particular Congregations to which he gave full Power and Authority to govern themselves distinctly and Independent of all other Churches But where have they Authority for this Opinion Where do they find that Churches were limitted to particular Congregations not in Scripture for there is no tolerable Proof that the Churches planted by the Apostles were of this Nature 'T is possible at first there might have been no more Christians in a City than might meet together in one Congregation But where doth it appear that when they multiply'd into more Congregations they made new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government of this Dr. Stillingfleet says he is well assur'd there is no mark or Footstep in the New Testament or the whole History of the Primitive Church If they will follow the plain instances of Scripture they may better limit Churches to Private Families than to particular Congregations for of that we have a plain instance in Scripture Rom. 16. 3. 5. Col. 4. 15. in the House of Priscilla and Aquilla but not a word of the other And if they wou'd keep to these plain instances of Scripture they might fully enjoy the Liberty of their Consciences and avoid the Scandal of breaking the Laws But the Scripture is so far from making every Congregation an Independent Church that it plainly shews us the Notion of a Church was then the same with a Diocess or all the Christians of a City which were under the Inspection of one Bishop For if we observe the Language of the Scripture we shall find this Observation not once to fail that when Churches are spoken of they are the Churches of a Province As the Churches of Judaea 1 Thess 2. 14. The Churches of Asia 1 Cor. 16. 19. Of Syria and Cilicia Acts 15. 41. Churches of Galatia 1 Cor. 16. 1. Gal. 1. 2. Churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. 8. 1. But when all the Christians of a City are spoken of it is still call'd the Church of that City as the Church of Antioch the Church at Corinth the Church of Ephesus c. So that it seems plain from the Testimony of Scripture that Churches were not limitted to particular Congregations unless they will say that all the Christians in the largest of these Cities mention'd in Scripture were no more than cou'd conveniently meet in one Congregation which shall be shown to be otherwise hereafter But suppose we shou'd grant that the Apostolick Churches were Congregational as 't is plain they were not what then that might have been from the Circumstances of Times or small number of Christians in those Days must it therefore follow that they must always continue so Why do they not wash one anothers Feet as Christ did and commanded his Apostles to do the same * And if they must keep so precisely to the Practice of those Days why does any of their Ministers marry a Second Wife For St. Paul says plainly Let Bishops and Deacons be the Husbands of one Wife 1 Tim. 3. v. 2. 12. So the first Civil Government was by God's own Institution over Families they may by the same Rule think themselves bound to overthrow Kingdoms to bring things back to God's first Institution From whence it appears how ridiculous that fancy of theirs is That the Scripture is the only Rule of all things pertaining to Discipline and Worship and that we must stick so precisely to the Letter of it and to the practice of those Days as that 't is not lawful to vary from it in any little indifferent Circumstance for the sake of Publick Order or Conveniency But as this notion of Congregational Churches does not agree with the words of the New Testament so neither does it with the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church For by the ancient Canons of the Church it appears That the Notion of a Church was the same with that of a Diocess which comprehended many Congregations or Parishes See Canons Nicen. 6 15 16. Constant c. 6. Chalcedon 17. 20. 26. Antioch c. 2. 5. Codex Eccles Africae c. 53. 55. Concil Gangrae c. 6. Concil Carthag c. 10 11. And thus much as to the first Objection against the Constitution of our Church as differing from those of the Congregational way and therefore not of Christ's Institution The Second Objection against the Constitution of our Church is That our Diocesaâ— Churches and Bishops are unlawful For say they 'T is making a new Species of Churches and Church-Government without God's appointment For says Mr. Baxter according to Christ's Institution no Church must be bigger than that the same Bishop may perform the Pastoral Office to them in present Communion And so he will have threâ— sorts of Bishops by Divine Right First General Bishops that in every Nation are over many Churches Secondly Episcopâ— Gregis or Ruling Pastors of Single Congregations which are all true Presbyters Thirdly Episcopi Praesides which are the Presidents of the Presbyters in particular Churches This is Mr. Baxter's Notion of Bishops But others are not of his Mind and will allow of but one kind of Bishop and such they make the Pastor of every Congregation But that both these Notions of Episcopacy are false will appear For that First 't was an inviolable Rule in the Primitive Church that there must be but one Bishop in a City though 't were never so large for our Saviour having left no Rule about Limits the Apostles follow'd the Form of the Empire planting in every City a complete and entire Church whose Bishop as to his Power and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical Matters resembled that of the Chief Magistrate of the City the Presbyters that of the Senates and the several Churches the several Corporations So says Dr. Still in his Mischiefs of Separation p. 237. and quotes Origen c. Cels l. 3. and Dr. Maurice in his Def. of Dioces Episcopacy p. 377 c. affirms the same and proves it at large And as far as the Territories of the City extended