in the Church For our Saviour left his Apostles with full power extraordinary and ordinary for the planting and propagating his Church through the World The ordinary power they were to leave unto others after them for continuing of his Church to the Worlds end viz the power of Reconciliation in the Ministry of the Word Sacraments the power of ordaining and sending others and the power of jurisdicton and government How and into what hands they communicated these severall powers That 's the question Some of the Ancients apprehend it thus That they committed the whole power to those first Elders they placed in every City where the Church was planted so that those first Elders were properly Bishops having power to ordain other Ministers and Labourers as the encrease or extent of the Church required Other Fathers or ancient Writers seem to apprehend those first Elders to be meer Presbyters to whom the whole power was not committed but that afterwards upon the encrease of the Church other speciall Men were intrusted with it to ordain others as need required and as Generall Pastors to rule and over-see the whole Church with all the particular Congregations and Presbyters or inferiour Pastors belonging to it Either way is sufficient for establishing the Episcopall power and government and the Adversaries thereof as they cannot disprove it if we say those first Elders were Bishops properly so neither will they gain any thing if we grant them in courtesy thus much that the first Elders were meer Presbyters For see briefly what they can say against the first or draw from the second Against the first they usually say 1. If those Bishops at Philippi were so properly then were there more than one Bishop in one City or Church Answ This indeed was absurd and inconvenient and never suffered in the Church inlarged and established but in the Church Nascent or beginning it might be very reasonable by way of provision for the future enlargement establishment of that Church So we find 12. Apostles left in the Church of Jerusalem by our Saviour in order to their propagating and governing the Church through the whole World And so in some great Cities where and from which the Gospel might suddenly spread it self the Apostles might provisionally leave more than One Elder vested with power for the supply of the Church enlarged Secondly If the Elders or Bishops mentioned in those places were Bishops properly vested with such power then would the Apostle also have remembred the other sort of Elders between them and Deacons Answ But what if there were not yet in that Church Elders or Presbyters of the second sort For no Church at first was full Or if there were such in that Church why might he not salute both sorts under that general name Bishop Thirdly But then the Apostle did not distinctly set down the Office of the one or the other for having set down the office of a Bishop he presently goes to the Deacon 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 5. Answ It was not the Apostles purpose in those places distinctly to set down the Office of Elders nor of Deacons but the general qualification of the Persons to be admitted to those Offices We may ask of them Where has the Apostle distinctly set down or described the Office of a Lady-Elder They are fain to force it out of one word Ruling 1 Tim. 4. 17. which belongs to the Preaching Elders as they well acknowledge In the places above mentioned the Apostle gives as I said qualifications fitting the Persons of both sorts of Elders that then were or should be in the Church for the duties there hinted teaching ruling do belong to both sorts of Elders but with Subordination of the one to the other And if they will have the word rule 1 Tim. 4. 17. insinuate a distinct Office of Elders from the preaching Elders without any intimation of such an Office anywhere else in Scripture why might not we say with more reason that the same word in the forementioned place 1 Tim. 3. 5. belongs to Bishops of both sorts according to their order and station to rule or take care of the Church of God Especially seeing we shew elsewhere in the same Epistle such a Prelacy or supereminent power of rule given to Timothy distinctly from other Elders as Lay hands suddenly on no man Rebuke not an Elder receive no accusation against an Elder c. cap. 5. v. 19. 22. Like speciall power given to Titus as we see in that Epistle besides all the acts of ordinary power exercised by the Apostles and not communicated in general to Presbyters And so the exhortation of the Apostle Acts 20. 28. might generally fit both sorts of Elders or Bishops supposing those of the inferiour rank present there that they should all of them feed the Flock according to their several stations and in that subordination of Rule which was in the Church But if we grant them that those Elders or Bishops in the above cited places were not Bishops properly but ordinary presbyters What can they draw from thence advantagious either to the Classicall or Congregational pretension when as there is no instance in all Scripture of the Power vested in a Classis or consistory of Presbyters or in every particular Congregation but on the contrary where ever there is mention of the exercising of the power for ordination by laying on hands or for Jurisdiction in rebuking or receiving accusation against an Elder in rejecting Heretiks or the like we find it always done by the Apostles or speciall men appointed thereunto as Timothy Titus Nor is it to any purpose to reply as they doe These were extraordinary men Apostles or Evangelists and so exercised that power as such For albeit in the office of Apostle and Evangelist there was something extraordinary and supposing Timothy Titus may passe under the Title of Evangelists yet the power of ordination and Jurisdiction was ordinary and to continue in the Church and to be communicated unto others as was most convenient What help therefore can the Adversaries have in the Apostles and Evangelists being extraordinary persons unlesse they can shew the power did ordinarily belong to and was exercised by the company of Presbyters or else demonstrate it was left in their hands by expresse and peremptory order from the Apostles So that here they would be non-suited laying their plea only by Scripture against Universall Tradition and practice of the Church for the Scripture story goes not downe to the departure of the Apostles Now after they were gone off it clearly appeared by the practice of the whole Church in what hands the chief power and Government was left viz. not to Presbyters in common but in speciall hands according to the instances and examples of the exercising that power in the Apostles Time The Ancient Records also which continue the Church story from that Time give us the succession of Bishops from the Apostles in the more eminent
