laying on of my hands And the Apostles might then have been likely enough call'd Presbyters for that during the Apostles time Bishops and Presbyters were the same and sometimes us'd the one for the other as appears plainly by comparing 1 Tim. 4. 14. with 2 Tim. 1. 6. In the former Verse St. Paul bids Timothy Neglect not the gift that is in him by laying on the hands of the Presbyters And in the latter he bids him Stir up the gift of God which is in you by the laying on of my hands For while the Apostles liv'd they manag'd the Affairs of Government in the Church themselves and therefore there were few or no Bishops in their days but as they withdrew they committed the Care and Government of Churches to such Persons as they appointed thereto of which we have an uncontroulable Evidence in Timothy and Titus So that although the Apostles left no Successors in Eodem gradu as to those things that were extraordinary in them as the Infallibility of their Doctrine and the writing New Gospels the Extent of their Power c. yet to other parts of their Apostolick Office they had Successors as in Teaching and Governing and such like things that were not extraordinary Which Power of Governing Ordaining c. being given to such particular Presbyters as the Apostles thought fit for it was properly the Episcopal Power And thus these who were but Presbyters in the Apostles days by the accession of this governing and ordaining Power became Bishops after their Decease or Departure And thus will all those seeming Differences between the words Presbyter and Bishop spoken of in Antiquity be reconcil'd And herewith agrees the Opinion of Archbishop Whitgift and Bishop Bilson and Dr. Stillingfleet in his Mischiefs of Separation p. 270. and many others See King Charles I. his Debates about Episcopacy more fully concerning this Matter But 't is plain that since the Apostles days Presbyters were not Bishops but a distinct Order from them And this is agreed by most Ancient and Modern Writers See among others Ignatius his Epistle ad Trall where he says That without Bishops Priests and Deacons it cannot be call'd a Church And Aerius who declar'd that there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter was represented by Epiphanius as a Prodigy and his opinion Madness See Epiph. Haer. 74. n. 1. 3. So Ischyrus pretended to be a Presbyter because Coluthus had ordain'd him but Athanasius represents it as a Monster that one shou'd esteem himself a Presbyter who was ordain'd by one who died himself a Presbyter See Dr. Maur. Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy p. 451. And in the Primitive Church if a Bishop himself did Ordain any one against the Canons and Establish'd Discipline of the Church they did not stick at declaring such Ordination void and in some Cases to re-ordain See Can. Nicen. 9 10. 16. 19. and Can. Antioch 73. 10 c. What Sentence shall we think then they wou'd have pronounc'd against our Presbyterian Ordination as practis'd here in England contrary both to the Canons of the Church and the Laws of the Land too But besides all this the Plea which our Dissenters make for Separation upon this account that the Presbyters are totally depriv'd of their Power of Ordaining is false For by the Canons of the Church of England Four Presbyters are to assist the Bishop in giving Orders and after Examination to joyn in laying on of hands on the Person ordain'd See Can. 31. and 35. But another Objection which they make to the Church of England for want of Discipline is for that the Power of Excommunicating Notorious Offenders is taken away from the Parochial Minister and lodg'd only in the Bishop But sure they who make this Objection never read the 26th Canon which is one of them acknowledg'd to be the Authentick Church Canons For that Canon says expresly That no Minister shall admit any of his Flock to the Lord's Supper who is known to be guilty of any Scandalous Sin until he hath openly declar'd that he has truly repented And in case the Offender continue obstinate he must give an account to the Ordnary within 14 Days who is then to proceed to greater Excommunication for the other is call'd a Penitential Excommunication So then it seems the Pastors are not totally depriv'd of the Power of censuring for Scandalous offences nay they have a greater and more absolute Power than is allow'd them in many other Reform'd Churches for indeed the exercise of Discipline is a Work of so much Prudence and Difficulty that the greatest Zealots for it have not thought fit to trust it in the Hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation Calvin himself says to do so is contrary to the Apostolick Practice See Calv. Ep. 136. And Beza speaking of the Discipline of Geneva in his Ep. 20. says The Parochial Ministers proceed no farther than Admonition but in case of Contumacy they certifie the Presbytery of the City who sit at certain times to hear all Censures relating to Discipline But allowing a Church wants true Discipline does it therefore lose its Being or justify Separation No sure if so there were few Presbyterian Churches to be found in the late times many of them having no Discipline at all among them for many years nor so much as the Lord's Supper administred in some parts of this Kingdom for ten or a dozen years together But now we come to the 4th Objection against the Constitution of our Church which is That the People are depriv'd of their right of