it self so far did the Diocess of the Bishop extend for the Church and the City had but one Territory But though this be a thing agreed upon by most Learned Men of all Persuasions that there was but one Bishop in a City in the Primitive Church yet because some may be so hardy as to deny this I will appeal to the Practice of the African Church for which Mr. Baxter Dr. Owen and the rest of the Dissenters express an esteem above all other Churches 'T was an inviolable Rule among the African Churches that there must be but one Bishop in a City though never so large and populous See Cod. Eccl. Africae c. 71. And at the famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholick and Donatist Bishops by the Command of Constantine the Emperor who was become Christian the Rule on both sides agreed was but One Bishop in a City or Diocess See Conference of the First Day And if there cou'd have been more than
one Bishop in a City the two great Schisms of the Donatists in Africa and the Novatian at Rome might have been avoided but instead hereof see how St. Cyprian among others aggravates the Schism of Novatius for being chosen Bishop in the same City where Cornelius was chosen before For says he since there cannot be a second after the first whosoever is made Bishop where one is made already is not another Bishop but none at all Cypr. Epist 52. n. 4. And the same St. Cyprian in his Epistle 55. n. 6. 9. declares That to have only one Bishop in a City was the best means to prevent Schism See St. Cypr. de Vnitate Eccles n. 3 4. And St. Augustine in his Epistle 162. to the same purpose But now that 't is so plainly prov'd that there was never allow'd but one Bishop in a City in the Primitive Church they have no way to reconcile this to their Hypothesis but by endeavouring to prove that either the Cities were very small in those days or else the number of Christians in them were so few as that they might all conveniently meet in one Congregation And this they are not satisfied to do in the ordinary Cities which Mr. Clarkson in his Book of Primitive Episcopacy affirms were no larger than our ordinary Market-Towns in England But even in the very largest and most populous Cities they will not allow that there were more Christians than cou'd conveniently meet together in one Church to serve God as in Rome Alexandria Constantinople Carthage and the rest All which far exceeded any now in the World both for largeness and number of People This seems to be very strange Old Rome was at that time a City so large and populous that it excell'd London as it is at this day as far as London now does New Rome and had by Computation at that time above 1000000 Inhabitants as Dr. Maurice shows in his Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy p. 340. And seems indeed to be very probable if one considers those vast and mighty Pieces of Workmanship that appear to have been done there the Ruins of which are to be seen at this day as Dr. Burnet in his Travels tells us who gathers from thence That that City must have been vastly populous about that time And it was in Aurclius his days 50 Miles in Circumference Dr. M. p. 212. And yet will Mr. Clarkson allow no more Christians in this great City than cou'd meet in one Congregation So of Alexandria which was 1â— Miles in Circumference according to Pliny l. 5. 9. and the rest all greater far than London now is But to serve their turn they will reduce them all to the narrow limits of a single Congregation and by consequence give all the rest to the Devil by making them Unchristian Hereticks Schismaticks c. 'T is strange that Christianity shou'd make no better a Progress considering the largeness of the Cities and Multitude of People in them and considering the Care and Industry of the Apostles and Learned Fathers of those Ages and their extraordinary Gifts that in so large and populous a City as Rome Christianity shou'd gain no more Proselytes in 300 Years than cou'd meet all in one Church notwithstanding St. Paul himself had Preach'd there for many Years The very Quakers in London which is not comparable to Old Rome have made more Proselytes already than the Apostles in much longer time for were all the Quakers in London assembled in one Congregation I doubt that never a Church in the Kingdom wou'd be found large enough to contain them But besides if the number of Christians were so few as these Dissenters wou'd make them how was it possible for them to possess themselves of the whole Roman Empire in less than 300 Years They had no Interest at Court nor in the Army but were persecuted by the Emperors all that time unless in two Reigns so that there can be no other Human Cause assign'd for it but their great Numbers But farther 't is plain that there were some great Cities entirely Christian from the Apostles days as Cesaria and Lydda Acts 9. 35. and others So that in the first 300 Years whole Cities and Countries being become Christian as Eusebius affirms Praep. Evang. l. 1. p. 12 13. ' t was impossible for a single Congregation to contain a quarter of the Christians of a City much less of a whole Diocess For besides the large and populous City every Bishop had a Territory within his Diocess which extended it self for several Miles round the City For every City had a large Territory as it were a County round about it which was under the Jurisdiction of the Civil Magistrate who govern'd the City and as far as the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate reach'd in Civil Matters so far did the Jurisdiction of the Bishop reach in Ecclesiastical Matters See Can. Apostolic 34. by which a Bishop is forbid to do any thing without the consent of his Metropolitan or Archbishop but what relates to his own Diocess and the Territories under it And see Can. Antioch 9. 