under Ecclesiasticall Censures The ancient Church pretended to no more had no other way or means of preserving Unity as said Treat 1. c. 13. When we ask of Those that dissent from this Church in following their own sense or interpretation of Scripture Who shall judge The Papists think we then come into their Road and oppose their Plea to our Sectaries But we are still in the midst between them Not establishing a Papal Infallible Judge nor allowing Private Judgment to stand against the Publick Not calling them to be tryed at Rome as if that Church should judge for all but to submit to the Publick Judgment of this National Church of which they were Members and in which there is such power as is said of judging for others and of censuring or binding the obstinate Gainsayers as Treat 2. c. 1. nu 36. If it be objected There was such Authority in the Governours of this Church before Reformation how then could Private Judgement take place against them to introduce the Reformation We answer It is possible there may be cause of dissenting from the chiefe Governours of the Church and that Reformation may take its first rise from Private Judgement as Tr. 1. c. 9. but then to be managed with all peaceable moderation and subjection as is there shewn and more largely Tr. 2. c. 1. Now whether our Reformation took rise from some private judgement intimated to them in Authority or from the immediate inclination and judgment of those that had the Authority it is not materiall seeing all was carryed peaceably and the work done not against but by those that were the chiefe Governours in the Church V. As for that due Subordination of Pastors and Governours in the Church seen and set forth in the true ancient Episcopal Government it is wronged on both sides The first invasion was made upon it by Papal usurpation under the title of Vniversal Bishop or Pastor which in the judgement of Gregory the first is to make him in effect the onely Bishop and all others but his Ministers as the same Gregory declared against John of Constantinople affecting that Title and cleared himselfe and his Predecessors from assuming it to themselves But it was not long ere his Successors challenged and obtained it and ever since have used it to the vassalage of Christian Bishops where they will suffer themselves to be so abused On the other side every Sect risen in these dayes has lift up a hand to pull down that office and power making spoil of the Means and Maintenance thereunto belonging The Church of England in her Reformation did according to the Universall Practice of the Church retain the Episcopal Government vindicating it from Papal Usurpation and is now put to defend it against the invasion of all other Sects which therefore stand convinced of down-right Schisme as will appear below I have the longer stayed upon these Instances because they doe much tend to the clearing of the businesse in hand Now more particularly to the Case which is thus in generall resolved §. III. Resolution of the case The true Protestant Church of ENGLAND is unjustly charged with Schisme by the ROMAN for that Division which followed between them upon the Reformation But does justly charge all other Sects with Schisme which have divided from it since that Reformation There are three words to speak of here by way of Explication 1. National Church for we have often spoken in the Treatises and still shall speak of the Church of England as of a Nationall Church That therefore is to be accounted a Nationall Church which has in it the whole subordination of Church governments as the third Councel of Carth. Can. 2. Provinciae quae primas sedes habent viz. One Primate with severall Bishops Priests and Deacons Whether the extent of it be bounded with the Limits of the Nation or according to the Precincts appointed by the Ancient Councils or the Supreme Civil Power Every Congregation nay every House may bear the name of a Church the Church in their hâ—use Rom. 16. 5. but as part onely of and in subordination to the National Church So the Churches of Ephesus Rome Corinth upon the first planting of Christianity in these Cities began in a singular Congregation but being inlarged to a due fulnesse had every of them the exercise or practise of that whole subordination of power and Government II. For the word Reformation We must distinguish between that which is Publick or Nationall the reformation of a whole Church in forbidding and casting out errors or Corruptions in beliefe or practice and that which is Private or particular the Reformation of a mans self in not admitting or ceasing to professe Errors prevailing or imposed by the Church of which he is a Member or in which he was baptized and Educated upon which Reforming of himselfe may follow a dividing from that Church by Excommunication or at least by Non-communion III. Touching the words Schisme or dividing of Communion we must distinguish Actual non-communion or want of Actual Communion with a Church from Schisme or the guilt of Schisme The first which is want of Actual communion may happen between two Nationall Churches disagreeing in some practises and that