whereof Antioch was the chief City and therefore he cannot be denyed to have had many Presbyters under him and it may be several Diocesan Bishops which very probably were then established in so large a Country as that was The last example that I shall bring is that of Polycarpus of Smyrna He was one that had conversed with St John and other Apostles and as some say was made Bishop of Smyrna by St John whose scholar he was But Irenaeus who knew him and had heard him with great attention when he discoursed of many things that he had heard from St Johns own mouth and from others that had seen the Lord he tells us that he was made Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles and if so then this Polycarpus must be that Angel of the Church of Smyrna to whom St John writes one of his Epistles in the Revelation for that Book of holy Scripture was not written till after the death of the other Apostles And if he were made Bishop by them for which we have the undoubted testimony of one that knew him then he must be confessed to have been the Angel of that Church whom St John does so highly commend And that he had Authority over many Presbyters cannot be questioned because he collected the forementioned Epistles of Ignatius and amongst the rest that to his own Church of Smyrna and sent them to the Philippians in all which this power is most fully and evidently asserted I have made choice of these few Examples out of many more because they seem to me to be very clear and were all of them unquestionably within the times that the Apostles lived and therefore it may appear from hence that the Episcopal Government in the Church was a Constitution that was allowed and established by them But if this could not be proved yet it must be confessed that soon after it was universally received all over the Christian World for from about the middle of the second Century and so downwards there is not an instance of any Church that had not a Bishop under whose Government it was The Churches in the Roman Empire and those without it did most unanimously agree in this that they all owned the Episcopal superiority And this is a very strong argument that it was a matter of Apostolical institution For it is not otherwise conceiveable how it could be brought into such general use throughout the whole Catholick Church in so short a time If any should think that it might be determined in a General Council soon after the decease of the Apostles this were a good testimony that it were still Apostolical For else it would never have been decreed by those some of which in all probability must have seen and conversed with some of the Apostles and who were wont constantly to contend for such things as they had heard from them and to reject all other as illegal innovations But that there was never any such Council seems to be beyond dispute For it could not be assembled in a time when the Church was often in a state of persecution and always looked upon with a jealous eye by the Civil power which would not have suffered so great a number of Christian Ministers to meet together without giving them some great disturbance Or if we should suppose they might have been permitted to meet quietly yet that they did so there is not the least mention or intimation in any Ecclesiastical Writer and it cannot be conceived that they could have been silent in a matter so considerable as this when they have punctually recorded so many of far less importance But if any can be inclined to believe that the Episcopal superiority was a meer usurpation of one Presbyter in a Diocess over the rest without the decree of any Council it is exceeding strange that all the World should be imposed upon about the same time in the same manner without ever consulting one with another And who can imagine that the primitive Bishops who are acknowledged to have been such pious mortified and self-denying men could be guilty of an ambition to advance themselves above their brethren contrary to the rule of the Apostles especially when they were like to get nothing by their aspiring but to be the first that should burn at a stake in the market-place or be torn in pieces in the Amphitheater Or if we could suppose them to have been so wicked and foolish too it is not possible that they could have gained this new power without some considerable opposition Men are naturally very jealous of any incroachment that can be made upon their Rights And the Presbyters of those times may well be thought to have had as great a care of preserving their Liberty as we have now of ours It is not therefore at all credible that they should as it were with one consent put their necks quietly under this new invented Yoke and submit without struggling to the usurped power of one of their Equals and that this defection should be so universal that the antient Parity if there had been any such should not keep its possession in one Church in all Christendom And from hence it seems very plain that the Episcopal Government that was exercised by the Apostles and by others in their time and received in all Churches must be instituted by them and they certainly did not act in a Case of that high concernment to the perpetual peace and order of the Church without the particular command of our blessed Lord or the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost I have drawn together in as clear and plain a method as I could the substance of the Argument that may be made for the Power of the Bishop over many Presbyters And if to all this and whatever else may be alledged it should be thought reply enough to say that the Mystery of iniquity began to work in the Apostles days and that therefore we are not to be obliged by any Examples though never so old If this should be pleaded as I think it has been sometimes it may be answered thus That Episcopacy may be proved upon good grounds out of the Scripture it self I am sure far better than any other form of Government can pretend unto But then being explained by the practice of that and all following Ages it will put the thing beyond all controversy if the sacred Text alone should not be clear enough to convince us of it But if the Mystery of Iniquity should be still insisted on this can be no prejudice to our Cause unless it can be proved that such an Episcopacy as we plead for is that Mystery of Iniquity which is spoken of That it is not seems to me very evident Because I cannot think that the Mystery of Iniquity though it did work very early should so mightily prevail that in a very short time there should not be any Church any where that can be heard of that