10. But that the Bishops Territories and Jurisdiction extended far beyond the Walls or Bounds of the City is most evident for Theodoret who was Bishop of Cyrus had a Diocess 40 Miles square and yet he reckon'd his Episcopacy of Divine Institution See his Epist 42. And he had within his Diocess 800 Parish Churches as appears by his Epist 113. to Leo. This is an Instance so clear against our Dissenters that Mr. Baxter and Mr. Clarkson and the rest have no way to Answer it but first that it came from the Vatican Library which Objection is fully removed by Dr. Stillingfleet in his Mischief of Separation p. 256. and by Dr. Maur. Def. of Dioc. Episc p. 396. and this Epist of Theod. prov'd to be his own by comparing it with his other Writings and also by the clear Testimony of Liberatus who infallibly knew Theodoret's Stile and Writings Neither does it follow that because it came from the Vatican Library therefore it must not be Authentick But when People are Drowning rather than sink they will catch hold of a Bull-rush The other Exception they take to this Testimony of Theodoret is That he was not Bishop of a single Diocess but of a Province and that Theodoret was an Archbishop but that Cyprus of which he was then Bishop was no Metropolis at that time nor Theodoret Primate of a Province but under a Metropolitan appears by his 16 Ep. and by his 81 82 34 94 and 161. Alexander was then his Metropolitan But Theodoret was not the only Bishop that had such a large Diocess for St. Chrysostom had one full as large and which contained as many Parishes he was Bishop of Constantinople and all the Territories thereto belonging and did not think it in his Conscience too large for if he did so good a Man as he would either have divided or quitted it And Athanasius was Bishop
of Alexandria and the Territories belong to it for he says Ap. p. 781 802. Maoretis is a Region belonging to Alexandria and all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria But because Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter Mr. Cotton and the rest have made choice of the Church of Carthage in Africk in St. Cyprian's time to make their appeals to Dr. Stillingfleet to avoid all Cavils as he tells us has chosen that very Church to be decided by as to the Episcopal Government now in dispute between us And therefore first he proves that there were a great number of Presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage at that time and therefore not likely to be one single Congregation And this he proves out of St. Cyprian's own Epistles in his Banishment Particularly in his 5th Book Ep. 28. he complains that a great number of his Clergy were absent and the few that remain'd were hardly sufficient for their Work And that these Presbyters and the whole Church were under the particular care and government of St. Cyprian as their Bishop appears by his own words Lib. 3. Ep. 10 and 12. to the People of Carthage he complains to them of his Presbyters that they did not reserve to their Bishop that honour due to his place for that they received Penitents to Communion without Imposition of Hands by the Bishop c. And in his Epist 28. he threatens to Excommunicate those Presbyters that should do so for the future And all the other Bishops gave their approbation to St. Cyprian for so doing And the same St. Cyprian in his 3 Book Ep. 65. tells them that a Bishop in the Church is in the place of Christ and that Disobedience to him is the occasion of Schisms and Disorders See more fully concerning this matter in Dr. Stillingfleet's Mischiefs of Separation p. 228 229. c. And now since Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter and the rest have agreed to appeal to the Church of Carthage we must suppose they allow no Deviations in that Church from the Primitive Institution and what that was then any one may judge And St. Augustine was another Bishop in the African Church he was Bishop of Hippo Regia the Diocess of which extended at least Forty Miles as appears by St. Augustine's own Epist 262. 'T is true the African Church came most near the Congregational way of any other the Diocess being smaller by reason of the many Sectaries there the Donatists and many others And that is the Reason Mr. Baxter and the rest express so great an Esteem for it But that their Bishopricks were much too large to serve either the Presbyterians or Independents turn and that they never allowed more than one Bishop in the largest Cities sufficiently appears by what has been said And in the African Code there is a Canon that says expresly no Bishop shall leave his Cathedral Church and go to any other Church in his Diocess to reside there See Codex Eccl. Africae c. 71. Which shows that the Bishops Territories and Jurisdiction extended into distant Places from the City as well in the African Churches as in others I shall only add to this that Calvin look'd upon it as a Thing out of dispute among Learned Men that a Church did not only take in the Christians of a City in the Primitive Times but of the adjacent Country also See Calv. Instit l. 4. c. 4. n. 2. But though there were never more than one Bishop in a City in the Primitive Church * v. Conc. Eph. Part 2. Act. 1. yet some Bishops have had Two or more Cities in their Diocess Timothy was Bishop of Farmissus and Eudocias Athanasius was Bishop of Diveltus and Sozopolis And there have been some Bishopricks that have had no City at all in them but only Villages for there were some Countries that had no Cities in them so have we at this Day Bishops in Ireland and Wales that have no Cities in their Diocess But it cannot be prov'd that the Jurisdiction of the Bishop and the extent of his Diocess was confin'd to any single Village So far from that that by the Canon of Sardica VI. all the Bishops Assembled at Sardica agree That it shall by no means be lawful to Ordain any Bishops in