all the Members thereof how much more Vniversall practise This the Adversaries of Episcopall-government whether they be of the Classicall or Congregationall way turn off with a light finger as if it had no weight in it or as if the Apostle had said nothing in alledging the Customes of the Church Scripture is the onely thing they will be tryed by We refuse not to meet them there but let them consider that they come against the Established authority of their own Nationall Church against the custome and practise not onely of that but of all the Churches of God and there are bound to bring plain and expresse Scripture to demonstrate that Episcopacy or such a superiority over other inferiour Pastors or meere Presbyters is directly unlawfull for else the Custome and Practise of the Churches by the Apostles rule must be observed so long as in force i. e. till due Authority change them supposing they are changeable and that it is in the power of the present Church to change them It were well the Adversaries of the Episcopall Function would yeild more Authority to Universall Practise or Tradition of the Churches of God at least in their respect to some points they will acknowledge themselves bound to maintaine As first That Scripture is the Word of God I do not ask upon what grounds they finally believe this themselves but how they would maintaine it against Heathen or Jew and perswade them to it but upon the witnesse of universall Tradition which speaks to the conviction of all men upon the ground of common Sense or Reason as abovesaid 2. or Secondly That the observation of the Lords day comes from the Apostles How would they convince such a one as Mr. Trask was by the places of Scripture mentioning the Apostles meeting upon the first day of the week or that place which names the Lords day Rev. 1. which might be on Easter day the annuall Lords day He according to the doctrine of these men slighting the Witnesse of Universall Tradition or Practise found nothing in Scripture expresse but the Commandement for the Seventh day or Jewish Sabbath so obstinately held for that till he was reclaimed by the labour and travail of our learned Bishops and made to see how the continued and undeniable practise of the whole Church did clearely shew those passages in Scripture were intimations of this practise then beginning and that their observing of the Seventh day or Jewish Sabbath for they observed that too as occasion served was but in complyance with the Jewes for a time while the Temple stood In like manner the Universall practice of the Church the best interpreter of Scripture where there is not any place of it so plaine as to take away all gainsaying tells us those passages we shew in Scripture for this Government contain so many intimations and sometimes exercises of that Episcopall power which should continue in the Church after the Apostles and assures us those other instances brought by the Adversaries against that Function cannot inferre any other way of Government And therefore we had good cause to say above Episcopall Government was conformable to Gods Word which is our second consideration §. XIV Episcopall government conformable to the word Secondly then take we a briefe survey of the Grounds on both sides which yet I cannot in reason enter upon without asking leave to suppose it possible which never was seen in any particular that Universall Tradition or Practise can be contrary unto Scripture but yeilding that as possible to the Adversaries it is cleare they are bound as abovesaid to demonstrate this Practise or Government is against Scripture and that their way is peremptorily there prescribed How impossible it is for them to do this appeares at first sight by their severall judgements upon the passages of Scripture concerning Church-government Some of them look upon these passages and think they see a Classicall or Presbyterian others of them look upon them and are as strongly perswaded they see a Congregationall or Independent way Where 's the clear Evidence then which they pretend against Episcopall Government To examine their chiefe Instances briefly and plainly for the satisfaction of ordinary Capacities make the triall of those that are alledged for the Classicall way because that pretends to more regularity and to a better foundation than the other Their Instances are from the mention made in Scripture of Presbytery and Presbyters or Elders and the name of Bishop applyed to them We read 1 Tim. 4. 14. the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery But what evidence is there in this to demonstrate that the power of ordination was put into the hands of meer Presbyters For first it is a question whether this laying on of hands was for ordination here or for some other purpose Secondly when that is granted it is a question whether the word Presbytery here implies the office to which Timothy was ordained or the Persons ordaining him for both interpretations are admitted Thirdly admit the Persons ordaining are meant yet never can it be proved they were meer Presbyters for besides that the word Presbytery or Eldership included the Apostles and all the chief Rulers of the Church 1 Pet. 5. 1. who am also an Elder and John Ep. 2. v. 1. Ep. 3. v. 1. the Elder St. Paul saith expresly he laid hands on Timothy 2 Tim. 1. 6. Neither can they in all Scripture give one instance of Imposition of hands for Ordination permitted to meere Presbyters alone So for the places alledged by them mentioning Bishops and Deacons onely as the Ministers of the Church Phil. 1. 