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
under Ecclesiasticall Censures The ancient Church pretended to no more had no other way or means of preserving Unity as said Treat 1. c. 13. When we ask of Those that dissent from this Church in following their own sense or interpretation of Scripture Who shall judge The Papists think we then come into their Road and oppose their Plea to our Sectaries But we are still in the midst between them Not establishing a Papal Infallible Judge nor allowing Private Judgment to stand against the Publick Not calling them to be tryed at Rome as if that Church should judge for all but to submit to the Publick Judgment of this National Church of which they were Members and in which there is such power as is said of judging for others and of censuring or binding the obstinate Gainsayers as Treat 2. c. 1. nu 36. If it be objected There was such Authority in the Governours of this Church before Reformation how then could Private Judgement take place against them to introduce the Reformation We answer It is possible there may be cause of dissenting from the chiefe Governours of the Church and that Reformation may take its first rise from Private Judgement as Tr. 1. c. 9. but then to be managed with all peaceable moderation and subjection as is there shewn and more largely Tr. 2. c. 1. Now whether our Reformation took rise from some private judgement intimated to them in Authority or from the immediate inclination and judgment of those that had the Authority it is not materiall seeing all was carryed peaceably and the work done not against but by those that were the chiefe Governours in the Church V. As for that due Subordination of Pastors and Governours in the Church seen and set forth in the true ancient Episcopal Government it is wronged on both sides The first invasion was made upon it by Papal usurpation under the title of Vniversal Bishop or Pastor which in the judgement of Gregory the first is to make him in effect the onely Bishop and all others but his Ministers as the same Gregory declared against John of Constantinople affecting that Title and cleared himselfe and his Predecessors from assuming it to themselves But it was not long ere his Successors challenged and obtained it and ever since have used it to the vassalage of Christian Bishops where they will suffer themselves to be so abused On the other side every Sect risen in these dayes has lift up a hand to pull down that office and power making spoil of the Means and Maintenance thereunto belonging The Church of England in her Reformation did according to the Universall Practice of the Church retain the Episcopal Government vindicating it from Papal Usurpation and is now put to defend it against the invasion of all other Sects which therefore stand convinced of down-right Schisme as will appear below I have the longer stayed upon these Instances because they doe much tend to the clearing of the businesse in hand Now more particularly to the Case which is thus in generall resolved §. III. Resolution of the case The true Protestant Church of ENGLAND is unjustly charged with Schisme by the ROMAN for that Division which followed between them upon the Reformation But does justly charge all other Sects with Schisme which have divided from it since that Reformation There are three words to speak of here by way of Explication 1. National Church for we have often spoken in the Treatises and still shall speak of the Church of England as of a Nationall Church That therefore is to be accounted a Nationall Church which has in it the whole subordination of Church governments as the third Councel of Carth. Can. 2. Provinciae quae primas sedes habent viz. One Primate with severall Bishops Priests and Deacons Whether the extent of it be bounded with the Limits of the Nation or according to the Precincts appointed by the Ancient Councils or the Supreme Civil Power Every Congregation nay every House may bear the name of a Church the Church in their hâ—use Rom. 16. 5. but as part onely of and in subordination to the National Church So the Churches of Ephesus Rome Corinth upon the first planting of Christianity in these Cities began in a singular Congregation but being inlarged to a due fulnesse had every of them the exercise or practise of that whole subordination of power and Government II. For the word Reformation We must distinguish between that which is Publick or Nationall the reformation of a whole Church in forbidding and casting out errors or Corruptions in beliefe or practice and that which is Private or particular the Reformation of a mans self in not admitting or ceasing to professe Errors prevailing or imposed by the Church of which he is a Member or in which he was baptized and Educated upon which Reforming of himselfe may follow a dividing from that Church by Excommunication or at least by Non-communion III. Touching the words Schisme or dividing of Communion we must distinguish Actual non-communion or want of Actual Communion with a Church from Schisme or the guilt of Schisme The first which is want of Actual communion may happen between two Nationall Churches disagreeing in some practises and that disagreement followed with too much heat as Tr. 1. c. 17 18. and sometimes between a Church and particular Members of it through mis-informations passion exasperations But Schisme is a wilfull i.e. voluntary causles dividing or separating from those we ought to hold Communion with And as before said of Non-communion so observe that the guilt of Schisme may fall either upon a Nationall Church causlesly dividing from or refusing to hold communion with other Churches or else upon the Members and parts of a National Church withdrawing their obedience from their lawfull Pastors or Governours and dividing from them and the Congregations under them setting up a distinct communion or joyning themselves to any such elsewhere set up The case between the Churches of England and of Rome stands according to the first consideration of Schisme as it falls between two Nationall Churches and if the division which followed upon the Reformation must be call'd Schism we shall see in examining the cause of our Reformation that the guilt of it falls on them not us But the case between the Church of England and other Sects which have divided from it stands according to the second consideration of Schism between a Nationall Church and the Members thereof Which dividing from it stand guilty of the highest degree of disobedience unto their Governours and the highest breach of Charity both towards their Governours and also all the people of God continuing in obedience to and Communion with them Lastly there are degrees in the height and guilt of Schism A Schism by a bare recess from the Communion of an established Church setting up a distinct Communion from it but leaving it in its own condition and establishment