and that they may be imposed upon the credulous and unwary multitude to promote some designs we are not yet acquainted with and that they will certainly serve no other but Popish purposes in the end I shall therefore shew as plainly as I can in this short treatise That the Constitution of the Church of England is such as need not give any matter of offence to the Conscience of any good Christian I shall then answer the most common and popular Objections that are wont to be made against this Constitution and the Clergy that conform unto it and lastly consider the means of Vnion that have been hitherto proposed And in discoursing of these things I shall keep my self as much as may be on the defensive side and strive only to ward off the blows that are made at us without endeavouring to wound the hand from whence they come And that I may if it be possible avoid giving the least offence I shall not so much as name the Authors from whence I take the Objections I endeavour to answer but make choice of such as I have observed to be most usually insisted on of late and some others which have been spread abroad to no other end that I can conceive but to incense the minds of men against us and raise animosities at such a time as the most calm and peaceable Counsels would be more seasonable and of greater advantage to the Protestant Cause And therefore I do here solemnly profess that I shall not say any thing out of partiality or any sinister respect whatsoever or any ill will I ever bore to any of our Non-Conforming brethren by some of which I have been most particularly obliged and I love them all as men and more especially as Christians But as a compassionate member of a poor despised Church that has been made the mark of common obloquy and scorn I shall declare her innocency as publickly as I can now that I take her to be in so much danger of ruine from the settled and deliberate malice of Popish Agents and the inconsiderate heat of other Adversaries that will dearly repent it when it is done if they should ever be so unfortunate as to succeed in such an attempt I cannot have so bad an opinion of all but that they may see what a Church some of them could wish destroyed I shall briefly lay open the Principal parts of the Constitution of it as it consists in Episcopacy Liturgy and Ecclesiastical Laws Of these I shall treat but very briefly and only to give what satisfaction I can to those that have not leisure or skill to peruse those many large and learned discourses that have been formerly and some very lately written upon these Subjects SECT II. Episcopacy or the Government of one Bishop over many Presbyters is a thing so very antient that it seems to have been propagated in the World by the first Planters of the Christian Religion That the Apostles had such an authority will not be denyed and that they communicated the like authority to others is no less evident in the Examples of Timothy and Titus and to affirm that this power of theirs over many Presbyters was only temporary and personal and that it was to cease as soon as the Apostles and those immediately constituted by them were dead is an assertion altogether precarious For the Scripture makes no mention of it and there is no reason to imagine that that Government which was once established in the Church should be afterwards altered unless it had been declared by them that did establish it that it was to continue but for such a period of time And if any without such a declaration shall maintain that the Apostolical and Episcopal power is now wholly ceased others upon the same principle may contend that the Presbyterial power is ceased too and as they say that every Presbyter is become a Bishop so these will plead that every Christian is to be a Presbyter though it might not be so at the first institution But besides that the Scripture does not acquaint us that this power was ever to cease the whole current of antiquity runs strongly against it The oldest and most Authentick writers of the Church do generally acknowledge the Episcopal Authority and look upon Bishops as the successours of the Apostles in their ordinary power and Jurisdiction And sometimes in their disputes with Hereticks they appeal to the Records that were then extant to shew how they succeeded one another from the Apostles down to their own times And this is enough to prove what opinion they had of the Original and continuance of the Episcopal power But if we wanted these testimonies and were not able to derive the succession so high as we can yet this is confessed by the most zealous and learned opposers of Episcopal Government that such Bishops as we contend for were universally allowed very soon after the decease of the Apostles And I do not think that any one can name one Church that had not a Bishop in it in those first and purest ages of Christianity and when other corruptions crept in they were not so great and bold as to attempt the subversion of that truly Primitive Government And when some in these latter times have endeavoured to contrive another kind of Ecclesiastical order they seem to have been forced upon it rather out of necessity than choice They did not so much prefer their own model before the antient one but when they could not have this they were fain to content themselves with that They that framed and promoted the Discipline of Geneva the most have spoken very honourably of the English Episcopacy And many learned Men that have lived quietly under that Constitution have thought ours the more desirable and there have been none that I know of beyond the Seas but that have readily acknowledged that it might at least be allowed So far have they been from calling it Popish or Anti-Christian that is a Complement that none but a disobedient Son could bestow upon so good a Mother But we need not come so low as these latter ages to seek for Authorities to confirm the Episcopal Jurisdicttion it was the Government that was always owned and exercised amongst the first Christians And they were wont to settle their Bishops in places of the greatest confluence in Cities whither the people did usually resort from the neighbouring Villages and lesser Towns for the convenience of Trade and administration of Justice And because in every Province there was one Capital City or Metropolis where the chief Secular Magistrate had his ordinary residence they had there a Bishop which was first called a Metropolitan and afterwards an Archbishop who had an authority over the several Bishops within the whole Province And in some parts of the Roman Empire there were Bishops that were stiled Patriarchs who had a certain Superiority over the Metropolitans themselves The order that was observed amongst