disagreement followed with too much heat as Tr. 1. c. 17 18. and sometimes between a Church and particular Members of it through mis-informations passion exasperations But Schisme is a wilfull i.e. voluntary causles dividing or separating from those we ought to hold Communion with And as before said of Non-communion so observe that the guilt of Schisme may fall either upon a Nationall Church causlesly dividing from or refusing to hold communion with other Churches or else upon the Members and parts of a National Church withdrawing their obedience from their lawfull Pastors or Governours and dividing from them and the Congregations under them setting up a distinct communion or joyning themselves to any such elsewhere set up The case between the Churches of England and of Rome stands according to the first consideration of Schisme as it falls between two Nationall Churches and if the division which followed upon the Reformation must be call'd Schism we shall see in examining the cause of our Reformation that the guilt of it falls on them not us But the case between the Church of England and other Sects which have divided from it stands according to the second consideration of Schism between a Nationall Church and the Members thereof Which dividing from it stand guilty of the highest degree of disobedience unto their Governours and the highest breach of Charity both towards their Governours and also all the people of God continuing in obedience to and Communion with them Lastly there are degrees in the height and guilt of Schism A Schism by a bare recess from the Communion of an established Church setting up a distinct Communion from it but leaving it in its own condition and establishment
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
Churches as Jerusalem Antioch Rome Ephesus Corinth and this practice and succession setled before St. John the Apostle dyed All which as it clearly shewes those severall Angels of the severall Churches to whom our Saviour by Saint John did write could be no other then such Bishops having chief care of and rule in those Churches therfore more chargeable with the Corruptions prevailing in them So doth it clearly convince that plea of the Adversaries which amounts to a charging the first Bishops with Usurpation and invasion upon the right of Presbyters or particular Congregations to be a conceit altogether unreasonable for it is beyond all Imagination that Saint John would have suffered such an invasion or that those first Bishops who conversed with the Apostles and were their disciples should make such an invasion and immediately subvert the Apostolicall order pretended for the Presbyterian Consistory Or that those first Bishops being holy men and many of them Martyrs for still we finde the heathen Persecutors sought chiefly after the Bishop of the Church that the chief Pastor being smitten the flock might be more easily scattered should be so ambitious and unjust or lastly that the Presbyters then should be so tame as not once to complain of the wrong done them or to transmit their Protestation against it to Posterity To conclude this Tryal by Scripture It comes to this issue The Adversaries were bound to shew direct Authority of Scripture against Episcopal Government it being in possession established by the continued Authority of this Nationall Church and which is more by the perpetuall practice of the Catholick Church against this it was expected they should bring some places of Scripture forbidding that power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to be committed to speciall hands such as Bishops properly taken or commending it to the Consistory of Presbyters or some instances at least of that power exercised by such a company Whereas all they can evince out of Scripture is that there were Presbyters strictly so taken and of the inferiour rank which being granted them we shew there was a Prelacy still over such Presbyters still there were special men that had an inspection and rule over them and when the Apostles went off the practise of the Church shewes the power was left in the hands of special men called Bishops properly So that the Government of the Church by Bishops appears as was said above conformable not onely to the Universal practise of the Church after the Apostles time but also to the Word of God i.e. to the practise and patterns we have there 1. of our Saviour appointing twelve Apostles and besides and under them seventy Disciples of a lower rank 2. of Apostolical practise by which we find the power exercised by special Elders viz. the Apostles themselves or other choice men appointed thereunto by them whereas all Elders had power of the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments 3. of the several Angels of the several Churches to whom the Epistles were directed Rev. c. 2. 3. which is the last instance in holy Writ to this purpose §. XV Episcopacy most agreeable to the reason of Church-government Lastly The Government of the Church by Bishops was said above to be most agreeable to the reason of Church-government for preserving Unity and excluding Schism This is very obvious in the writings of the Fathers St. Cyprian had much to do with the Novatian Schismaticks of his time which caused him to write many Epistles upon that occasion and a Book intituled De Vnitate Ecclesiae wherein he shewes the Unity of the Church as to the preventing of Schisme stands much upon this that there be one Bishop in one Church St. Hierom whom they of the Presbyterian perswasion take for their best friend because he strives to advance the Order of Presbyters as much as he can yet as he denies the power of Ordination belongs to Presbyters so he acknowledges that Bishops were appointed over Presbyters to keep out Faction and Schism that the people should not say as they did at Corinth I am of Paul I of Apollos I of this Teacher I of that And for his saying of Presbyters that they did anciently communi consilio with joint advice rule the