (whose Title I Thall, upon Memory, venture to give the Reader) intituled, A further Prospect of the Case in View; proving that it is our Duty to be present at finful Prayers, made sinful by Miftake of fallible Superiors, wbo have a Right of impofing Prayers. So that I think, the HighChurches of England may not improperly be