them seems to be this The inferiour City had a Bishop who with the assistance of a number of Presbyters under him had the Ecclesiastical care of the Territory that belonged to his City in the chief City was a Metropolitan or Archbishop and without him there were some things that were not to be done by the other Bishops and in some parts there were Patriarchs that had the inspection of divers Provinces And herein the Ecclesiastical honour followed the Civil and in those places where the secular Governour had the greatest power the Authority of the Bishop was increased in some degree proportionable to that And this indeed and not his being the pretended Vicar of Christ or the successor of S. Peter is the true reason of all the preheminence that the Bishop of Rome could ever lay claim unto He was Bishop of the Capital City of the Empire and upon that account might have the honour of precedency but was never acknowledged to be the Universal Pastor that had a power of commanding the whole Catholick Church He had the same Authority and no more within his own Precincts as other Patriarchs and Metropolitans had in theirs What ever the Priviledges of the Bishop of Rome were it is well known that the Bishop of Constantinople had the same conferred upon him by the decree of several Councils and the reason that is given for it is this because it was new Rome and an Imperial City as well as the old But it is clear that this distinction I have been speaking of is very antient We find mention of a Patriarch very probably of Alexandria in an Epistle of the Emperour Adrian which must be written within about a hundred years after the passion of our Saviour In the first general Council at Nice the power of Metropolitans was confirmed and then accounted by the Fathers assembled there amongst the antient customs of the Church So that it is evident what the judgement of Antiquity was in the case of Episcopacy they did not only allow of the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters but gave the Metropolitan some power over the other Bishops which was very agreeable to the form of Government that was exercised in the time of the Apostles Now all the Christians in the World make up but one Catholick Church and the several portions and subdivisions of that whether smaller or greater have the same name and are called Churches as the whole is Thus we may read of the Eastern Western or African Church which did consist of divers Provinces and of the Church of Hierusalem Antioch or Corinth which were Episcopal or Metropolitical Churches and thus every particular assembly of Christians meeting orderly together for the worship of God may be called a Church For in homogeneous bodies where the nature of all the parts is the same they do properly take the same denomination with the whole thus every Bucket or drop that is of it is water as well as the Ocean And thus have all Christians spoken of Churches without any scruple in all ages But that there are no Churches but Congregational only is an opinion which I take to be exceeding modern And I will endeavour to make it appear in the instances of Jerusalem and Corinth that it was otherwise in the most Primitive times The Christian Religion by the blessing of God spread it self so fast at Jerusalem that within a short time after the miraculous descent of the holy Ghost we find that many of them which heard the word believed and the number of the men was about five thousand And soon after that Believers were the more added to the Lord multitudes both of men and women And again the word of God increased and the number of the Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly and a great company of the Priests were obedient to the faith Now if we consider these expressions and the mighty numbers that were wont to be converted by the Apostles preaching we may well conceive that by this time they might be augmented from five to ten or twelve thousand or it may be more But suppose them not to amount to above seven or eight thousand which is the least that can be reasonably imagined these how many soever there were of them did all make but one Church but it cannot be thought that they met all in the same place and that they made but one single Congregation For if there were no other Preachers there besides them yet the Apostles were all at Jerusalem at that time and then one of them must have gathered a Church but the rest could have none if it be supposed to have been but one Congregation But not to insist upon this If they were but one Congregation in what place could they possibly meet together for the publick exercise of their Religion If hated and persecuted as they were they durst have adventured upon erecting of a building capacious enough for so vast a multitude they had not yet done it When they assembled themselves it was in some private house and commonly in an upper room and what beams and rafters were able to bear them or what Palace had a Hall large enough to contain such huge numbers as must flock together upon their solemn times of Worship Or if these difficulties were removed the unbelieving Jews were their sworn and most implacable enemies and would not have suffered so many of them to meet without the most violent opposition and setting the whole City in an uproar against them Or if their malice could the vigilancy of the Roman Government would never have indured it They were extreamly jealous of every great and unusual concourse of people and would be more so in a Nation that had not been very long conquered and