Churches is not to be understood exclusivè to the Bishop for such a time was never known in the Church but joyntly with him as his Council so were the Presbyteri Civitatis to the Bishop and their advice was more used and there was more cause for it before the many Canons and decrees of Councils gave rule in most particulars what the Bishop should do as it was by that time S. Jerom wrote and whatever he saith for the advancing of the order of Presbyters it is but to set them above all Deacons even those that immediately attended on the Bishop and it seems carried themselves too high it is not to equal them to Bishops whose Prelacy St. Jerome acknowledged and thought it very necessary for this purpose of keeping out Schism which the Parity of Presbyters would expose it to And I would appeale to the reason of any of that perswasion whether it were not more convenient and necessary for keeping all in order to have one aged grave learned and experienced in the way of the Church to be the standing Moderator of the Classis or company of Presbyters than to change their Moderator year by year and leave the place open to every young unexperienc'd Presbyter that can make a faction to advance him unto it I have heard this inconvenience complained on by some of the new erected Classes whereas a Bishop being such a Moderator as is fixed and above all competition is more enabled to keep all ordinary Presbyters in their station and within their bounds And then again I would demand whether the Apostles who complained of Divisions as in the Church of Corinth and of false Teachers there and elswhere were not careful to provide the most reasonable Expedient in government against them It cannot be denyed and upon this score and to this very end of preserving Schism it cannot be thought otherwise but that the Apostles gave beginning to this Government throughout the Church 1. Notwithstanding those of the Classicall perswasion bear themselves much upon Mr. Blondels Collections whose pains might have been better implyed to the use of the Church upon some other Argument For in this it is impossible to drive out of Antiquity though ransaked over again any more to the purpose of the Presbyterian claim than has been already acknowledged and the weakness of it discovered viz. That it seems to be the judgement of some Fathers that the name Bishop was at first common to all Elders and that those Bishops mentioned Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. were Presbyters or Elders of the second rank But what advantage is this to the cause they would establish without proving also that the power of Ordination and Government which we appropriate to
and pretences and in such general words to have still a new Reformation undertaken and to level or pul down not onely what the former had built but what they had left standing of that which was before The first pretenders to Reformation would cast off Bishops their lawfull Pastors and Superiours invade their power of Ordination and Government have their Revenues with those of Deans and Chapters alienated Now are there risen up men that would make it a part of their Reformation to cast off the Ministry of Presbyters too laying open the Office of Teaching to all gifted men also to take away their Tithes and maintenance putting them to live upon benevolence if any will have them for their Teachers And as the first had no consideration of the Cathedral Churches no more have these of the Parochial but as if all other Christians were Infidels or Heathens they will gather Churches anew the ready way to dissipate the Church of Christ and bring in Confusion But furthermore as the first Reformers of these dayes would have no respect to the Ancient practice of the Catholike Church so have these as little regard and with farre greater reason to the pattern of the other Reformation the Scottish Kirk Lastly As They first cast out Set-forms and the Publick prayers of this Church so Those that came after have cast out their Directory will not be bound up by their Rules and Order but as one Error begets another and is boundless in its progress so here from despising the Set-forms of the Church they proceed to an undervaluing the Lords Prayer as below them and some to advance themselves above Prayer it selfe as needlesse to them in that height of perfection they conceive themselves to have attained and this is the chiefe aime of Satans device to bring men by a misguided pursuit of purity and holinesse to such a pitch of spiritual pride and self-conceit as if they had already apprehended which S. Paul would not take to himself Phil. 3. 13. Nor is it sufficient to say We are not so If you are not gone so far yet like Principles and Pretences which you went on against the Government and Lyturgie of this Church would carry you so far for what certain bounds are left to stay any when once ye have pull'd up those that the above mentioned Rules fixed This being done in that Covenanting pretended Reformation the way is laid open to others more bold and heady to run on farther But let me argue it a little with you you that pretend to more regularity and order in the Classical or Congregational way and make shew of a more quiet spirit and temper and challenge you a little as our Saviour did the Scribes and Pharisees roundly Mat. 23. for building and garnishing the Sepulchres of the Prophets and yet persecuting Him and those that followed Him notwithstanding his Office and doctrine agreed with that of the Old Prophet Let me therefore ask you have ye not the book of Martyrs in your houses and set some price on it Doe ye not there read of the ancient Bishops of the Primitive Church suffering Martyrdom for the truth of Christ And doe not ye applaud them abhorring the Cruelty of their Persecutors and saying If we had been in their dayes we would not have been partakers in that blood Doe ye not also there read of Cranmer Ridly Latimer with other Bishops and many of the Clergy of this Land suffering