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
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
testimony of the Person chosen And to that end 't is true the People were to be present at the nomination of a new Bishop for since they were to be Men blameless and of good report 't was but fit that the People that best knew his Life and Conversation should be present to testify the same And herewith agrees St. Cyprian Ep. 68. whom Mr. Baxter vouches for the contrary says he The Bishop shou'd be chosen in the presence of the People that by their presence their Faults may be publish'd or their good Actions commended but says not a word of the Peoples Power of Electing him All our Ordinations must be done in the publick view of the People who are demanded of the Bishop whether any of them can or will except against the Persons to be admitted See the Form of Ordination in the Book of Common Prayer As to the Elections of Deacons 't is to be noted that 't was properly no Church Power which they had but they were Stewards of the Common Stock and therefore 't was but reasonable the Community should be satisfied in the choice of them St. Chrysostom in his Book de Sacerdotio complains much of the unfitness of the People to judge in such matters So does St. Augustine Ep. 110. And indeed were there no other Reasons against the Peoples choosing their own Ministers but the mischiefs that would necessarily attend it 't were sufficient for when ever the People assum'd this Power of choosing it caus'd so great Disturbances in the Church that at Antioch the Divisions of the People about the choice of a Bishop in the time of Constantine had kindled such a Flame as had almost destroy'd both Church and City The like at Rome upon the choice of Damascus And if the People have the Power of choosing their own Ministers what shou'd hinder but there may be a Presbyterian Independant Anabaptist Quaker and Papist teacher all in one Parish and so this would set open a door to infinite Divisions And therefore to avoid the great Evils and inconveniences of popular Elections the Power of choosing their own Ministers was taken away from the People by several Councils as 12. and 13. Can. Conc. Laodicea Conc. Antioch c. 18. c. Conc. 2d of Nice c. 3. The Reason that first gave Lay-men a title to the nomination of Ministers was when Christian Princes and others had given large Endowments to the Church 't was thought but just that they should have the nomination of the Ministers for those Churches that they had built and indow'd And this was a Prerogative in the Kings of England ever since the first foundation of a Christian Church here and long before any freedom of Elections was pretended to See Stat. 25. Edw. 3. and the Case of the King 's Ecclesiastical Power in Lord Cook 's 8th Rep. and the Case of Praemunire in Sir John Davenant's Reports Case ult And this title of Patronage has been confirmed to Lay-men by several Councils as 1st Coun. of Orange Anno Dom. 441. 2d Counc of Arles Anno 452. 9th Counc of Toledo c. And this Right of presentation is not only us'd in England but in other reform'd Churches In Denmark the Archbishops and Bishops are appointed by the King so they are in Swedeland So in other Lutheran Churches the Superintendants are appointed by the several Princes and the Patrons present before Ordination The Synod of Dort hath a Salvo for the right of Patronage In France the Ministers are chosen by Ministers at Geneva by the Council of State who have Power likewise to depose them And Beza in his Ep. 83. declares against the Peoples choosing their Ministers as a thing without any ground in Scripture Grotius Ep. ad Boatslaer Ep. 62. p. 21. agrees herein How comes then our English Dissenters to make this a ground of Separation to wit The depriving the People of their Right of choosing their own Ministers when 't is evident they never had any such Right but when they got it by Usurpation And 't is contrary to the general practice of the Church in all Ages and even to the practice of other reform'd Churches at this day But besides the unwarrantableness of the Peoples choosing their Ministers and the great mischiefs that attend it by making the People run into Divisions and Factions 't is a thing very unreasonable in it self that such an ignorant proud unpeaceable sort of People as Mr. Baxter himself confesses in his Sacrilegiae Dissert p. 102. c. the ordinary sort of Christians to be should be made judges of their Ministers abilities and soundness of Doctrines who are most apt to revile the best and gravest Ministers as the same Mr. Baxter says himself in his Cure of Divis p. 393. Sure 't is more likely that the King and Parliament and the Governours of the Church shou'd provide able and fit Ministers for us than such sort of People as these unless any will be so ridiculous as to suppose that the Magistrates and Clergy are all bad men and the ignorant common People the only incouragers of Vertue They may say 't is as unreasonable on the other hand that all the People of a Parish shou'd be oblig'd to take a Minister put into the Cure by some young raw extravagant Heir that had the good Fortune to be born to an Estate to which the Advowson did belong but perhaps is as ignorant and unfit to judge of the abilities of a Minister as the meanest in the Parish To this I answer That though such ignorant Persons may sometimes have the right of Presentation yet they have not the Power of putting into the Cure any Minister they please for the Patron has only the right of presenting his Clerk who must be admitted and instituted by the Bishop before the Cure is said to be full and if the Bishop with the rest of his Clergy after examination had c. do think him any way unqualified for the Cure of Souls he may reject him and put the Patron to present another qualify'd for the Office which if he neglect to do within six Months from the time the Church became void he shall lose his presentation for that turn and the Bishop shall present So that the Patron it seems cannot put whom he will on the People for their Pastor but is bound to find Personam idoneam a fit Person And now before we pass from this matter let us see whether the Civil Magistrate has Power to silence Ministers or not Doubtless he has otherwise 't is impossible that any Kingdom should be safe for since the generality of the People are so apt to be led by their Spiritual Guides and take their Notions of Loyalty and Obedience from them 't is strange to imagine that Ministers shall be allow'd to Preach up Sedition Heresy or what Doctrine they please and it shall not be in the Power of the Magistrate to silence them But say our Dissenters we are
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