Villages or small Cities that the Dignity of a Bishop may not be contemptible from the meanness of the Place But says Mr. Clarkson and the rest The Apostles Ordain'd Elders in every Church and then Mr. Clarkson names the places to wit Antioch Iconium Lystra and other Villages and these Elders or Presbyters they will have Bishops But first I say That during the Apostle's days the names Bishop and Presbyter were commonly used the one for the other but not after as shall be show'd hereafter and therefore these Elders or Presbyters here spoken of may be as well taken for ordinary Presbyters or Priests as for Bishops But allowing these Presbyters were Bishops what advantage will it be to them for first it does not appear that the Apostles confin'd their Authority to those places but the contrary is evident and unless they can prove this it will not serve their turn But Secondly these Cities over which the Apostles appointed Elders were large Cities at that time by much too great to come together in one Congregation Iconium was then a Metropolitan and had many other Cities under it And the rest were all large Cities But before I conclude this point I must make one Observation and that is That Mr. Clarkson to prove that a Bishop of a City had no more but one Congregation undertakes to shew how small some Cities were but 't is remarkable he quotes for his Authority some Author who speaks of them long before there were any Bishops and because they might have been small places then will needs have them to be so in the days of the Apostles which is very ridiculous for under the Roman Emperours both the Roman and the Grecian Cities were at their height and did very much surpass both for their magnificence and number of people any that have been before or since nor is this to be wonder'd at since our Cities do now stand upon much narrower Foundations as to their constitution our Cities have seldom any Liberties half a mile beyond their Walls and are generally but an Assembly of Trades-men whereas the Roman Cities had each a Territory as it were a County belonging to it which was under the jurisdiction of the City Magistrate and the Citizens were the Lords of the adjacent Country I have now shew'd that the Government of the Church by Diocesan Bishops is agreeable to the practice of the best and purest Ages of the Church and to the Judgment of the wisest and holiest Fathers of it And that their Power and Jurisdiction was as absolute and extended as far or farther than any Bishops this day in England I shall shew hereafter that Episcopal Government as now settled in England has
An End to the CONTROVERSIE Between the CHURCH of ENGLAND AND DISSENTERS IN WHICH All their Pleas for Separation from the CHVRCH of ENGLAND are proved to be Insufficient from the Writings of the most Eminent among the Dissenters themselves And their Separation condemn'd by the Reformed Churches LONDON Printed for Richard Wellington at the Lute in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1697. TO THE READER THere are some 't is like who may think it an Vseless and Impertinent Piece of Work to write a Book on this Subject that has been lately so ingeniously handled by such Eminent and Learned Men as the Bishop of Worcester Dr. Comber Dr. Maurice c. But though no Man that I know will pretend to write better than they have done yet there are several things in this Book that have not been taken Notice of by any who have yet written on this Subject And since Mens Notions and Apprehensions are so different 't is like some may be mov'd with one Argument some with another according as it suits their several Judgments and Capacities But besides there are several Persons who desire to be satisfied concerning the Matters in Controversie between the Church of England and the Dissenters but are unwilling to bestow the Time or Pains to read over all the Books at large that have been written on this Subject For the Satisfaction chiefly of these sort of Men I have here as briefly as I cou'd set down the true state of the Controversie between us and the Arguments used on both Sides by the most Eminent Men that have written on this Subject From all which it does appear that the Church of England is as true a Part of the Catholick Church as any this day in the World and that all the Objections which the Dissenters make to her do arise from Ignorance and Mistaken Notions That all the Reform'd Churches beyond Seas do own her as a true Reform'd Church and do highly Condemn all those who Separate from her and declare them to be guilty of downright Schism And that the Dissenters in Condemning the Church of England do Condemn all the Reform'd Churches as well as this Church I cou'd have brought many more Authorities for the Proof of all this Matter but I purposely omit them because these which I have brought are sufficient and are such as the Dissenters never did nor I think never will Pretend to Answer Another Reason why I omit them is in hopes that the smallness of the Book may Invite some to the Reading of it that 't is like might be discourag'd at a larger Volume A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN The Church of ENGLAND AND The DISSENTERS WHEN God Almighty first created Man he gave him no other Law to walk by but that of Nature or Reason under which alone he liv'd for the first 2000 Years But at last this Law of Reason being greatly lett and blinded by Evil Customs it became necessary to give Men more Positive Laws and Rules to walk by Therefore God Almighty commanded Moses to write a Law for his People which we call the Mosaical Law and sometimes the Moral Law and is contained in the Old Testament And this Law God Almighty reveal'd to Men by the Mediation of an Angel but it being for a great part Typical and Ceremonial and therefore not so plain and easie to be understood as that of the New Testament God did then often appear to his People himself and teach them more immediately what he would have them do what not And under this Law of the Old Testament superadded to the Law of Reason or Nature which is the same in reasonable Creatures Men liv'd till God was pleas'd to reveal his Will to us after a more full and excellent manner by the Mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost in the New Testament And this Law of the New Testament is that under which we live at this Day a great part of the Old being hereby abolish'd See Galat. 