the flames for that truth which they by a just Reformation had reestablished in this Church Doe you not applaud and praise them when you read their Acts and sufferings abhorring the cruelty of their Persecutors and saying If we had been in their dayes we would not c. Thus you build their sepulchres garnish and adorne their Monuments or Memories and now examine whether you have not done the like to those that followed them in the same Office which they bore in the same Doctrine which they taught in the same reformed Worship which they restored held and Sealed with their blood see if ye have not done more then they which slew those Martyrs for ye have not only spoiled their Persons of all their means and livelihood but also taken away the maintenance from the Office and as much as in you the Office from the Church a double Sacriledge which the Romanists that killed those Martyrs would abhor to be guilty of I speake this not to the reproach of any but to the conviction of all whom it may concern that they may fear the Woe our Savâ—our there denounces in the like case That all should be required of that Generation It is just with God when After-generations will not take warning by the former but doe the like to bring upon them the greater punishment and make them bear what the former had deserved And examine I beseech you how far ye have consented to or approved of the shedding their blood the spoiling their persons the sequestring their estates who have suffered in these dayes and yet held and taught the same Religion and Doctrine with those former Martyrs how farre ye have had an hand in or consented to that horrid Sacriledge and devastation of Church-meanes committed in these dayes conclude your selves so far chargeable with the guilt of that former Cruelty and wrong done to the Martyred Bishops and Clergy in Queen Maryes dayes and of that first Sacriledge committed in her Fathers dayes and that ye must answer for it by our Saviours reckoning Mat. 23. 35. so much the deeper because ye have not taken warning by the former but done the like and added to the guilt of Blood and Sacriledge which lay before upon this Land not onely by your persecuting of Them against whom ye had no other accusation than what the Papists had against those Martyrs their faithfull and constant holding to the established reformation of the Church of England but also by your seizing of Church-meanes and abolishing the Office of the chief Governours of the Church a double Sacriledge as I said which neither Romanists nor Antient Schismaticks would dare to commit It is worthy our nothing how it pleased God to shew his judgement upon Schism and Sacriledge in the beginnings of his Church both Jewish and Christian to the end that his people might ever after feare to doe the like We see Numb. 16 who they were that rose up against Moses and Aaron saying Ye take too much upon you ye Sons of Levi seeing all the Congregation are holy every one of them the very saying of these Times and it is plain what they committed in so saying and doing Schism in departing from their lawfull Governours and sacriledge in breaking in upon or invading the priests Office and the judgement shewn upon them is notorious a Fire broke out upon many of them and a Schism or rent made in the Earth swallowed up the rest So in the beginning of the Christian Church we find
onely in matters of Discipline but Doctrine also as that of Arles for rebaptizing them which came from Hereticks denying the Trinity can. 8. The Melivetan Council determined against the Pelagean Heresie The third Council of Toledo gathered for extinguishing the Reliques of that Heresie which had long infected the Gothick Nation and hindered the meeting and benefit of such Councils as King Riccared who called that nationall Synod complaines in his speech to the Bishops then assembled Againe these Councils were gathered and held and did conclude independently on Rome or without acknowledgement of any such Jurisdiction as was after challenged by the Bishop of Rome Faire respect indeed was had to that Bishop in a fraternall way of Communion and sometimes of communicating to him what they had done and concluded as that first Council of Arles Fratri Sylvestro and charitativè significamus In the third Council of Carthage Can. 47. for reading nothing in the Church but Canonicall Scripture it is added Hoc innotescat fratri con-sacerdoti Bonifacio I suppose they mean Boniface Bishop of Rome vel aliis earum partium Episcopis to the end this Canon might be received and practised in those parts But presently after in the fourth Council in which S. Augustine was when the Liberty of their Church seemed to be infringed through a kinde of Jurisdiction challenged by the same Boniface in the point of Appeals they utterly rejected his Plea which he made by the generall Council of Nice but could not prove it So he that looks into the severall Councils of Toledo will finde no signification of a dependance on Rome but great acknowledgement of the religious care of their severall Kings by whose permission they assembled The Church of England therefore being such a Nationall Church and having like power might lawfully reform it self without asking the Bishop of Rome any leave or without staying for a free generall Councill for albeit such a Councill was in agitation yet could not be expected either a generall one because of the Division of the East or Westerne Churches or a free one because of the Popes exorbitant power as Tr. 1. cap. 4. And as it might so it did justly reforme casting off in the first place that Papall usurpation which hindered all Reformation but desining nothing against the definitions of known and approved Generall Councils within the compasse of which time Cardinall Perroun thinks it reasonable the triall of a Church be restreined as Tr. 1. c. ult unlesse some will quarrel at something of Discipline not retained in our church according to the ancient constitutions which being a matter of