Churches as Jerusalem Antioch Rome Ephesus Corinth and this practice and succession setled before St. John the Apostle dyed All which as it clearly shewes those severall Angels of the severall Churches to whom our Saviour by Saint John did write could be no other then such Bishops having chief care of and rule in those Churches therfore more chargeable with the Corruptions prevailing in them So doth it clearly convince that plea of the Adversaries which amounts to a charging the first Bishops with Usurpation and invasion upon the right of Presbyters or particular Congregations to be a conceit altogether unreasonable for it is beyond all Imagination that Saint John would have suffered such an invasion or that those first Bishops who conversed with the Apostles and were their disciples should make such an invasion and immediately subvert the Apostolicall order pretended for the Presbyterian Consistory Or that those first Bishops being holy men and many of them Martyrs for still we finde the heathen Persecutors sought chiefly after the Bishop of the Church that the chief Pastor being smitten the flock might be more easily scattered should be so ambitious and unjust or lastly that the Presbyters then should be so tame as not once to complain of the wrong done them or to transmit their Protestation against it to Posterity To conclude this Tryal by Scripture It comes to this issue The Adversaries were bound to shew direct Authority of Scripture against Episcopal Government it being in possession established by the continued Authority of this Nationall Church and which is more by the perpetuall practice of the Catholick Church against this it was expected they should bring some places of Scripture forbidding that power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to be committed to speciall hands such as Bishops properly taken or commending it to the Consistory of Presbyters or some instances at least of that power exercised by such a company Whereas all they can evince out of Scripture is that there were Presbyters strictly so taken and of the inferiour rank which being granted them we shew there was a Prelacy still over such Presbyters still there were special men that had an inspection and rule over them and when the Apostles went off the practise of the Church shewes the power was left in the hands of special men called Bishops properly So that the Government of the Church by Bishops appears as was said above conformable not onely to the Universal practise of the Church after the Apostles time but also to the Word of God i.e. to the practise and patterns we have there 1. of our Saviour appointing twelve Apostles and besides and under them seventy Disciples of a lower rank 2. of Apostolical practise by which we find the power exercised by special Elders viz. the Apostles themselves or other choice men appointed thereunto by them whereas all Elders had power of the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments 3. of the several Angels of the several Churches to whom the Epistles were directed Rev. c. 2. 3. which is the last instance in holy Writ to this purpose §. XV Episcopacy most agreeable to the reason of Church-government Lastly The Government of the Church by Bishops was said above to be most agreeable to the reason of Church-government for preserving Unity and excluding Schism This is very obvious in the writings of the Fathers St. Cyprian had much to do with the Novatian Schismaticks of his time which caused him to write many Epistles upon that occasion and a Book intituled De Vnitate Ecclesiae wherein he shewes the Unity of the Church as to the preventing of Schisme stands much upon this that there be one Bishop in one Church St. Hierom whom they of the Presbyterian perswasion take for their best friend because he strives to advance the Order of Presbyters as much as he can yet as he denies the power of Ordination belongs to Presbyters so he acknowledges that Bishops were appointed over Presbyters to keep out Faction and Schism that the people should not say as they did at Corinth I am of Paul I of Apollos I of this Teacher I of that And for his saying of Presbyters that they did anciently communi consilio with joint advice rule the Churches is not to be understood exclusivè to the Bishop for such a time was never known in the Church but joyntly with him as his Council so were the Presbyteri Civitatis to the Bishop and their advice was more used and there was more cause for it before the many Canons and decrees of Councils gave rule in most particulars what the Bishop should do as it was by that time S. Jerom wrote and whatever he saith for the advancing of the order of Presbyters it is but to set them above all Deacons even those that immediately attended on the Bishop and it seems carried themselves too high it is not to equal them to Bishops whose Prelacy St. Jerome acknowledged and thought it very necessary for this purpose of keeping out Schism which the Parity of Presbyters would expose it to And I would appeale to the reason of any of that perswasion whether it were not more convenient and