4. And as this Law of the New Testament was reveal'd to us after a more excellent Manner than that of the Old so the Matter of it is most extraordinary containing nothing in it superfluous nor wanting any thing necessary to the directing all Men to Heaven on very easie terms It is so adapted and fitted to all Conditions of Men that the very meanest Capacities may easily understand every thing contain'd in it which is necessary to their Salvation And this Evangelical Law Christ and his Apostles have left as a Rule for all succeeding Ages to walk by But notwithstanding that our Saviour and his Apostles had left the World such Plain and Positive Rules to walk by that none that were not wilfully so cou'd be mistaken in them yet such has been the unhappiness of the Christian Church that it never wanted some within it of such restless and peevish Spirits as to disturb its Peace and Quiet by making Divisions and Schisms in it which St. Paul foresaw when he told the Elders Acts 20. 30. Also of your selves shall Men arise speaking perverse things to draw Disciples after them But though there have been always some Divisions in the Church ever since the first Planting of it yet for the first Three or Four Hundred Years they were much fewer than what have been since and those that were were much more discountenanc'd and oppos'd by the generality of Christians than they were afterwards In the Church of Africa a little before St. Augustine's Days there arose the Schism of the Donatists who separated upon the account that the Bishopricks were too Large and the Power of the Bishops too Great And because the Ministers were not so Able and Holy Men as they should be and because they dislik'd the Liturgies and Publick Prayers of the Church and for such-like Reasons And a little before in the Third Century began the Novatian Schism at Rome for that Novatus thinking the Bishopricks too Large would needs be chosen Bishop in the same City where Cornelius was chosen before But both these Schisms were condemned This by the Council of Carth. and the Council of Constantinople and by St. Cyprian Ep. 52. N. 4 c. And That of the Donatists by all the Catholick Bishops at the Conference at Carth. See Conference of the Third Day Chap. 4. And by St. Augustine in his Books against Permenian Petilian and the other Donatist Bishops But not long after about the Fifth and Sixth Century the Errors and Corruptions in the Church began to Increase more abundantly and appear more bare-fac'd and openly than formerly they had done for that as the Roman Empire began to decline there follow'd a general decay of Learning and gross Ignorance had over-spread the Earth insomuch that many of the Priests themselves cou'd not read Latin and then it was no difficult Matter to bring in what Heresies and Schisms Men wou'd And this was the time that most of the Errors and Corruptions of the
and recommended by Christ himself in the New And that both Forms of Prayer and Liturgies were Composed by the Fathers and appointed to be used in the Church ever since Christ's days And that even the most Eminent of our own Non-Conformists have heretofore declared their liking thereto And that all the Reformed Churches do use and approve of prescribed Forms in their publick Worship at this Day And lastly I will shew That our English Common-Prayer Book has been particularly Commended and Approved by the most Learned and Eminent Men of the Reformed Churches beyond Seas And when this is done if any will be so hardy as to affirm That Forms of Prayer are so Sinful as to cause a necessity of Separation he is incorrigible and not to be Convinced by Reasons First then Forms of Prayer c. were used by God's People in the time of the Old Testament for the Lord prescribed a Form of Blessing to Aaron saying On this wise ye shall bless the Children of Israel saying c. Numb vi 23. And again Deut. xxvi he prescribed a Form of Prayer which he commanded the People to use And the xxij Psalm is a Prayer which the People were commanded to sing or say every Morning so are several of the other Psalms Forms of Prayers as lxxxvi xc cij c. See Origen Cint Cels l. 4. p. 178. And here observe That the Dissenters will allow these Psalms to be Prayers and that they ought to be Sung to God yet they will not allow that a Man should Pray Singing For say they When they are Sung they are not Prayer See now what an absurdity they will run into rather than forsake their own Opinion For here they affirm That a Man may say the Words of Prayer to God devoutly and yet not pray Secondly Christ himself used a Form of Prayer though doubtless he had a power of praying Extempore much beyond what our Dissenters or any that ever was on Earth can pretend to when he was in the Garden a little before his Suffering he prayed twice or thrice in the same Words Matth. xxvi 44. Mark xiv 39. and that too at a time when he was in so great Extremity and Sorrow That he sweated drops of Blood and at such a time one usually prays after the most prevailing and fervent manner And to assure us that our Saviour thought Forms of Prayer very necessary to help our Infirmities we have not only his Example but his Precept for it too For our Saviour taught his Disciples a Form of Prayer Matth. vi 9. and bid them use it And the occasion of our Saviour's giving his Disciples this Form of Prayer was to obviate the inconveniencies which he saw did usually attend Extempore Prayers to wit the using Vain Repetitions c. which he tells them are not pleasing to God and therefore he first bids them beware of that and then immediately after he gives them a short and perfect Form of Prayer as the best way to prevent that evil Whether our Dissenters have not as much reason to use Forms of Prayer for that very reason as Christ's Disciples had let the World judge that hears their tedious extempore Prayers fill'd with as many vain Repetitions and bald and sometimes sensless Expressions as any of theirs But say the Dissenters When our Saviour taught his Disciples to pray he did not design that they should use any certain Form of Prayer For he bad them Luke 11. 