prudentiall Provision admits variation according to the Exigence of the Times Also it is cleare that Nationall Synods have not held themselves alwayes bound to all things determined formerly in that kinde but have put the receptions of such Canons to the vote as we see in the beginning of the first of Toledo Statuta Concilii Niceni The Statutes of the Council of Nice about Ordinations before not used among them are voted there to be observed Also we finde they frequently make relaxation of former rigour as in the injunctions of penance Lastly it is evident there are many constitutions of this kinde not reteined or observed by the Church of Rome Such as concern the exercise of publique Penance such as forbid the translating of a Bishop from City to City and Ordinations without a Title things determined in generall Councils Of this as to the point of single life of Clergy men T. 2 c. 1. of the whole point of the warrantableness of our Reformation Tr. 2. c. 2. §. VI Answer to the Romish Plea Upon these Grounds it is easie to answer what they object or pretend against us which that it may have the better impression upon the unwary they represent the Church of England before Reformation wholly Romish professing their Doctrine ever since the receiving of the Faith in this Land under Gregory the first Bishop of Rome acknowledging that jurisdiction and accordingly yeilding Obedience to that See yea and owing it as Duty upon the conversion of this Land From these premises their Inference is and they think it will take with the unwary That the Church of England by her Reformation has cast off the Faith received and so fallen into Heresie and by denying subjection to that See has incurred the guilt of Schisme But as there is some truth apparent in the Premises so as much Falshood supposed and taken for granted which renders the Inferences inconsequent and invalid First it is a Truth that the Nationall Church of England before the Reformation was generally Romish both for Doctrine professed in it and for Obedience yielded to the Bishop of Rome but then the Inference they make therefore the Protestant Church of England is a New Church or Hereticall is invalid because it rests upon this untruth supposed and taken by them for granted viz. that the Romish Church was alwaies such teaching such Doctrine and that the profession of such Doctrine makes a Church to be Catholique and the denyall of it renders it Hereticall all which they must prove to make good that Inference where as it is evident that the Catholique Christian Faith once delivered Jude 5. Christ alwaies professed in all ages and into which they and we baptise makes a Christian Church and the holding that Faith undefiled and free from Errours and Corruptions in Belief and Worship makes a pure and Orthodox Church So did the ancient Church of Rome hold the Faith so does the reformed Church of England hold and professe it freed from the mixture of Errour which had crept into the later Romish Church to the infecting of the English so that this National Church is so farre from being Hereticall by ceasing to be Romish that it is therefore the more pure and Orthodox Upon the like supposals false and impertinent they give pretence plausible to the unwary for that demand Shew such a Protestant Church in England before the Reformation as if every Nationall Church did alwaies teach the same Doctrine without mixture of such Errour generally prevailing or as if it were reasonably required of us to shew the Church of England alwaies Protestant i.e. protesting against Errors whereas the Errours were not alwaies nor at first known or to shew a Reformed Church before the Reformation made For though Truth be alwaies before Errour yet Errour is before Reformation which protests against it and casts it out So the English Church as corrupted with Romish Errours must needs be so before it could be Protestant or Reformed but the Catholick Truths it alwaies held made it a Christian Church even under that mixture of Errours so when by Reformation it had cast them off it remained the same Christian Church but a more pure and sound one holding still the same Catholick Truths without that mixture of Errour like as the ancient Christian Church did before Popery
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
in Civil but Ecclesiastical things did justly vindicate their Crowns to the power and dignity due unto them and their Churches to the Liberty and Independency which as abovesaid belongs to every National Church having within it the whole Subordination of Ecclesiastical Government To conclude Seeing by Reformation we cast out as we had just cause Error and Corruptions crept in upon the Christian Faith and Worship and retained what ever was Catholick we cannot be accused of Heresie Seeing also by the same Reformation we cast off the yoak of an usurped Jurisdiction and vindicated this National Church to the just Liberty we cannot incur the guilt of Schisme for that breach of Communion which followed either upon our ceasing to hold and practice with them in the aforesaid corruptions or upon our denying farther obedience to that usurped Authority cannot be imputed to us who had just cause for doing it and used just Authority in the doing But if that breach of communion which followed be Schisme the guilt of it rests upon the Church of Rome in generall and on all English Romanists in speciall according to the severall consideration of Schisme above 3. as it falls between two National Churches or between any National Church and the Members thereof When between two National Churches that Church stands guilty which gives the cause and peremptorily prosecutes it So the Church of Rome did by imposing under pretence of Infallibility and therefore incorrigible her own doctrines pronouncing all those to be Heretiques that did not receive them and by usurping Universal Jurisdiction concluding them Schismatiques that did not obey But the guilt of Schisme lyes upon all English