choosing their own Ministers Pray let me ask them how this Original and inherent Right as Mr. Baxter calls it of choosing their own Ministers came to be lodg'd in the People Was there not a Church to be form'd in the beginning Did not Christ appoint Apostles and give them Authority for that end Where was the Church Power then lodg'd Was it not in the Apostles Did not they in all places as they planted Churches appoint Officers to teach and govern them And were not then the Pastors invested with a Power superior to that of the People How came they then to lose it or how came the People to pretend an original Right thereto Besides How cou'd the People make choice of Men for their fitness and abilities when at that time their abilities depended so much on the Apostles laying on of their hands for then the Holy Ghost was given to them It seems then that this original and inherent Right was not in the People in the Apostles days nor in the first Ages of the Church for if it had St. Clement St. Cyprian St. Chrysostom c. could not have been ignorant of it St. Clement says in his Ep. 54 55 56 57. the Apostles thought fit to reserve this Power of appointing Officers in the Church to themselves to prevent the Contentions that might happen about it And that all the People had to do was to give
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
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
been and is at this day commended and approved of by all the most Eminent Divines beyond Seas Perhaps some may say if the Government of the Church by Diocesan Bishops be so agreeable to that of the Primitive Church and approved of by other reform'd Churches as we pretend it is how comes it that they all did not follow the pattern of England and become all Diocesan Churches I answer They may as well ask us Why all the Nations of the World that were subject to the Roman Emperors did not upon the decay of the Roman Empire when they resum'd their just Rights of Government to themselves become all Monarchies according to the Pattern of England Some Nations besides England Ireland and Scotland did assume Episcopal Government as Denmark Sweden c. but perhaps it was not consistent with the present Circumstances or Politick Constitution of all places at the time of the Reformation to set up Episcopal Government as indeed it was not And therefore since neither Episcopal nor any other particular kind of Government is so essential to a Church as that a true Church may not be without it in case of indispensible Necessity they put themselves some under one Form of Government some under another as was most agreeable to their present constitution but with this Caution every where That all Protestants of every whole Church be the Government what it will should be oblig'd to Conform to the Establish'd Church in which they liv'd For though every National or whole Church had a Power to chuse what kind of Government they pleased for themselves yet 't was never allow'd that particular scrupulous People among themselves had Power to do so too This Power of subdividing was never pretended to nor practis'd in any other Nation since the Reformation but in England So that though they do all allow the Antiquity and Usefulness of Episcopal Government yet since 't is not Essential to a true Church no more than that of the Presbyterian or Independent nor convenient at this time for all places some may refuse it and yet it does not follow that we in England should do so since 't is convenient for us and more agreeable to the Laws and Constitution of these Kingdoms and comes by much nearer the Practice of the Primitive Churches than any other whatsoever But they say we make Episcopal Government Essential to a true Church for that we will suffer none to execute the Office of a Minister here in England unless they be ordain'd by a Bishop To this I answer 'T is plain we do not make Episcopal Government Essential to a true Church For we allow all the Reform'd Churches to be true Churches and Communicate with them and yet some of them have no Diocesan Bishops 'T is true by the Laws of this Church and Nation none are to be admitted to execute the Office of a Minister in any Cathedral or Parish Church or Chapel nor to hold any Ecclesiastical Benefice within these Kingdoms but such as are willing to submit to the Orders and Government of this Church and the Laws of the Land And therefore since both the Laws of this Church and Nation do require that all Ministers who desire to serve in this Church shall declare publickly that they assent to and approve of our Form 〈◊〉 Worship c. and are willing to use the same as the Church appoints and that they shall receive their Ordination and Licence to execute their Office from the Bishops 'T is but reasonable that such as want these Qualifications shou'd be refus'd the Liberty of executing their Office in these Kingdoms * The Church of England does not say absolutely that all those Ministers who want Episcopal Ordination are no true Ministers but only that none shall be accounted a lawful Bishop Priest or Deacon so as to execute their Function in the Church of England unless they be once Ordain'd by a Bishop as appears by the Preface to the Ordination But the reason we refuse them is not so much because that Presbyterian Ordination does not make them true Ministers according to God's Law as though no instance can be given of Ordination without a Bishop in