1. or calling them first Elders and then presently Bishops Tit. 1. 5. 8. Acts 20. 17. 28. If we say that in these and the like places those first Elders set in the Churches newly planted were Bishops properly or that the Elders or Bishops there mentioned were of both sorts some Bishops properly some inferiour Presbyters the Adversaries could disprove neither part evidently or if in the third place we should grant them what they aime at that these were onely Presbyters it would be nothing to the purpose unlesse they could directly shew the power of Ordination and Government over those Churches fully committed to them For supposing those Elders to be such Presbyters the name Bishop might be appliable to any of them in as much as he had over-sight of any flock which Name was appropriated after to the more Generall Pastor who had oversight of the Presbyters and particular Flocks or Congregations within such Precincts And what marvail is it if the distinction of these two sorts of Elders or Bishops did not nay could not appeare so clearly in the beginning of the new planted Churches and whilst the Apostles were on earth governing the Churches as it did after the Churches were enlarged and the Apostles gone off Then clearly appeared who succeeded them and how far in that ordinary power which was to continue
prevailed as Tr. 1. c. 1. Secondly It is a Truth that the Saxons or English whatever preparation they had to it by the Vicinity and Acquaintance of the British Christians did indeed receive the Christian Faith from Rome through the godly care of Gregory the first then Bishop and the Ministry of Austin and others whom he sent to preach it here But then the untruth which they suppose and usually impose upon the unwary is palpable viz. That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as to Faith and Worship is the same it was in Gregorie's time and that we by Reformation have cast off the Faith we received For first as to the maine and fundamentall Faith that makes a man or Church Christian no question but Austin and those that were sent preached that they baptized into which is the very same that we do still Then as for the matters of Faith and Worship which they and we differ in the Novelty is clear neither can they demonstrate that any point we cast off was a doctrine of Faith in S. Gregory's time Some things I confesse of misbelief and practise were then crept in and gathering strength but it is observable that in all their allegations of Fathers for the points we differ in their owne Gregory comes rarely in indeed that Purgatory was his opinion they have expresse proof not that it was an article of Faith in that Church On the contrary it is plaine that Communion in both kindes was the doctrine and practise of the Church in his time as it had been alwaies before that Image-worship is declared against in his answer to the Bishop of Marsellis the Title also and Jurisdiction of Vniversall Bishop which immediately concernes the Cause in hand is declared against in his contestation with John of Constantinople who affected it In a word had the Church of Rome continued the same for Faith and Worship as it was in Gregory's time and the Bishop of Rome taken no more to himself than the said Gregory did certainly it would not have come to a division neither would there have been cause for it §. VII Deniall of Obedience to Papall jurisdiction makes not Schismaticall Thirdly it is a Truth that the English Church still generally taken before Reformation acknowledged the Jurisdiction of that See but the Inference they make therefore it is Schismaticall in casting off or denying to yeild obedience thereunto is invalid for it supposes this untruth that we owed it of duty upon special relation viz. our conversion or receiving the Faith by the Ministers of that See To answer I. It seemes the Bishop of Rome makes his claim to England upon a double Title One of Vniversall Pastorship which extends to all Churches of what Plantation soever the Other of Conversion or Plantation which reaches to England and some other Nations and it seemes when these Titles are divided the first prevailes and swallowes up the other and so brings under his Jurisdiction all the Churches which other Apostles besides Peter and their Successors planted Whereupon it followes that the other Apostles shall not leave the like Title of Jurisdiction to those which succeeded them in the Churches they planted unlesse dependantly on Rome also that the other Apostles laboured dependently on Peter and as his Ministers and Commissioners plaated Churches for him to rule over as supreme general Pastor when as it is evident they were sent immediately by Christ with equall commission to plant Churches in all the world God teach all Nations Mat. 28. and As my Father sent me so I send you John 20. Therefore Peter and Paul when they made that agreement Gal. 2. departed to the work upon equal termes To establish this first and transcendent Title of Universal Jurisdiction they are bound to make good these several untruths That it was so with Peter in respect of the other Apostles That it is so with the Successors of Peter in respect of Those which succeeded the other Apostles in the Churches by them planted That the Power and Priviledge pretended to be in Peter was derived upon his Successors