in the Church For our Saviour left his Apostles with full power extraordinary and ordinary for the planting and propagating his Church through the World The ordinary power they were to leave unto others after them for continuing of his Church to the Worlds end viz the power of Reconciliation in the Ministry of the Word Sacraments the power of ordaining and sending others and the power of jurisdicton and government How and into what hands they communicated these severall powers That 's the question Some of the Ancients apprehend it thus That they committed the whole power to those first Elders they placed in every City where the Church was planted so that those first Elders were properly Bishops having power to ordain other Ministers and Labourers as the encrease or extent of the Church required Other Fathers or ancient Writers seem to apprehend those first Elders to be meer Presbyters to whom the whole power was not committed but that afterwards upon the encrease of the Church other speciall Men were intrusted with it to ordain others as need required and as Generall Pastors to rule and over-see the whole Church with all the particular Congregations and Presbyters or inferiour Pastors belonging to it Either way is sufficient for establishing the Episcopall power and government and the Adversaries thereof as they cannot disprove it if we say those first Elders were Bishops properly so neither will they gain any thing if we grant them in courtesy thus much that the first Elders were meer Presbyters For see briefly what they can say against the first or draw from the second Against the first they usually say 1. If those Bishops at Philippi were so properly then were there more than one Bishop in one City or Church Answ This indeed was absurd and inconvenient and never suffered in the Church inlarged and established but in the Church Nascent or beginning it might be very reasonable by way of provision for the future enlargement establishment of that Church So we find 12. Apostles left in the Church of Jerusalem by our Saviour in order to their propagating and governing the Church through the whole World And so in some great Cities where and from which the Gospel might suddenly spread it self the Apostles might provisionally leave more than One Elder vested with power for the supply of the Church enlarged Secondly If the Elders or Bishops mentioned in those places were Bishops properly vested with such power then would the Apostle also have remembred the other sort of Elders between them and Deacons Answ But what if there were not yet in that Church Elders or Presbyters of the second sort For no Church at first was full Or if there were such in that Church why might he not salute both sorts under that general name Bishop Thirdly But then the Apostle did not distinctly set down the Office of the one or the other for having set down the office of a Bishop he presently goes to the Deacon 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 5. Answ It was not the Apostles purpose in those places distinctly to set down the Office of Elders nor of Deacons but the general qualification of the Persons to be admitted to those Offices We may ask of them Where has the Apostle distinctly set down or described the Office of a Lady-Elder They are fain to force it out of one word Ruling 1 Tim. 4. 17. which belongs to the Preaching Elders as they well acknowledge In the places above mentioned the Apostle gives as I said qualifications fitting the Persons of both sorts of Elders that then were or should be in the Church for the duties there hinted teaching ruling do belong to both sorts of Elders but with Subordination of the one to the other And if they will have the word rule 1 Tim. 4. 17. insinuate a distinct Office of Elders from the preaching Elders without any intimation of such an Office anywhere else in Scripture why might not we say with more reason that the same word in the forementioned place 1 Tim. 3. 5. belongs to Bishops of both sorts according to their order and station to rule or take care of the Church of God Especially seeing we shew elsewhere in the same Epistle such a Prelacy or supereminent power of rule given to Timothy distinctly from other Elders as Lay hands suddenly on no man Rebuke not an Elder receive no accusation against an Elder c. cap. 5. v. 19. 22. Like speciall power given to Titus as we see in that Epistle besides all the acts of ordinary power exercised by the Apostles and not communicated in general to Presbyters And so the exhortation of the Apostle Acts 20. 28. might generally fit both sorts of Elders or Bishops supposing those of the inferiour rank present there that they should all of them feed the Flock according to their several stations and in that subordination of Rule which was in the Church But if we grant them that those Elders or Bishops in the above cited places were not Bishops properly but ordinary presbyters What can they draw from thence advantagious either to the Classicall or Congregational pretension when as there is no instance in all Scripture of the Power vested in a Classis or consistory of Presbyters or in every particular Congregation but on the contrary where ever there is mention of the exercising of the power for ordination by laying on hands or for Jurisdiction in rebuking or receiving accusation against an Elder in rejecting Heretiks or the like we find it always done by the Apostles or speciall men appointed thereunto as Timothy Titus Nor is it to any purpose to reply as they doe These were extraordinary men Apostles or Evangelists and so exercised that power as such For albeit in the office of Apostle and Evangelist there was something extraordinary and supposing Timothy Titus may passe under the Title of Evangelists yet the power of ordination and Jurisdiction was ordinary and to continue in the Church and to be communicated unto others as was most convenient What help therefore can the Adversaries have in the Apostles and Evangelists being extraordinary persons unlesse they can shew the power did ordinarily belong to and was exercised by the company of Presbyters or else demonstrate it was left in their hands by expresse and peremptory order from the Apostles So that here they would be non-suited laying their plea only by Scripture against Universall Tradition and practice of the Church for the Scripture story goes not downe to the departure of the Apostles Now after they were gone off it clearly appeared by the practice of the whole Church in what hands the chief power and Government was left viz. not to Presbyters in common but in speciall hands according to the instances and examples of the exercising that power in the Apostles Time The Ancient Records also which continue the Church story from that Time give us the succession of Bishops from the Apostles in the more eminent