Scripture or Antiquity but all to the contrary because they stubbornly refuse to submit to our Laws and Constitutions and contemn the lawful Authority under which God has plac'd them and commanded them that they should obey And this is evident from the Statute of 14 Car. 2. In which there is a particular Proviso That all Ministers of Foreign reform'd Churches who come into this Kingdom by the King's Permission are to be excepted out of and excus'd from the Penalties of that Act. And this Custom of requiring Conformity and Subscriptions from all who desire to be admitted to the Office of the Ministry is agreeable to the Practice of every settled Church that has been ever since Christ's days as will appear hereafter The 3d. Objection against the Constitution of our Church is That our * By National Churches are meant the whole Churches of such Nations as upon the decay of the Roman Empire resum'd their just Right of Government to themselves both in Church and State National Church which we call The Church of England has no Foundation and wants Discipline All being incroach'd and swallow'd 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 But this is false for the Presbyters in our Church have as great Power in Ecclesiastical Matters as ever they had in the Primitive Church What Power are they depriv'd of by the Bishops that they had then By the Laws of our Church no Rules of Discipline no Articles of Doctrine no Form of Worship can be introduc'd by the Bishops or impos'd upon any without the consent of the whole Presbytery of the Nation in Convocation who appear either in Person or by Proxy The only Authority that the Bishops of the Church of England have above the Presbyters is Government Ordination and Censures which were all appropriated to the Apostles and Bishops in the Primitive Church St. Cyprian assures us it was so in the African Church in his Third Book Ep. 10. 12. 28. 27. And so it was in St. Augustine's Time See Cod. Eccl. Afr. c. 6 7 9 c. But say they the Power of Ordination is taken away from the Presbyters and lodg'd solely in the Bishops and 't is plain say they in the Apostles days the Presbyters did Ordain for Timothy was ordain'd by laying on the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. 14. But Dr. Hammond in his Paraphrase on this Text says That these Presbyters here spoken of who ordain'd Timothy were Apostles That Timothy was ordain'd by St. Paul is most evident for St. Paul in his Second Epistle to Timothy ch 1. v. 6. says I put thee in mind that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the
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
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
call'd to the Office of the Ministry by God Almighty and have received our Commission to Preach the Gospel from him and therefore must not neglect to discharge our Duty in Obedience to any Power upon Earth for we must obey God rather than man But first I hope they will grant that when God Almighty gave them this Commission he did not limit it to any certain place but 't was general to Preach the Word to all Nations so that in obedience to God's Command doubtless they ought to go and Preach in those Countries where their Preaching is most wanted and will do God most service There are many Countries in the World that know nothing of Christianity and many that do have not able Ministers enough to serve their turn sure these Men that think themselves bound in Conscience to Preach wou'd much better discharge their Consciences by going into those Countries and Preaching to those poor People that are in so great want of it Christ sent his Disciples to Preach to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel The Apostles who doubtless had as universal a Commission to Preach they never went to abide in those Cities or Places where sound Teachers were settled before but they chose to go into those parts where Christianity was least known and their Preaching would do most good Why will not our Non-conformist Ministers follow their example Several of our foreign Plantations want able Ministers among them they want Universities and famous Schools to breed them in and therefore must needs be but poorly supplied If they would leave this Nation and go and Preach there 't would convince the World that they design'd nothing but God's Glory and the discharge of their own Consciences in desiring to Preach but since they do not 't is evident whatever their pretences may be that 't is self-interest and their own conveniency that makes them desire the liberty of Preaching in these Nations What have they to say to this Indeed the best of them give but a very unsatisfactory Answer hereto Mr. Baxter in his Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet says The Reason why they do not go to Preach among the Indians is because they cannot speak their Language and because many of them have Wives and Families which they cannot leave But for his own part he says if he were but young enough he would not trouble this censorious persecuting part of the World any longer Mr. Baxter has not been always old he was young enough when first he began to write against the Church of England Why did he not go when first he was prohibited to Preach here if he had perhaps our Divisions about Matters of Religion had been much narrower than now they are and a reconciliation much more easy between us As for their not speaking the