2. When ye pray say thus and thus being an adverb of Similitude does shew that our Saviour did not intend they should use the same words but some other such like To this I answer In the 3d. chap. of Exod. v. 14 15. The Lord said unto Moses thus shalt thou say to the Children of Israel EHEIE hath sent me unto you And again the God of your Fathers the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you Here Moses by this Rule must not say these words not EHEIE hath sent me unto you not the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you but the like And by the same reason the Scripture is not the very Word of God but the Words of the Prophets for all along when the Prophet says Thus saith the Lord they do not tell the very Words of God but the like From what has been said 't is evident that we have Scripture on our side both Old and New Testament for using prescribed Forms of Prayer We will in the next place enquire what Authority we have for it in the first and purest Ages of the Church First then That Forms of Prayer were us'd in the Church in the first Century I gather from Ignatius who was Bishop of Antioch Anno Dom. 99. in his Epist to those at Magnesia he bids 'em Do nothing without the Bishop and Presbyters nor to make tryal of things agreeable to their own private Fancy p. 34. And Socrates in his History l. 6. c. 8. says That Ignatius first brought the usage of singing alternately as we use in our Choirs into the Church of Antioch Photius affirms the same of him And Theodoret says Hist lib. 2. c. 24. That this Custom of singing alternately began at Antioch and was soon received all the World over In the second Century Tertull. de Orat. c. 1. and c. 9. tells us They us'd Forms of Prayer then in the African Church He calls the Lord's Prayer the lawful and ordinary Prayer and that the Christians daily repeated that very Form And he shews they sang Hymns c. then in the Church alternately as we do now Tertull. ad Vxor l. 2. p. 172. And Calvin in his Instit l. 4. c. 1. affirms the same That the Christians did use to repeat the Lord's Prayer daily and that they did it by Christ's Command How will our Dissenters reconcile this to their seldom or never using of it even on the Lord's Day every young Preacher yea and every perhaps drunken Cobler preferring their own rash and indeliberate Prayers before it In the third Century St. Cyprian who lived then affirms the same that the Lord's Prayer was us'd daily for says he The Father will know the words of his own Son see Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 309. And the same Cyprian in his Ep. 8. ad Cler. Pleb p. 24. says Christ commanded us to pray for all men in a common Prayer wherein all agreed It appears also that the Priest and People pray'd by way of Responses as when the Priest said Lift up your hearts the People answer'd We lift them up unto the Lord. See Cypr. de Orat. Dom. § 22. See more for this interchangable way of praying between Priest and People B. Bils of Christian Subjection part 4. p. 435. In the same Century Origen says They who served God through Jesus in the Christian way use frequently night and day the injoined Prayers See Orig. in
Churches by the Example of the Apostolical Churches And ibid. Sect. 10. he says That the Lord esteem'd him a runnagade and forsaker of Religion whosoever he be that separated frowardly from any Christian Society which imbraceth but the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments And ibid. Sect. 12. he says That though something that is faulty may creep in either in the Administration of the Word or of the Sacraments yet we ought not to separate us from the Communion of that Church For says he there are principles of Religion without which we cannot be saved and there are other points in which Men may differ and yet the Vnity of the Faith be kept And ibid. Sect. 13. he says It is not for every private Man to separate from the Communion of a Church tho' faulty in some things c. Beza in his Epist 24. p. 148. agrees herein so does Monsieur Daille and several other of the Foreign Divines See Dr. Still Misch of Separ 23. and 97. so does the Assembly of Divines as I have just now shewn and Papers for Accommodation p. 52. they declare farther That they look upon Separation from a true Church tho' somethings may be amiss in it not as a sin of mere humane Infirmity but as a wilful and dangerous sin And Mr. Baxter in his Poor Man's Family Book p. 347. tells us Many Churches were blam'd in Scripture but none are requir'd to Separate from them See the Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon by several Non-conformists where they all acknowledge our Worship in the nature of it to be intrinsecally good and a total Separation from it sinful ibid. p. 31. So then it seems so long as a Church retains the Marks and Signs of a true Church tho' there be many things amiss in such a Church Separation from it is sinful But what if open sinners be admitted to the Communion before they have made publick Confession of their Faults as is too frequent in the Church of England must I be obliged to communicate with such May I not Separate in such case The Apostle 1 Cor. 5. 