necessary for keeping all in order to have one aged grave learned and experienced in the way of the Church to be the standing Moderator of the Classis or company of Presbyters than to change their Moderator year by year and leave the place open to every young unexperienc'd Presbyter that can make a faction to advance him unto it I have heard this inconvenience complained on by some of the new erected Classes whereas a Bishop being such a Moderator as is fixed and above all competition is more enabled to keep all ordinary Presbyters in their station and within their bounds And then again I would demand whether the Apostles who complained of Divisions as in the Church of Corinth and of false Teachers there and elswhere were not careful to provide the most reasonable Expedient in government against them It cannot be denyed and upon this score and to this very end of preserving Schism it cannot be thought otherwise but that the Apostles gave beginning to this Government throughout the Church 1. Notwithstanding those of the Classicall perswasion bear themselves much upon Mr. Blondels Collections whose pains might have been better implyed to the use of the Church upon some other Argument For in this it is impossible to drive out of Antiquity though ransaked over again any more to the purpose of the Presbyterian claim than has been already acknowledged and the weakness of it discovered viz. That it seems to be the judgement of some Fathers that the name Bishop was at first common to all Elders and that those Bishops mentioned Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. were Presbyters or Elders of the second rank But what advantage is this to the cause they would establish without proving also that the power of Ordination and Government which we appropriate to
prevailed as Tr. 1. c. 1. Secondly It is a Truth that the Saxons or English whatever preparation they had to it by the Vicinity and Acquaintance of the British Christians did indeed receive the Christian Faith from Rome through the godly care of Gregory the first then Bishop and the Ministry of Austin and others whom he sent to preach it here But then the untruth which they suppose and usually impose upon the unwary is palpable viz. That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as to Faith and Worship is the same it was in Gregorie's time and that we by Reformation have cast off the Faith we received For first as to the maine and fundamentall Faith that makes a man or Church Christian no question but Austin and those that were sent preached that they baptized into which is the very same that we do still Then as for the matters of Faith and Worship which they and we differ in the Novelty is clear neither can they demonstrate that any point we cast off was a doctrine of Faith in S. Gregory's time Some things I confesse of misbelief and practise were then crept in and gathering strength but it is observable that in all their allegations of Fathers for the points we differ in their owne Gregory comes rarely in indeed that Purgatory was his opinion they have expresse proof not that it was an article of Faith in that Church On the contrary it is plaine that Communion in both kindes was the doctrine and practise of the Church in his time as it had been alwaies before that Image-worship is declared against in his answer to the Bishop of Marsellis the Title also and Jurisdiction of Vniversall Bishop which immediately concernes the Cause in hand is declared against in his contestation with John of Constantinople who affected it In a word had the Church of Rome continued the same for Faith and Worship as it was in Gregory's time and the Bishop of Rome taken no more to himself than the said Gregory did certainly it would not have come to a division neither would there have been cause for it §. VII Deniall of Obedience to Papall jurisdiction makes not Schismaticall Thirdly it is a Truth that the English Church still generally taken before Reformation acknowledged the Jurisdiction of that See but the Inference they make therefore it is Schismaticall in casting off or denying to yeild obedience thereunto is invalid for it supposes this untruth that we owed it of duty upon special relation viz. our conversion or receiving the Faith by the Ministers of that See To answer I. It seemes the Bishop of Rome makes his claim to England upon a double Title One of Vniversall Pastorship which extends to all Churches of what Plantation soever the Other of Conversion or Plantation which reaches to England and some other Nations and it seemes when these Titles are divided the first prevailes and swallowes up the other and so brings under his Jurisdiction all the Churches which other Apostles besides Peter and their Successors planted Whereupon it followes that the other Apostles shall not leave the like Title of Jurisdiction to those which succeeded them in the Churches they planted unlesse dependantly on Rome also that the other Apostles laboured dependently on Peter and as his Ministers and Commissioners plaated Churches for him to rule over as supreme general Pastor when as it