Language there are many of the New Plantations in America c. that understand English and Latin and want able diligent Pastors among them And as to all their other Reasons for not going the leaving their Families c. they may carry them with them but surely no Reasons of this kind can come in competition with the great Advantage of propagating the Gospel of Christ and the Peace and Quiet of three Kingdoms But again They say God has commanded them to preach the Gospel and they must obey God rather than Man So God has also commanded them to obey their Governours and Magistrates and to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church and Nation in which they live Now since they must of necessity break one of these Commands by staying at home and preaching in separate Meetings and may perform both by going to preach beyond Seas certainly the best and safest way must be to doe the latter And if God Almighty has given them commission to preach as they say I am sure he has given them commission no where to disturb the Peace and Settlement of a Christian Church and State especially a true Church He bid them go and preach the Word and teach all Nations but we all know that the greatest Part of the World was then unconverted and had no Christian Teachers and Ministers orderly settled among them so that those whom Christ then sent could have come no where amiss every one of them was to make as many Converts as he could there being no limits put how far their particular Charge should extend and no farther but soon after even in the Apostles days when particular distinct Churches were gather'd and committed to the Care of particular Persons I suppose none of our Dissenters will say That any Ministers by virtue of their general Commission to teach all Nations might have come into another Pastor's Congregation or Parish and preach in a separate Meeting without Licence and draw as many People from their lawful Pastour to whose Care they were particularly committed as they could No they who did so were often condemn'd by St. Paul as appears in many of his Epistles And this is the very Case of the Church of England with relation to our present Dissenters Allowing their Commission to preach be as full as they pretend to yet it gives them no Authority to invade other mens Rights or to draw away the People from their lawful Ministers And especially since if they please they may exercise their Office in other places and do no Man wrong The Apostles had as full a Commission to preach as any of our Dissenters can pretend to and something more extraordinary and yet we don't find that they thought themselves oblig'd to preach directly in opposition to the civil Magistrate though a Heathen 'T is true for the first 300 years Christianity had not generally the Laws to countenance and defend it as now it has So that the Apostles and Fathers of the Church could not have the Command or Authority of the civil Magistrate for what they did yet they had his connivance and never preached directly in opposition to his positive command St. Paul says Acts 14. 12. They neither found me in the Temple disputing with any man neither raising up the people neither in the Synagogues nor in the City And again Acts 15. 8. Neither against the Law of the Jews neither against the Temple nor yet against Caesar have I offended any thing at all So it seems the practice of the Apostles was to preach the Gospel where they came so long as they were tolerated or conniv'd at by the Government But as soon as they were prohibited by the Magistrate they left that City or Place and went to the next but thought it no ways their Duty to oppose the Will of their lawful Prince though a Heathen And will not our Dissenters shew the same respect to a Christian Prince that the Apostles did to Heathen Magistrates But whether Christian Magistrates have power to silence some Ministers such as they think fit or not it is a thing questionless that has been practis'd by 'em in all Ages ever since 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
who endeavour to inform them but instead of this they fly out into rage and violent Passions against those who offer to remove their Scruples and for their kindness return most reproachful bitter Language both on the Persons tho' never so Eminent and the thing tho' never so Sacred which is visible in all their Books of Controversie And even in common Discourse How difficult is it to obtain from the Zeal of many of our Dissenters so much truce as to hear what one can say to them with patience and civility They tell us in plain terms we may spare our breath and not pretend to teach them they understand their Duty better than we do They are satisfied in their own minds that they are in the right and will not be wheedled out of their Opinion by all that we can say This is truth Mr. Baxter himself has own'd as much in his Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet p. 81. where he affirms in his own name and the name of his People That he who thinks that his own or others reasonings will ever change all the truly honest Christians in the Land knows so little of Matters or of Men or of Conscience as that he is not fit to be a Bishop or a Priest What will they say now to this will their Scruples of Conscience excuse their Separation and Disobedience when 't is evident they will not use the proper means to satisfie their Consciences Nay farther When they declare 