Lastly that it is derived onely upon the Bishops of Rome not of Antioch or elsewhere All these they are bound to make good yea and seeing all their Romish faith resting upon the pretended Priviledges of that Church is founded upon these false Supposals they are bound to make all good by apparent Scripture for they grant that the prime points of Faith necessary for all to believe as this is according to their doctrine are clearly conteined in Scripture But to shew this point of the Priviledges of that Church Infallibility and Vniversall Jurisdiction so conteined is impossible for them to do for when in this vast Controversie they leave nothing untoucht in Scripture or Fathers which may be drawn to make any seeming appearance for such priviledges they doe but give us words nothing of force to prove the thing indeed Some passages to this purpose in Tr. 1. c. 27. and in cap. 28. 30. II. As to his second Title from Plantation of the Church here We doe not find that the Converting of any Nation to the Faith gave a Title of Jurisdiction to that Church from whence that Nation received the Faith for we doe not see it was held for any Rule in the distribution of Provinces and the limiting or extending the bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction We doe not find that the ancient Councils which provided therein had any respect to such Title but to the constitution of the Empire rather and the Provinces thereof and that the alteration which has been anywhere since made in the bounds of National Jurisdiction followed the division of Kingdomes into which the Empire was broken which appears in the severall Councils of Toledo above mentioned under their severall Kings without dependance on Rome And if we look into the Saxon Church and Councils gathered and published by the industry of Sir Hen Spelman it will appear that all the Application made unto or intercourse had with Rome did not speak a due subjection but at most a voluntary adhaesion not acknowledgment of that Jurisdiction but of their fair respect such as any Church ought to have to that Church from which it received the faith so long as that Church continues safely in the faith it propagated and so in a condition of giving advise and direction to and of receiving due respect and complyance from those among whom it planted the faith But as Errors prevailed in that Church of Rome so in this and among the rest that usurped Jurisdiction Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the 7. about 400. years after Gregory the first did lay on that yoak and began to bring the necks of Kings and Princes under it too and still by their power does the Bishop of Rome hold his jurisdiction over the Churches within their Dominions as Spain France c. But such Princes as came to understand their owne right not onely
pretending only to private or selfe-reformation Such was the Schism of former Separatists whilest this Church stood free from violence They went their way and it remained where it was This incurrs the guilt aforesaid of high disobedience and breach of Charity but not in so high a degree as that which followes A Schism that not only divides from the Communion but also offers violence to the destruction of the Church pulls down what was not only persons and Governours to set themselves in their places but also the form and government it selfe to set up their own in stead of it This is higher and farther than ever any of the Ancient Schismatikes went which changed not the form of Government alwayes used in the Church and this will be considerable in the violence of our modern Schism But before we charge them according to the premises let us clear the Case as it stands between the Church of England and that of Rome charging us with Schisme upon the Reformation §. IV. Our Defence against the Church of Rome Our Defence in generall comes to this as it was touched Tr. 1. c. 4. 5 6. This Church had Cause for such Reformation and Authority for the doing it sufficient both For when such Errors prevail in a Church and come to such generall practice it is high time by due Reformation to cast them out and when they are in Authority be convinced and doe it then is the Reformation just and lawfull First there was sufficient Cause by reason of Error and corruption in belief and Worship such as we could not continue in without gross dissembling and wrong to our consciences and Gods honour The truth and evidence of this stands upon the examination of those doctrines touching Faith and Worship wherewith the English Church was generally tainted according to the Romish infection The tryall whereof was in part made Tr. 1. c. 30. to shew that the points wherein they and we differ cannot be as they would impose upon the world Catholick doctrines i. e. the beliefe and practice of the Church in all ages since the Apostles or as S. Jude ver. 3. calls it the faith once delivered But farther to the end that they which cannot examine all the Romish doctrines whether they be Catholick or professed in all Ages may briefly and more neer at hand see so far into that Church as to perceive it is not such a Church that they who have means to know better can safely or conscionably communicate with We will make a brief tryall or estimate of a Church by the Faith Worship Sacraments professed practiced administred therein for these the Romanists will not deny to belong immediately to the constitution of the Church and therefore