is evident they were sent immediately by Christ with equall commission to plant Churches in all the world God teach all Nations Mat. 28. and As my Father sent me so I send you John 20. Therefore Peter and Paul when they made that agreement Gal. 2. departed to the work upon equal termes To establish this first and transcendent Title of Universal Jurisdiction they are bound to make good these several untruths That it was so with Peter in respect of the other Apostles That it is so with the Successors of Peter in respect of Those which succeeded the other Apostles in the Churches by them planted That the Power and Priviledge pretended to be in Peter was derived upon his Successors Lastly that it is derived onely upon the Bishops of Rome not of Antioch or elsewhere All these they are bound to make good yea and seeing all their Romish faith resting upon the pretended Priviledges of that Church is founded upon these false Supposals they are bound to make all good by apparent Scripture for they grant that the prime points of Faith necessary for all to believe as this is according to their doctrine are clearly conteined in Scripture But to shew this point of the Priviledges of that Church Infallibility and Vniversall Jurisdiction so conteined is impossible for them to do for when in this vast Controversie they leave nothing untoucht in Scripture or Fathers which may be drawn to make any seeming appearance for such priviledges they doe but give us words nothing of force to prove the thing indeed Some passages to this purpose in Tr. 1. c. 27. and in cap. 28. 30. II. As to his second Title from Plantation of the Church here We doe not find that the Converting of any Nation to the Faith gave a Title of Jurisdiction to that Church from whence that Nation received the Faith for we doe not see it was held for any Rule in the distribution of Provinces and the limiting or extending the bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction We doe not find that the ancient Councils which provided therein had any respect to such Title but to the constitution of the Empire rather and the Provinces thereof and that the alteration which has been anywhere since made in the bounds of National Jurisdiction followed the division of Kingdomes into which the Empire was broken which appears in the severall Councils of Toledo above mentioned under their severall Kings without dependance on Rome And if we look into the Saxon Church and Councils gathered and published by the industry of Sir Hen Spelman it will appear that all the Application made unto or intercourse had with Rome did not speak a due subjection but at most a voluntary adhaesion not acknowledgment of that Jurisdiction but of their fair respect such as any Church ought to have to that Church from which it received the faith so long as that Church continues safely in the faith it propagated and so in a condition of giving advise and direction to and of receiving due respect and complyance from those among whom it planted the faith But as Errors prevailed in that Church of Rome so in this and among the rest that usurped Jurisdiction Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the 7. about 400. years after Gregory the first did lay on that yoak and began to bring the necks of Kings and Princes under it too and still by their power does the Bishop of Rome hold his jurisdiction over the Churches within their Dominions as Spain France c. But such Princes as came to understand their owne right not onely
Requests that he knows are made in publique and God who is not taken with words or varying of the phrase will hear him as he did the penitent Son who thought and resolved before-hand what to confesse what to beg I will go and say Luke 15. 18. and accordingly he said when he came into his Fathers presence And as our Saviour prayed thrice saying the same words Mat. 26. 44. so let the same affections and desires of the heart return or be present they may again be uttered in the same form of words And if the forms of the publique Service do contein as we said above they do in generall all the requests fitting to be made then may they still be used for the expressing such requests and desires Here that they may seem to say something rather than nothing they reply That prayer of the penitent Son though set and before composed was his own and so was that prayer of our Saviour though set and in the same words repeated but the set Forms of the Church are not his prayers that ministers in the Congregation If he would utter his own prayers though set and before prepared they would joyn with him for then they conceive he prayes what the Lord has put into his minde whether upon former premeditation or present conception These seem to be the most reasonable of all those that are against the set Forms of the Church for they see Reason to allow the people to pray in set Forms of other mens making and the Minister to pray in set Forms of his own but not anothers composing Now if they would well examine this they would see little Reason upon such a difference to quarrel with Authority and abstein from