't is needless to go about to remove their Scruples for they are resolv'd beforehand they will not be convinc'd Let no Man say so for shame 't is against common Reason and the Opinion of all learned Men and even of Mr. Baxter himself But we will suppose for once that every particular Dissenter has done his utmost indeavour to satisfie his Conscience and that after all they cannot conquer their Scruples What then Must they therefore proceed to Separation No this was never allowed by Christ nor his Apostles nor by any Christian Church since their time not even by our Dissenters themselves heretofore Our Saviour himself did not separate from the Jewish Church though there were many things amiss in it nor advise others to do so says Vines a Non-Conformist in his Book on the Sacrament pag. 39. In the Apostles days we find there were some who scrupled some things that were enjoin'd but notwithstanding the difference of Men's Judgments and their pretended Scruples of Conscience the Apostles did prescribe Rules of Uniformity and allow'd none to Separate from the Church and frequent Meetings of their own setting up because they could not conquer their Scruples And this very Argument did the Assembly of Divines at Westminster Anno Dom. 1648. use against their Dissenting Brethren the Independents who pleaded for Separation upon the account of Conscience as the Dissenters do now See Papers for Accommodation pag. 111. And when the Independents told them they could not satisfie their Consciences so as to Conform to their Church Government and therefore begg'd That they may be allow'd separate Congregations the Assembly positively refused it and urged them to Conform to their way of Worship c. and charged them with Schism if they did not For say they To desire separate Congregations as to those parts of Worship where they own they can join with us is very unreasonable for tenderness of Conscience may justifie non-Communion in the thing scrupled but it cannot justifie a Separation See the Papers for Accommodation pag. 20 21 22 51 c. For if it should say they it then would make way for infinite Divisions and sub-Divisions and give countenance to perpetual Schism in the Church ib. p. 68 73 c. And then the Assembly justifie themselves in so doing by the practice of the Saints in the Apostles days For they tell them they desire no more of them hereby than what they were confident was practised by the Saints at Philippi namely To hold practical Communion in things wherein they Doctrinally agreed ib. p. 115. So that if the judgment of their own Brethren in a full Assembly may be taken upon the most weighty Debate and serious Deliberation their setting up separate Meetings and forsaking the Church upon the account of some Scruples which they pretend they cannot conquer is Sinful and Schismatical And when the Assembly of Divines was pressed farther by their Dissenting Brethren they desired them to answer in this one thing Whether some must be denyed the liberty of their Conscience in matters of practice or none If none then say they we must Renounce our Covenant and let in Prelacy again and all other ways If a denial of Liberty to some may be just then Vniformity may be settled notwithstanding Men's different Judgments or pretence of Conscience Papers for Accommodation pag. 116. Agreeable hereto is the practice of the Independents themselves where they have the power as in New-England no Separation is there allow'd upon the account of Scruples of Conscience as appears by their Book of Statutes which they have lately Printed and by their telling Mr. Williams a famous Minister among them that if nothing will serve him but Separation because he could not conquer his Scruples The World was wide enough and so away they banish'd them in the midst of Winter From what has been said it appears That though there were some things amiss in the Church of England which our Dissenters could not satisfie their Consciences about yet this would not justifie Separation from the Church though perhaps it might after due pains taken to inform themselves aright concerning them justifie their non-Communion in the things scrupled Now I will shew that there is really no cause to forsake the Church of England upon the account of Conscience And that all those who do forsake the Church and frequent separate Meetings are condemn'd for Schismaticks by the most Eminent Divines of all the Reformed Churches beyond Seas and by Mr. Baxter Dr. Owen Mr. Gifford Corbet and many other of the Non-Conformists themselves heretofore For First they all agree That no Man is obliged in Conscience to separate from any Church that is sound in Doctrine and has the Sacraments rightly and duly administer'd The Scripture allows Separation only in these three cases First In case of Idolatrous Worship Secondly In case of False Doctrine imposed instead of True And Thirdly In case things indifferent be made necessary to Salvation But where these Three are wanting nothing will justifie Separation See Canon Nicen. 6 15 16. Constant c. 6. Chalced. 17 20 26. Antioch c. 2 5. Cod. Eccles Afr. c. 53 55. Conc. Gangrae c. 6. Conc. Carth. c. 10 11. Cod. Can. Eccles Vniv Can. 65. All these Canons and many more do condemn Separation from a Church that is sound in Doctrine and has the Sacraments rightly and duly Administred So does Calvin in his Inst lib. 4. c. 1. numb 9. where he says That great allowances ought to be made to such