fit to give us direction for holding or not holding Communion As for example If we finde any Church or Congregation of Men calling themselves Christians deny directly and peremptorily any Article of the Creed or Belief into which all Christians are baptized as professed Arrians and Socinians doe it is evident their Error is immediately against the foundation they doe not deserve the name of Christian Churches We doe not so charge the Church of Rome But albeit she holds the Foundation yet finde we her superstructures in no less matters than of Faith and Worship to be such as the Foundation will not safely bear nor any good Christian coming to the knowledge of them conscionably endure For when any Church propounds any thing as matter of Faith Worship without manifesting the truth thereof to mens consciences by clear consequence from those prime Fundamentals into which they are baptized or from Scripture it selfe it is intolerable For this Rule is just and reasonable Whatever the Church propounds so to be believed and practiced it stands bound so to manifest the same else it sets it selfe in Gods stead taking an immediate dominion over mens faith and consciences but in all other things which the Church propounds and enjoynes as matters of Order Ceremony discipline for the more significant profession of that Faith or the more decent performance of that Worship every Member of the Church is to obey or to bring as expresse warrant from Gods word against the particular he refuses to doe as the command is expresse which binds him to obey those that are over him in the Lord Were this Rule well held to there would have been more peace in the Church It was necessary for peaceable subjection Tr. 2. c. 1. will be useful below against those that causelesly divide from this Church And as to the present Case we did not quarrell at the Church of Rome for matters of Rite Order or the like but of Faith and Worship The superadded Articles being so farre from a manifestation by clear consequence as above said that they proved clearly inconsistent with the Word and the worship then in an unknown tongue against the Apostle plainly 1. Cor. 14. against the reason of a reasonable serving of God beside that Worship which was given to Images against the express words of the second commandment Lastly examine a Church by the Sacraments in it administred Those two which confessedly are of Christs appointment Where we finde the Cup denyed to the Cummunicants we see a direct breach of Institution a defrauding the People of God of that part of the Sacrament which affords and makes them partakers of Christs blood-shed also where we finde a daily propitiatory Sacrifice established we plainly see a depravation of the Sacrament and a derogation to the One oblation upon the Cross Thus to say nothing of Primitive Antiquity it is cleer to every one that sees any thing there is just Cause of Reformation where such Errors and Corruptions have prevailed and of ceasing to communicate at least as to those Errors and Practises with that Church which will not being admonished reform them so that if the Question be put to any man whether he will be of the English Church as it was corrupted together with the Romish or as it was after reformed it amounts to this Whether he would be a sick and diseased man or whole and healthfull Whether keep company with persons infected or with those that are cleare and sound The choice is easie to a man in his wits §. V. Iust and sufficient Authority for publick Reformation But to cast those Errors and Corruptions out of a Church by publick Reformation is required Sufficient Authority That also was not here wanting both the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall Both these were seen in the Ancient lawful Synods gathered and held for the same purpose of Reformation And therefore every Nationall Church having within it self the whole subordination of Ecclesiasticall Power or Government the Permission and Authority of the Supreme Civill Power concurring may reform it self i. e. make a publick nationall Reformation The Antient Council of Arles in France the severall Councils of Carthage in Africa of Toledo in Spaine did so and that not
but derived from the Ancient Church and used by it to good purpose before Popery crept in Nor is it a good Rule of Reformation to cast out whatever has been abused by Popery we need not do it to the very same individual things which have been so abused excepting Images as the Brazen Serpent that had been objectively used to Superstition for the same individuall Churches stand which I suppose they hold were abused in time of Popery much lesse are we bound to abolish all Rites and Ceremonies which have been abused onely in specie in their kind the individuall act or performance of them under that abuse being transient and not remaining But the Rule of our Reformation was still according to Christian prudence charity not making moe differences than must needs therefore retaining the use of that which Antiquity with good reason practised but without the after-abuse looking not onely at ancient Practise but the Apostles Precept according to which the forementioned practises tend to order decency and as far as Ceremonies are capable of it to edification Thus much the Church has sufficiently declared by her Doctrine by hundreds of books written upon that argument that she enjoyns these Rites and Ceremonies cleared from all superstitious abuse either of yeilding worship to any undue obâ—ect or of affixing any sacramentall Efficacy to any of them or of giving them any spirituall Vertue either to better the duty to wch they are joyned professing the duty is good without theÌ„ though not so orderly and reverently performed or to satisfie by such performances or that she has any other superstitious respect in the enjoyning of them but regard onely to the aforesaid precept for order and decency which easily appeares in the more solemn and reverent performance of the duty with these Rites than without them and for edification according to the nature of a Ceremony by its signification minding us of some duty To this purpose Treat. 