accustomed to the yoke especially one so stubborn and rebellious and hated of all the world as the Jewish was And their jealousie would have been increased when they had found that this was to be a frequent stated meeting for the exercise of a strange Religion as the Christian was then accounted For though they were very indulgent to all their conquests in allowing them the free use of the old Religion of their Country they were very fearful and cautious of admitting any new ones And these considerations being laid together it seems to me absolutely incredible that the Church of Jerusalem should consist but of one particular assembly For when the Christians there were so exceedingly multiplied why should we not think that they had so much prudence as to part themselves into several Congregations when it is a thing confessed to be allowable and sometimes necessary and there were Apostles and Teachers ready to instruct and edify them all and they might do it with so much greater convenience and security And that they did so besides the reasons already alledged the Text seems to intimate plainly enough And daily in the Temple and in every house that is
from house to house as the same phrase is before translated or in some houses they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. They went to the Temple whither the unconverted Jews did resort at the hours of prayer and preached Christ publickly to them there and at other times they disposed themselves into the private houses of some of them that did believe and there they farther instructed and confirmed those that had already received the Christian Faith And besides this there is mention made of their breaking Bread from house to house and if by breaking Bread we are to understand the participation of the holy Eucharist as I think will not be denyed then it is clear from hence that they did daily meet in several houses to hear the word Preached and to pray and receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and that therefore the Church of Jerusalem had in it at that time divers distinct Congregations very probably as many as there were Apostles at the least if no more The other instance which I shall give in those Apostolical times of a Church that was not meerly Congregational is that of Corinth Clement then Bishop of Rome writing to that Church upon occasion of a great difference that was amongst them begins his Epistle thus The Church of God dwelling in and about Rome to the Church of God dwelling in and about Corinth I think the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be so translated here to comprehend those that dwelt in the Territory that lay round about it as well as those that lived within the City itself because that this Epistle was written to those that S. Paul wrote his and he wrote his not only to those that were of the City of Corinth but to all the Saints which were in all Achaia and therefore this of Clement must be written likewise to all the Saints in all Achaia whereof Corinth was the Metropolis and these are made but one Church by him that was personally known to S. Paul and whom he calls his fellow-labourer And this Church being of so great extent must consist of many Congregations for he that can believe that there was but one Congregation of Christians in all Achaia may be perswaded in time that there were no more in all Greece If either of these instances will hold good it will sufficiently prove that all Churches in those first times were not Congregational I shall now make it farther appear that there were Bishops then that had the rule over many Presbyters and of this I shall give a few Examples such as I think may be the most convincing I begin with S. James that is called the Brother of our Lord his near Kinsman to be sure he was whatever the particular relation might be He was not of the number of the twelve Apostles but yet was preferred by them to be the first Bishop of Jerusalem as all Ecclesiastical Writers that mention him do agree and there are several passages of Scripture that may serve to confirm their Authority which otherwise we have no reason to question For we find him generally residing at Jerusalem and sometimes with the Brethren or Elders about him if there happened any matter of importance to the Church it was communicated to him When the Angel had delivered S. Peter out of prison he bid them to whom he first came go shew these things to James and to the Brethren When S. Paul was returned to Jerusalem the very next day after his arrival he gives him an account of the success of his Ministry among the Gentiles For he and they that were with him went in unto James and all the Elders were present The Elders or Presbyters were there but S. Paul went in unto James their Bishop and applyed himself more particularly to him In the first Council that ever was held in the Christian Church concerning the great controversie as it was then esteemed of Circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses after much disputing and debate upon the question S. Peter stood up and gave his opinion and when some other matters had been discoursed S. James at last resumes the argument again and determines as it were in a Judiciary manner Wherefore my sentence is Which words are observed to carry more of Authority than those which S. Peter had used before And it became S. James so to speak as being then within his own Diocess And it is farther taken notice of that S. Paul mentioning James Cephas and John puts James before the other two though principal Apostles because he was speaking of things that were transacted at Jerusalem where James had the Episcopal Jurisdiction And these probabilities if they be no more joyned with the unanimous consent of Antiquity may convince us that James governed the Church of Jerusalem as their Bishop in which there were certainly many Presbyters and it cannot be doubted but that there were divers Congregations of Believers which they did severally edify and confirm in the Christian Faith Another example of such a Bishop is Ignatius of Antioch who is said by some to have been the little Child that our Saviour took up in his arms and blessed but though 't is most likely he was not the Child yet for his age he might have been for he was very old when he