Romanists holding to that Church as upon Members dividing themselves from the body and communion of their National Church and this concerns not onely those who have revolted from this Church to the Romish but such as alwayes professed themselves to be of that Church it falls upon these not for desertion or separation but for Recusancie or their fefusing the communion of their National Church and adhering to a forreign Jurisdiction which is contrary to the way and order which the ancient Church took for preserving Unity and excluding Schisme by no means suffering such disobedience and division of the Members of any National Church where that Church did not divide it self from the Catholick or give cause as the Church of Rome has done §. VIII Second case as to those that have divided from this Chur Now to the consideration of the Case as it stands between the true Reformed Church of England and Those who of what perswasion soever have divided from the communion of it By that which has been said it is evident the Reformation made by this National Church was most just and regular taking for the Rule Gods Word with the consent and practice of the Ancient Church and thereupon rejecting no more than was necessary and retaining what wns usefull shewing therein a due zeal of Truth together with Christian Prudence and Charity to the taking away just cause of Complaint from all distempered Zelots and giving fair occasion of conviction and allurement to those of the Romish perswasion from whom we differ when they shall duly consider there was no more Difference made than needs must Whereas others who have endeavoured Reformation out of a misguided zeal taking for their Rule an opposition to the Church of Rome rather than a conformity to Gods Word and the Consent of Primitive Times have cast out for Popery many things Episcopal Government Set Forms of Liturgy Kneeling at the Communion and the like which were most undenyably before Popery was hatched in the world Now these being cast out upon that score by Heady Reformers who call themselves Protestants Protestors indeed against many Truths the Papist takes them up and thanks such Reformers for yeelding such Truth to be Popery and so he remains more confirmed in his way and hath more cause of offence at Reformed Protestants were they indeed to be measured by such irregular proceedings The Romanists know this well enough and are sensible of the difference between the Reformation or Establishment of the Church of England and all other pretensions and therefore have made it alwayes their main design to undermine this Protestant Church so wel established and in these dayes the Emissaries of Rome have been very active to help forward a confusion joyning themselves if there be truth in that which so many have reported on their knowledge to Sects of severall Perswasions for the pulling down what was and advancing their pretended Reformations Not that the Romanist approves them but because he knows that if the Church of England established on such sure grounds can by any means be subverted the other unbottom'd Reformations will fall of themselves or stand at no stay to the shame of the Religion they professe and so make fair way for the Romish Religion to come in through their breaches or over their ruines and find more generall entertainment It is the Tempters Policy and indeed his Master-piece when he must act an Angel of Light and must make his advantage of those that are come to some sense of Religion or at least to a conceit they are religiously disposed to lead them on by false Lights and make them over-act their parts by a mis-guided zeal to a quarrelling with their Governours and slighting all former Reformations under pretence of Purity and Reformation til in pursuit of that purity and seeking out a more Reformed Assembly or purer Church they run themselves clean out of the Church and yet carry it with them Whither they are run that have left us let them look to it It is our work now to shew and I wish they would sadly consider it what they have incurred by leaving us no lesse than the guilt of Schisme which lies heavily on as many as have of what perswasion or Sect soever wilfully divided themselves from the communion of the Church of England Whether they doe this as above premised by a bare Separation or by adding Violence and Sacriledge to it in pulling down and as much as lies in their power destroying what was established that they may set up their owne forme and way of Government and publick Worship I said divide themselves wilfully to lessen the guilt of those that follow the Schisme in the simplicity of their hearts deceived with the faire pretences of Religion and Purity which they could not at first see through but if they will not use their eyes and carefully look into their way if they will not use the best meanes they can for discovering the obliquity and danger of that way and so returne from it they lye under the same guilt with those they follow and will with them fall into the ditch Also we must note here the difference of the Case between us and them from that with the Church of Rome which will at first sight shew the impertinencie of the