11 12 13. bids us If any that is call'd a brother be a Fornicator an Idolater or Covetous c. with such see that ye eat not I answer That this very reason did the Donatists in St. Augustine's days give among others for their Separation and quoted the same Texts of Scripture but they were condemn'd for Schismaticks as I shewed before And St. Augustine and all the Catholick Bishops did then agree that these Texts were meant only of Separation in heart not in body And therefore they say When such a multitude offends as that the casting of them out would be in danger to cause a Schism there they ought to be tolerated least while ye go about to pull up the tares ye pull up the wheat also therefore let them both grow together say they till the harvest But when only a few are guilty of scandalous sins there they say Let not the severity of Discipline cease but it must not be so severe as to root up but to amend See Aug. lib. 3. against Permenian a Donatist Bishop ch 3. lib. 2. c. 18. And herewith agrees Calv. lib. 4. Instit c. 1. sect 13. where he says That tho' sinners be admitted to Communion we ought to keep our selves from their followship but not to Separate from the Church Mr. Baxter says the same in his Poor Man's Family Book p. 347. and Vines on the Sacrament p. 39. But suppose the Parson of the Parish be weak or a Man of a loose Conversation and I can hear a better Preacher elsewhere and a Man of a more exemplary Holy Life and Conversation May not I go to that Church or Meeting where I find most Edification No For this still makes way for Schisms and Divisions in the Church and therefore was never allow'd in any regular Church provided the Parson of the Parish be tolerable The Followers of Estathius-Sebastenus who separated upon this account in Paphlagonia were condemned of Schism by the Council at Gangrae and see Calvin's Instit lib. 4. c. 1. sect 13. to the same purpose And indeed it is not reasonable that so ignorant and proud unpeaceable sort of People as Mr. Baxter himself in his Sacraleg Disert p. 102. c. confesses the ordinary sort of zealous Professors of Religion to be shou'd be at liberty to rend and tear a Church to pieces out of a conceit of a puere way of Worship as if they knew what was better for their Edification than the Wisdom of the whole Nation in Parliament and the Governors of the Church do The pretence of greater Edification was never allow'd by the Dissenters themselves heretofore as a sufficient cause for Separation as appears by the Papers for Accommodation and the Grand Debate both Printed when the Assembly of Divines sat at Westminster Nor did Mr. Baxter ever allow of this to be a sufficient cause for Separation as appears by his Cure of Divisions p. 393. where he sets forth the pernicious Consequences of complying with the ungovernable and factious Humours of the ordinary sort of People who are ever apt to revile the best and gravest Ministers and follow the more conceited and such as are of most fierce and bitter Spirits And in his Poor Man's Family Book p. 280. he says For want of understanding the right Terms of Church Communion how woful are our Divisions you must have Vnion and Communion in Faith and Love with all Christians Let your usual Meeting be with the purest Churches if you lawfully may and still respect the publick good But sometimes occasionally Communicate with defective faulty Churches so be it they are true Churches and put you not upon sin Think not that your presence makes all the faults of Ministry Worship or People to be yours for then I would join with no Church in the World Division is wounding and tends to Death abhor it as you love the Churches welfare or your own c. And again ib. p. 330. If your Minister says he be intolerable through Ignorance Heresy or Malignity forsake him utterly but if he be tolerable though weak and cold and if you cannot remove your dwelling then publick Order and your Soul's Edification must be joined as well as you can In London or other Cities you may go ordinarily to another Parish Church but in the Country and where 't would be a great offence you may one part of the day hear in one Parish and another in the next if there be a Man much fitter but notwithstanding you must communicate with the Church you dwell in And a little after he says I advise you if there be Parish Churches orderly settled under the Magistrates Countenance whose teachers are sound tho' an abler Minister should gather a separate Congregation in the same place out of that and other neighbouring Parishes and should have stricter Communicants and Discipline be not too forward to
Switzerland during the Persecution of Queen Mary By which Letters it appears that several of the Clergy who had been beyond Seas upon their return Home did endeavour to Perswade Queen Elizabeth to let the Matters of the Habits for the Clergy c. fall Particularly Sands afterwards Archbishop of York Horn afterwards Bishop of Winchester Jewel and Grindal But Grindal in one of his Letters to Bullinger says They were all resolved to submit to the Laws and to wait for a fit opportunity to reverse them And he laments the ill Effects of the Opposition that some had made to them He also thanks Bullinger for the Letter he wrote to justifie the lawful Use of the Habits c. And in fine they all allow'd the lawfulness but not the fitness of them and that they ought to submit to the Law till it shou'd please God to reverse it lawfully See Burnet's Travels p. 51 52. But though the wiser sort among them did not think fit to proceed to actual Separation from the Church upon the account of those indifferent things yet some