suffered Martyrdom which was but about seventy four years after the Death of our Lord. And he saw our Lord in the Flesh after his Resurrection as St. Jerom translates his words but certainly he expresses as much assurance of the thing as if he had seen it with his own eyes This holy and Apostolical man is accounted the second Bishop of Antioch after S. Peter had left that place he continued some considerable time there and then was sent from thence to Rome to be torn in pieces by wild Beasts In that long and tedious journey he wrote Epistles to several Churches and amongst them to three of those to whom S. John had written in the beginning of his Revelation about twelve years before and in these he declares the Superiority and power of Bishops over Presbyters so plainly and urges it so frequently and passionately that they that will not allow of such a power have no greater Argument than this to prove that those Epistles are not genuine But I think this will not now be denyed since it has been lately so clearly demonstrated by a Reverend Prelate of this Nation in a most learned and accurate Treatise written purposely on this Subject In these Epistles he shews a great concern and desires their prayers for the Church in Syria and in one place he calls himself the Bishop not of Antioch but of Syria And the particular care that he often expresses of the whole Church of Syria and the title he takes of being their Bishop do very probably prove that he was Metropolitan of that Province
it that there may some things happen in the Church which may lawfully be set in order that are not expresly determined in Scripture For such are those here mentioned which if they are any where determined it must be in the second Epistle to the Corinthians but there it cannot be for besides that it would be difficult to shew the place where it is done that second Epistle was written not long after the first before the holy Pen-man of it had gotten any leisure to come amongst them but these cases were reserved till then when I come He forbore to write any thing of them because he intended to decide them when he should be personally present But what he did then we have nothing in the sacred writings that acquaints us and therefore it seems that some things may be determined which are not entred into those holy records This is a matter that has been always esteemed so very plain that it was never made a controvesie in former ages But of late some have been exceeding jealous of it because as they conceive it seems to derogate from the great Protestant Doctrine of the fulness and sufficiency of the Scriptures If I could see any argument to perswade me that it did so indeed I should be easily induced to reject it with as much indignation as any of those that do contend the most zealously against it But we do readily acknowledge that the Holy Scripture does contain all things necessary to Salvation that nothing is to be received as an article of Faith that is not there clearly revealed that nothing is to be imposed as a duty in it self acceptable unto God which may not be manifestly proved from thence that nothing is to be accounted an essential part of divine Worship which is not there expresly commanded All that we attribute to our Governours is only a Power of determining about Indifferent things which the word of God has not determined and these we hold to have no other influence upon our future happiness or misery but only as we take obedience to superiours to be our duty and that we ought not obstinately to oppose them in such things as we might have innocently done if they had not been prescribed by their Authority Where the Scripture has forbidden or commanded any thing as it has whatever is necessary there all the Powers upon earth are bound to submit Where the Scripture is silent as it is in many matters of lesser moment there we are obliged to comply with the injunctions of a lawful Power So that the sufficiency of the Scripture may be very consistent with the making of certain Rules for external order and decency But some have thought that if we should allow any Power in the Church of imposing such things we might by degrees have so many of them imposed as might be extreamly prejudicial to the state of Religion and that true Piety might be stifled and buried as it were under the rubbish of a huge number of needless Ceremonies And therefore they think that no such Power ought to be admitted But all that can be proved by this way of reasoning will amount but to thus much that such a Power may possibly be abused but it is not well argued from the abuse of a Power to the nullity of it It has been always supposed that Parliaments had a Power of granting mony upon the Subject But if any should say they cannot tell but that they may in time grant away their whole Estates and therefore should conceive that they could not grant any thing at all such a fond surmize would never be thought to have force enough to deprive them of their undoubted right But in Church Power as it is now bounded there cannot be any just apprehensions of such an excess as is pretended for besides the restraint that common prudence must lay upon those that have the management of it it is limited on the one hand by the Scripture that it cannot command any thing contrary unto that and on the other by the Civil Authority whose approbation will be requisite to give a validity to every order of the Church And here then is a sufficient check to prevent all exorbitancies that can be feared If any thing be imposed that is not confirmed by the Civil Power it will not be thought obliging if any thing be prescribed that is contrary to Scripture it most not be obeyed But if any Constitutions should be made which are only esteemed Burdensome by reason of their number but are not otherwise unlawful the fault will be in those that imposed them and not in those that submit unto them This is a thing that has been antiently complained of but neither those that made the complaint did separate from the Church themselves nor perswade others to do it upon that account For where the Imposition is really Burdensome they are to be blamed that laid it on but they that quietly bear it will make their obedience the more acceptable by adding patience and humility unto it But