2. c. 7. num 7. of Ceremonies significant Peter Martyr said well in his Comment on that 14. chap. to the Corinths Ceremonies are more commendable if they do admonish us Instar concionum de aliquo officio like Sermons of some duty As for example that women should be covered in the Congregation was not onely for decency but signified and minded them of Duty viz. Subjection as the Apostle shewes 1 Cor. 11. The Ceremony of the Holy Kisse used in their meetings and enjoyned by the Apostle several times minded them of that Charity which should be among Christians and testified they had it then for each other So the putting off the Old man so oft mentioned in the Apostle was the duty and it was represented in Baptism by their putting of Old clothes and putting on New Such signification has the White Vesture minding both the People of the holy duties they come to him that wears it of the holinesse required of them that minister in holy Duties Standing up at the Creed is for a more significant profession of the Christian Faith that they acknowledge and receive it and will by the help of God stand to it and defend it The like signification is in standing up at the reading of the Gospel The Ring in Marriage added onely as a visible Symbol of that Union and Conjunction and for remembrance thereof is it so carefully kept and worn ever after What the Crosse in Baptism signifies and wherefore it is used is there and then expressed when it is used in token that the party baptized shall not be ashamed of the Crosse of Christ c. The Ancient Christians used to make the sign of the Cross upon occasion in the sight of the Heathen to witness or speak the profession they were of and I doe not doubt the truth of those Ancient Records that tell us how God was pleased sometimes for the conviction of the Heathen and the approving of the Christian profession to work a miracle at the making that Sign and what marvel when for the same purpose he wrought miraculously at the falling of Peters shaddow upon the sick and at the touch of handkerchiefes brought from Pauls body Act. 5. 15. 19. 12. He that purposely uses the sign of the Crosse to work supernaturall effects does it without warrant Superstitiously So he that affixes any Sacramentall vertue or spirituall efficacy to it in baptism The Church of England has no such respect but only uses it as a bare Ceremony for remembrance and testification of that which indeed is every Christian mans duty viz Not to be ashamed of the Crosse of Christ but to sight manfuâ—…y under his banner c. And truly considering what a pass Christianity is at among us how the very principles thereof are so openly overthrown by Sacriledge Injustice Atheism that they are likely if men go on to be forgotten in the next age that there may now seem to be some Cause to have the Crosse of Christ imprinted with fire as they say the Ethiâ—pick Christians doe upon the fore-heads of the Children that they may remember so oft at least as they look in the Glasse that they are Christians and what they promised in baptism Kneeling at the Communion can be no compliance with Popery in the acknowledging of Transubstantiation or Adoration of the Host for our Church has sufficiently declared against the doctrine of Transubstantiation which being taken away that Adoration falls Nor yet is their Kneeling in the Romish Church the Test and acknowledgment of Transubstantiation or of that Adoration which they think due to the Host but their falling down when it is elevated or lifted up They do Popery too much honour that make the devout and lowly behaviour of kneeling at the Sacrament proper to that Religion and do seem not to understand themselves nor what they are about in that application of the soule to God and the receiving from him the greatest pledges of mercy that think not the most humble and reverent gesture most fit for such a Duty Their sitting mentioned Mark 14. 18. As they sate and did eat c. does not speak directly the gesture they used at receiving the Lords Supper but their falling to or applying themselves to eat the Passeover and whether in the receiving the Sacrament they used the same posture which they coÌ„monly did at their Feasts a kind of lying or leaning more neer to a prostration of the Body than our sitting is not certain but no question they used such expressions of devotion then as were suitable to the present duty Nor must our application to Christ now be after such a common and familiar way as theirs was when he conversed with them on Earth They did not then so pray to him or asked in his name as they did afterwards Jo 16. 24. They know Christ then after the flesh familiarly conversing with him but now we know him so no more 2 Cor. 5. 16. He