the publick Worship of God in his Church For no ground in Scripture can they have of such a distinction much lesse warrant upon such a pretended difference to abstein from Church Communion Also by this reason the Minister should not use the Lords prayer because not of his own composing Again this is to place the substance and effect of prayer in Frame of Words rather than in matter or things prayed for and the suitable affections of the heart both which may be found right in using Forms composed by others For the matter of the Church Forms it is plain there is nothing but according to the will of God and if he that uses them prepare his heart with suitable affections God requires no more The prophet bids Take words with yow and say Take away all Iniquity c. Hos. 14. 2. If then the heart be prepared with such motions and desires as are fitting for Confession and petition is it so materiall whence we take the words either suggested to us by others as it is there or invented by our selves Surely if the people can better understand the things prayed for and better prepare their hearts with suitable affections when the set Forms of the Church are used than they can when they hear the Ministers Prayer which they can by reason Those Forms contein all necessary requests better than any one mans prayer can probably do and because the publique prayers being necessarily expressed in generals the people ought still from those general Confessions or Petitions to reflect upon their own particular Sinnes Infirmities Wants and Desires it is therefore most reasonable the people have the Publique prayers in the Set forms with which they are best acquainted which speaks the expediency following II. They are not Lawful but Expedient too in publick Every particular man as he best knowes his private Necessities so he may expresse them in private to God as his heart suggests but in publique it is necessary that the requests of and for the whole Congregation should be in general expressions such as may comprehend the necessities and concernments of all and it is needful this be done in set forms prudently and godlily composed not left to the conceptions and inventions of so many thousands as minister in this Nationall Church and are to be the Mouth of the Congregation to God for though some may do it discreetly yet would many inconveniences follow through the different performance of others 1. Want of Uniformity in the publique Worship of the same Church 2. Defect often in not putting up all the requests which are fitting to be made not doing all that is fit to be done at publique meetings to the glory and worship of God 3. Many Impertinencies Tautologies in expression sometimes unfitness and unlawfulness of that which is spoken such as the Congregation cannot say Amen to A difference there is betwixt Liberty in this performance of publique worship and of preaching for the Worship and Prayers are presented immediately to God himself but preaching though it treats of things pertaining to God yet speaks to the people To the Prayers of the Church the whole Congregation is to say Amen but that which is delivered in preaching falls under trial and examination whether it be so For providing and delivering a Sermon to the people they have liberty of time as they please of using what means help they please but as for the putting up the prayers of the Congregation wheresoever there is a despising of set Forms and an expectation of private Conceptions from the Minister there the former inconveniences will often be run into by some through self-conceit of Gifts and Pride of shewing them in variety of Expressions and length of Prayers by others through disability and weakness yet thinking themselves concerned in reputation to follow the former to attempt the like way of a seeming extemporary long Prayer Notwithstanding they plead for Liberty in using the spiritual Gifts they have to the edifying of the Church for to that end they are given and the Apostle bids to use them to that purpose 1 Cor. 14. True but first they must observe a difference between the Gifts then and now and know that all were to be used with submission to the Church The Gifts then were extraordinary by special aâ—â—lation or revelation of the spirit spiritual gifts now are ordinary from the operation and motion indeed of the same spirit but upon use of means Therefore they which strive to order their Assemblies according to the particular passages of that Chapter doing in them as then was used cause great confusion and ridiculous deportment in their holy meetings But secondly if the Apostle give restraints there as he doth to those spiritual gifts though extraordinary that they be used with submission to the Church as is thought fit for order and edification much more the use of Gifts now ought to be limited Else may women that are gifted take the liberty of using them in the Church but the Apostle saw Reason to impose Silence upon them in the same Chapter or at least every man that has gifts may use them as some now plead for the Liberty to the edification of the Church but many of