this objection cannot be made in our particular Case the injunctions of the Church of England are for their nature innocent and for their number not many And if they should be judged to be unlawfully imposed because they may be excessively multiplied I think there is no occasion now for such a fear However it will be time enough to apply the remedy when we feel the distemper growing upon us but it is always dangerous tampering with Physick when we find our selves in perfect health Every extravagant jealousie of what may happen hereafter ought not to shake what is well established at the present For if the contrary principle should be allowed it were impossible for any Church or State in the World ever to injoy one minutes repose Our Church then is so far very blameless that has admitted of a Power of making some Laws for the more orderly conduct of Ecclesiastical affairs since it is a thing very reasonable in it self very agreeable to the practice of all ages and very consonant to the rules of Scripture from whose fulness it does not detract neither can the possibility of its being abused make it wholly null I have hitherto indeavoured to lay together the summ of what I conceive may not be impertinently urged in defence of the Church of England as to the three principal parts of her Constitution Episcopacy Liturgy and Ecclesiastical Laws All which as they are here established are agreeable to the practice of the best Churches consonant to the holy Scriptures and may therefore be conformed unto with a good Conscience SECT V. I shall now give some answer to several objections that have been made against her especially those that I have observed to be the most popular and which have raised the strongest prejudice in the minds of such as do not approve of our present establishment And these are of two sorts some that are made against the Constitution
Gift of the Spirit by which they have matter and expressions suggested unto them in the performance of that duty It must first be made appear that they have indeed such a Gift before the Exercise of it can be proved to be necessary Or granting that they had this Gift it is very evident that it might be restrained for the preventing of disorder and great inconveniencies in the Church which might easily arise upon the unlimited Exercise of it But the moderation of the Church of England may put an end to this dispute for in Pulpit Prayer some liberty of expression has been generally taken and seems to be allowed by the Canon and will not be condemned in any that know how to make a prudent and sober use of it And since our prescribed Form does not exclude all exercise of mens private Gifts it is not reasonable that the pretence of these Gifts should deprive the Church of the great advantages of such a Form What has been sometimes confidently spoken and as easily believed by credulous men concerning Praying with the Spirit I shall not mention because I think it will not now be insisted on since it is manifest from the Text that that phrase imports no more but only Praying in an unknown tongue which was a Gift that some had in those first times but cannot be applyed to our present controversie I shall not weigh the conveniencies and inconveniencies that may be imagined on either hand though I suppose the advantage might lye on our side Neither shall I examine the particular exceptions against the Liturgy established amongst us I do not judge any of them material enough to make us break the peace of the Church for their sakes or to justifie our living in an open and constant contempt of Authority But if any thing in it can be made appear to be repugnant to the word of God I am very sure that the wisdom and piety of our Governours would never rest till it were altered And therefore having indeavoured to shew that set Forms of â—â—ayer may be lawfully used I think the Church of England cannot be blamed for having injoyned the use of them I shall add nothing farther here but only desire those that do approve of the publick way of Worship now received amongst us that they would be serious and affectionate at their devotions and very careful that they do not discredit their profâ—â—â—â—on by a loose and unholy life For those that cannoâ— yet be perswaded to join with us I would take leave to advise them that they would be very cautious how they censure or despise those that do And for such as do not altogether like it but yet can allow themselves to come sometimes to our assemblies I would earnestly beg them to give God their hearts while they are there and not sit as if they were wholly unconcerned in the petitions that are putting up much less to esteem it a piece of Religion to behave themselves irreverently during the time of divine Service SECT IV. The last thing in the Church of England which I shall mention is concerning Ecclesiastical Laws By these we understand such Rules and Constitutions as not being contrary to the word of God may be made for the better regulating of our external Worship and the more orderly administration of Discipline in matters not particularly determined in the Holy Scripture And in places where the State is not Christian the Authority of the Church alone is sufficient for the perfect establishment of such Laws but where Christianity is the received Religion of the Country they are to be confirmed by the concurrence of the Civil Power before they can have their full obligation But it cannot well be questioned but that there is a Power in the Church of making such Constitutions as these For the Church is a Society of Christians and therefore there must be some Authority in it to govern the several members of which it is composed or else it would be immediately dissolved and brought to confusion And if there be such an Authority then it may command us in those things that are not forbidden in the Written Word For these are in themselves indifferent and may be injoined by Authority and done by us without any Sin For our Governors are no more forbidden to command them than we are to do them and if they do command them it cannot be conceived that the command of a Lawful Power should make that Unlawful which was not so before it was commanded The Church in all ages has assumed such a Power and was never that I remember condemned for the