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
Bishops strictly taken was communicated to Presbyters in common To the witnessing of this it is not possible to force Antiquity no not S. Jerome alone All that seems to speak any thing that way amounts but to this that they were used in the Government and things done with their advise and counsel that they were more used in Ages before St. Jerome than in his time and there was some reason for it as I said because by that time provision was made in most Cases by the many Canons and Constitutions of the Church §. XVI Of the ordination of our Bishops received from Rome There are some slight exceptions and allegations they make which are fit onely to take with the ignorant as that we had our Bishops from Rome but they desire to conform to other Reformed Churches which want Bishops They that cannot distinguish the Times several conditions and concernments of the Roman Church may be startled at every mention made of Rome but we are not ashamed to acknowledge we thence received Bishops from whence we received the Christian Faith both went together same Faith and same Government first in the British then in the English Conversion of this Nation and indeed in all Nations where Christianity was planted In the time then of Gregory the first Ordination of Bishops was here received with the Faith and ever since has been continued from hand to hand in this Nationall Church Of this seeming prejudice more largely Tr. 2 c. 4 5. But to return the Enquiry upon the New Pastors of the New Churches Classicall or Congregationall If it should be demanded Whence have they their Ordination They cannot give any reasonable account nor hold up their heads in the defence of their Pastors and Churches against any Romanist much lesse against any true English Protestant or obedient Son of this Church Challenging them of Schism in departing from their lawfull Governors and Pastors and taking to themselves a Power never given them As for the Reformed Churches which have not Bishops their defect is nothing comparable to the fulness of the whole Catholick Church to the practice of which they ought in all reason to conform Especially seeing those Churches had but tumultuary Reformations and no marvel then in they were not fully regular in their constitution Nor does the example of those Churches come home to the Case in hand there being a wide difference between Wanting or not having Bishops and casting them out when they have them Besides this all the forreign Churches approved Bishops in this Church and their most learned men acknowledged a want in their own excusing it as proceeding of necessity rather then choice as Tr. 2. c. 3. Nor can it justifie those that divide from us to say they joyn with other Reformed Churches for first they must answer for the Schism in forsaking the Communion of this Church and as their Case is not the same with that of the Churches abroad so cannot those Churches justly receive them having broken the Communion of this Therefore was it so carefully provided for in many Councils of the Ancient Church that none should travail to any forreign Church without his Communicatory letters to testifie his Communion with the Church he came from before he could be received to Communion in the Other And this to preserve Unity And thus much touching the Government §. XVII Exceptions in regard of the publick worship Now to the usuall exceptions made against the Communion of the Church of England in the point of Publick Worship the Liturgy administration of Sacraments Rites and Ceremonies used in this Church by reason whereof they could not as they pretend Worship God purely in Spirit and Truth This Assembling or meeting together and joyning in the publick divine Service especially in the participation of the Sacrament or Eucharist is indeed the witnessing and exercising of that Communion which is and must be held between all the Members of the same Church So they Act. 2. 42. in such duties and in breaking of bread So the Apostle calls earnestly for it Heb. 10. 25. and cap. 13. 15 and insinuates the Communion of them that are in the Chu by their eating and partaking of One Altar v. 10. the participation of that Altar being the Eucharist And according to this expression was the phrase of the ancient Church {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to be within or without the Altar i e. in or out of the Communion of the Church and to set up Altar against Altar i. e. a new Communion against the Communion of the Church Lastly the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. 17. One Bread One Body the joynt participation of One Bread shewes them to be of one Body holding the Unity of the Church and withall it shewes what a dangerous thing it is for any to abstein causlesly or to separate from the Communion of the Church of which they are Members But see in particular what they pretend as Causes of their Separation There is indeed nothing alledged now but has been before by the Contentious which have disturbed the peace of this Church from Time to Time and has been often at large and learnedly refuted and those that understand themselves being not swayed with faction and passion have received satisfaction but because my intent is still to afford some present satisfaction to them that are now troubled and more easie to be wrought upon I shall briefly and plainly speak to those exceptions against our Church-communion which usually prevaile with such persons First that our Liturgy or Common Prayer was taken out of the Masse-book This is of the same seasoning with that of our Bishops deriving their ordination from Rome fit onely to distast the weak who are offended with any thing that smells of Rome But as we said of Bishops we had them from that Church from which we received the Christian Faith and then when we received it so we say of our Liturgy it has no more of the Masse or publique service of the Romish Church than was received and continued from the Ancient Church and was agreeable to the Christian faith And to retein so much was according to that Christian Prudence and Charity used in our Reformation that would have no more opposition to them we were forced to differ from then must needs Whatever the prevailing Errors and Corruptions of After-times had brought into their Mass Reformation cast out And some of those learned Bishops and Clergy who were chief instruments of the Reformation and Composers of our Liturgy in that frame it had sealed the Reformation and their renouncing of Popish Errors with their Bloud and we challenge them to shew any such Popish corruption reteined in our Liturgy and might think it enough to oppose the judgement of other Reformed Churches approving it with which they might also rest satisfied if they did not too much value their own But more particularly Two