Bishops strictly taken was communicated to Presbyters in common To the witnessing of this it is not possible to force Antiquity no not S. Jerome alone All that seems to speak any thing that way amounts but to this that they were used in the Government and things done with their advise and counsel that they were more used in Ages before St. Jerome than in his time and there was some reason for it as I said because by that time provision was made in most Cases by the many Canons and Constitutions of the Church §. XVI Of the ordination of our Bishops received from Rome There are some slight exceptions and allegations they make which are fit onely to take with the ignorant as that we had our Bishops from Rome but they desire to conform to other Reformed Churches which want Bishops They that cannot distinguish the Times several conditions and concernments of the Roman Church may be startled at every mention made of Rome but we are not ashamed to acknowledge we thence received Bishops from whence we received the Christian Faith both went together same Faith and same Government first in the British then in the English Conversion of this Nation and indeed in all Nations where Christianity was planted In the time then of Gregory the first Ordination of Bishops was here received with the Faith and ever since has been continued from hand to hand in this Nationall Church Of this seeming prejudice more largely Tr. 2 c. 4 5. But to return the Enquiry upon the New Pastors of the New Churches Classicall or Congregationall If it should be demanded Whence have they their Ordination They cannot give any reasonable account nor hold up their heads in the defence of their Pastors and Churches against any Romanist much lesse against any true English Protestant or obedient Son of this Church Challenging them of Schism in departing from their lawfull Governors and Pastors and taking to themselves a Power never given them As for the Reformed Churches which have not Bishops their defect is nothing comparable to the fulness of the whole Catholick Church to the practice of which they ought in all reason to conform Especially seeing those Churches had but tumultuary Reformations and no marvel then in they were not fully regular in their constitution Nor does the example of those Churches come home to the Case in hand there being a wide difference between Wanting or not having Bishops and casting them out when they have them Besides this all the forreign Churches approved Bishops in this Church and their most learned men acknowledged a want in their own excusing it as proceeding of necessity rather then choice as Tr. 2. c. 3. Nor can it justifie those that divide from us to say they joyn with other Reformed Churches for first they must answer for the Schism in forsaking the Communion of this Church and as their Case is not the same with that of the Churches abroad so cannot those Churches justly receive them having broken the Communion of this Therefore was it so carefully provided for in many Councils of the Ancient Church that none should travail to any forreign Church without his Communicatory letters to testifie his Communion with the Church he came from before he could be received to Communion in the Other And this to preserve Unity And thus much touching the Government §. XVII Exceptions in regard of the publick worship Now to the usuall exceptions made against the Communion of the Church of England in the point of Publick Worship the Liturgy administration of Sacraments Rites and Ceremonies used in this Church by reason whereof they could not as they pretend Worship God purely in Spirit and Truth This Assembling or meeting together and joyning in the publick divine Service especially in the participation of the Sacrament or Eucharist is indeed the witnessing and exercising of that Communion which is and must be held between all the Members of the same Church So they Act. 2. 42. in such duties and in breaking of bread So the Apostle calls earnestly for it Heb. 10. 25. and cap. 13. 15 and insinuates the Communion of them that are in the Chu by their eating and partaking of One Altar v. 10. the participation of that Altar being the Eucharist And according to this expression was the phrase of the ancient Church {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to be within or without the Altar i e. in or out of the Communion of the Church and to set up Altar against Altar i. e. a new Communion against the Communion of the Church Lastly the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. 17. One Bread One Body the joynt participation of One Bread shewes them to be of one Body holding the Unity of the Church and withall it shewes what a dangerous thing it is for any to abstein causlesly or to separate from the Communion of the Church of which they are Members But see in particular what they pretend as Causes of their Separation There is indeed nothing alledged now but has been before by the Contentious which have disturbed the peace of this Church from Time to Time and has been often at large and learnedly refuted and those that understand themselves being not swayed with faction and passion have received satisfaction but because my intent is still to afford some present satisfaction to them that are now troubled and more easie to be wrought upon I shall briefly and plainly speak to those exceptions against our Church-communion which usually prevaile with such persons First that our Liturgy or Common Prayer was taken out of the Masse-book This is of the same seasoning with that of our Bishops deriving their ordination from Rome fit onely to distast the weak who are offended with any thing that smells of Rome But as we said of Bishops we had them from that Church from which we received the Christian Faith and then when we received it so we say of our Liturgy it has no more of the Masse or publique service of the Romish Church than was received and continued from the Ancient Church and was agreeable to the Christian faith And to retein so much was according to that Christian Prudence and Charity used in our Reformation that would have no more opposition to them we were forced to differ from then must needs Whatever the prevailing Errors and Corruptions of After-times had brought into their Mass Reformation cast out And some of those learned Bishops and Clergy who were chief instruments of the Reformation and Composers of our Liturgy in that frame it had sealed the Reformation and their renouncing of Popish Errors with their Bloud and we challenge them to shew any such Popish corruption reteined in our Liturgy and might think it enough to oppose the judgement of other Reformed Churches approving it with which they might also rest satisfied if they did not too much value their own But more particularly Two