exercise of it In the famous Council held at Jerusalem where many of the Apostles were present three of the four things which they decreed to be observed were absolutely indifferent upon the Christian Principles and were nothing but prudential determinations which the necessity of the times seemed to require that they might not give too great a Scandal to the converted Jews who still retained a mighty veneration for their antient Law nor hinder others of that Nation from imbracing the Faith which was then newly published in the World And if such things were determined by the Apostles their example may be thought a good plea to justifie those that succeeded them in the Government of the Church if they do no more than what must be confessed to have been done by them in the like cases If any should imagine that this power in things indifferent was peculiar unto them and such a one as was not to be derived upon their successors It is more I believe than can be proved and we have this strong presumption against it We know that there were others besides them concerned in the determinations of that Council St James that gave the definitive sentence was none of the twelve and Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this question and upon the result of the debate they are called The Decrees that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders The other Elders were to be consulted and gave their voices in the matter of that controversie as well as the Apostles so that these Decrees were not made by any Power that was proper and personally inherent only in them but by such a one as was common to them with the other Elders and therefore must be a part of their ordinary Jurisdiction which was always to continue in the Church They were indeed divinely inspired but they cannot be more safely followed than in those things in which we know them to have been guided by the Holy Ghost Thus I am sure the primitive Christians always understood it They called Councils and made Canons and had several usages which they thought were to be observed though they were not expresly to be found in the Scripture And when they injoined any thing of this nature they did not look upon themselves as guilty of usurping a Power
which God had not given them and the rest which had no suffrages in the Case willingly obeyed and esteemed themselves bound to submit to their injunctions And when any controversie happened to arise in such matters the question was not whether the Church had any such Authority to command but whether the thing commanded were really indifferent or not So it was in that famous dispute about the time of keeping of Easter which caused so much dissention in the first ages of Christianity they did not contend against the Power of the Church to determine things indifferent but both sides supposed themselves to be obliged by an Apostolical tradition from which they thought it unlawful to depart But where they judged the matter not to be contrary to some unalterable rule they never opposed the commands of their Governours And the Protestant Churches have been all of the same opinion They have all made some Ecclesiastical Laws for external order and discipline to which they require obedience from all of their own Communion though these particular Laws are not expressed in the word of God provided they be not repugnant unto it And I think our dissenting Brethren themselves do all of them make use of such a Power and indeed I do not see how it can be otherwise For they will all severally acknowledge that there must be some Power amongst them to which every person that joins with their Assemblies ought to be subject in all acts of Discipline and these not being particularly determined in the Scriptures must be determined by this Power or else their Discipline cannot be put into practice And if it may be thus determined once it may be so again and again and so as often as the like cases shall occur and therefore it may be passed into a Law or Rule by which all matters of the same nature may be constantly decided for the future And a collection of many such Laws would be so far equivalent to a Book of Canons that it would contain divers Rules and determinations of things which the Scripture had not particularly determined If this be not granted that some such Rules may be established then all determinations not made in Scripture which will be very many must be left to the discretion of those that have the Church Authority in their hands And then the only difference in this matter betwixt them and us will be this that we shall be governed by known and standing Laws and they by an uncertain Arbitrary Power But since where any Power is allowed some such determinations must be made in the one way or the other it seems clear that they which do blame the Church of England for admitting Ecclesiastical Laws do not only condemn the Apostolical practice and all Churches both antient and modern but themselves too Besides this Power we are now discoursing of seems to have so clear a foundation in Scripture that it cannot well be disputed The Apostle writing to the Hebrews exhorts them thus Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves If they were bound to obey and submit then certainly their Guides or Rulers had Authority to command And if they might command in any thing without doubt they might do it in things that are not forbidden in the Word of God For these are not sinful in themselves neither can they be made so by being injoined by our Superiors unless obedience must be esteemed a Sin But how can that be when we are here expresly commanded to obey Another place there is which has been always urged to this purpose and never yet I think received any full and satisfactory answer Let all things be done decently and in order This is spoken upon occasion of some irregular proceedings there had been in their Religious assemblies at Corinth and it is laid down as a rule and expedient whereby they might avoid the like inconveniencies for the future And that it was to be universally obliging may appear from the grand reason of it which we find mentioned a little before in the same chapter God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace and that not in this or the other particular Church not