there were of a more fierce and turbulent Spirit who had not Patience to wait God's leisure but either a Reformation must be made presently according to their wild Notions and the Queen and Parliament must tack about immediately to their Pleasures or else to your Tents O Israel They will set up Churches of their own and forsake us utterly as a Superstitious and Idolatrous Church not fit to be communicated with And thus began our unhappy Divisions in the Church of England I shall not trouble my self to trace this Matter through the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth King James the First and King Charles the First nor to show how they daily increas'd and grew wider Nor the many Sub-Divisions and Scandalous Breaches that were daily made among themselves ever since the beginning of Separation As between Brown and Barrow Brown and Harrison Barrow and Johnson Johnson and Ainsworth who all left England to gather Separate Churches to themselves in the Low-Countries But scarce had been well there till they fell out all among themselves one Man and his Company being accurs'd and avoided by the other and his Followers and the one Church receiving the Persons excommunicated by the other till they became ridiculous to Spectators and at last some of them were glad to return into England This Matter has been so fully related by Dr. Stillingfleet in his Mischiefs of Separation p. 51 52 c. that 't were needless here to repeat it I shall only take notice that ever since King James the Second's Accession to the Crown the Church of England had laid aside all thoughts of Controversie with the Dissenters in hopes that they wou'd have joyn'd for their common Safety with them in stopping the Inundation of Popery that was ready to break in upon these Nations and swallow them both up But while most of our Eminent Divines of the Church of England as Dr. Tillotson Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Burnet Dr. Comber Dr. Sherlock and the rest were imploy'd in writing against the Incendiaries of Rome the Dissenters our Brethren instead of assisting us were making themselves ready for War with us as appear'd soon after For when God Almighty had happily plac'd King William in the Throne a Convocation was immediately call'd in hopes that some Terms of Accommodation might have been Agreed upon between us And which in all probability wou'd have taken Effect if the Dissenting Ministers had been as forward as we for how much inclin'd our Clergy were to a Reconciliation notwithstanding the Aspersion laid on them by the Dissenters of their having no such Design does sufficiently appear by several of their Writings See Dr. Tillotson's Sermon Preached at the Yorkshire Feast Anno 1679. Pag. 28. And Dr. Sherlock's Sermon before the Lord Mayor Nov. 1688. See likewise the Petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Bishops for which they were committed to the Tower And see the Articles recommended by the Archbishop of Canterbury to all the Bishops within his Province And Dr. Stillingfleet's Preface to his Mischiefs of Separation By all which it sufficiently appears how desirous they were for a Reconciliation But instead of listning to any such thing does our Dissenters break forth into open Acts of Hostility and at that very time when we were actually Treating of Accommodation with them do they Publish several of their Books one upon the back of another in which they endeavour nothing less than the total Overthrow of our Church by pretending to prove That the Constitution of our Church is New and Unlawful and that our Worship is Idolatrous and Sinful Had this been at a Time when their way of Worship was not tolerated or ours impos'd on them with Penalties they had been the more excusable Or had we began to expose their Extempore way of Praying as we might easily have done but at such a time as that was to become the Aggressors was ungrateful as well as unseasonable But now since the Dissenters have thought fit to revive the Controversie between us I hope they cannot take it unkindly of us if we endeavour to Vindicate our Church and to remove those Aspersions that they have groundlesly cast upon her But this has been done so learnedly and fully by so many of our Learned Divines already that I will not pretend to do it better or to say much more than what they have said before me I shall only here lay down briefly the Substance of what I have Collected out of the best Authors on both sides that have writ lately on this Subject For there may be some who wou'd be willing to be satisfied in this Matter and yet can neither bestow the Time nor Pains to read all the Books of Controversie over which have been writ on this Subject First then We will examine the Pleas which the Dissenters use for Separation and show the insufficiency of them and that they do not justifie Separation according to their own Principles All the Pleas at this time made use of for Separation may be reduced to these Three Heads First Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church Second To the terms of Communion with it Third To the Consciences of Dissenters As to the First to wit such as relate to the Constitution of our Churches They say First That our Parochial Churches are not according to Christ's Institution as being different from those of the Congregational way Secondly That our Diocesan Bishops are Unlawful Thirdly That our National Church has no Foundation and wants Discipline all being swallowed up in the Bishops And the Pastors of every Parish who ought to have full Power to execute every part of it are depriv'd thereof And Fourthly That the People are depriv'd of their right of chusing their own Pastors First say they Our Parochial Churches are not according to Christ's Institution For Christ they say instituted no other kind of Churches than