for this or that time but in all Churches of the Saints in all places and all ages of the World whatsoever And then the precept it self is to be extended to all things whatever they be that are done in the Church they must be done decently and in order But it is not any where particularly expressed what is orderly and decent and if it may not now or at any time be determined what is so then this great Rule in which all Churches of the Saints are concerned would be wholly void and of no effect as to any use that could possibly be made of it For though we should acknowledge our selves obliged to do all things decently and in order as we must yet if it should be supposed that we may not presume to determine of this where the Scripture is silent as here it is we could never make any practical application of this Apostolical command to our own circumstances and so it would be all one unto us as if we had never received it But if it may be determined then it must be done either by publick Authority or else according to every mans private judgement If the former be granted it is that which we contend for that Ecclesiastical Laws may be made for the decent and orderly administration of all things in the Church If the latter be allowed then every one may determine for himself and then considering the strange variety of fancies that there are especially in matters of decency we should scarce find two it may be in a thousand that would be brought to agree in the same opinion and by consequence this general Canon of the Apostles that was intended for the preservation of good order among Christians would occasion the most absolute confusion that can be imagined And for the avoiding of this the determining what is decent and orderly must be left to our Governours and it will be our duty to submit to what they shall injoin in such matters as these I shall name one passage more which may give some farther light and confirmation unto this it is some chapters before where St Paul tells the Corinthians thus The rest will I set in order when I come Here it is very obvious to be taken notice of that there were some things to be regulated which he should leave undecided in this Epistle but designed to take care about them at his being at Corinth whither he intended to go the first convenient opportunity Now these things 't is very probable he did set in order afterwards as he had promised to do but we do not know either what they were or in what manner he disposed them but whatever they were or however he determined them thus much may be reasonably gathered from
it self and others against the Clergy that conform unto it I will a little examine a few of either kind And for those of the first kind one is that in our Church the People are denyed the liberty of choosing their own Pastors to which some of our dissenting Brethren do conceive that they have always had an inherent Right And besides an example or two they think they can find in the Scripture they suppose they have evident testimonies out of Antiquity to confirm this practice of popular Election And it is true the Peoples approbation has been always thought so far necessary that when hands were to be laid upon any for their admission into any sacred function if they knew them to be of a loose and scandalous conversation they might object it and by that means hinder their promotion And so much is still retained amongst us But farther it will not be denyed but that in some places very antiently the Bishop of the Diocess was chosen or nominated by the people of the City where he commonly resided But it does not appear that the several Presbyters that might be appointed to certain Cures equivalent to our Parochial Churches were ever wont to be chosen by the particular Congregations upon which they did attend They were appointed by the Bishop whose office it was to take care of the whole Diocess and to see that these Presbyters were not negligent in discharging the trust that was reposed in them They were the Diocesan Bishops that were sometimes chosen by the people and they that insist stiffly upon this priviledge must acknowledge the Antiquity of these or else they must declare themselves to be very partial whilst they make use of so much of the testimony only as they think makes for them in the matter of choice and reject or overlook the rest that is clearly against them in the question about such an Episcopacy But however it cannot be proved that this custom of the peoples choice was ever universally received and where it was it often created such disturbances that the secular Power was quickly forced to interpose and nominate the Bishop for the preservation of the publick Peace And it was not long before this liberty of choice was wholly laid aside by the Imperial and Canon Laws Which is a clear proof that whatever it were it was looked upon then but as a voluntary concession of their Governours and not any inherent and unalterable Right And therefore there can be no necessity either that it should be set up where it never was or restored again where it has been discontinued for so many ages And there is no doubt but that if it were generally practised in this nation it would infalliby produce such animosities and confusion that the People would soon grow weary of it themselves and desire to be devested of such an uneasie Power and that things might be let alone to run quietly in the old channel But because those that have been pleased to use this argument against our Church are not at all to be prevailed upon by the most pregnant Examples of antient times in other cases they ought not if they could to make any advantage of them in this Let us see then what grounds they have in the Scripture for the Peoples choice which is the only rule by which all sides must confess themselves to be equally bound And here I cannot tell that there is any positive command that was ever urged and I know but of two Examples that have been alledged for it and I will briefly consider them both The one is in the Peoples choice of the seven Deacons And supposing that they had an original Right of choosing these this will not amount to a sufficient proof that they had therefore a right of choosing their Pastors The admitting them to name the persons that were to serve in an inferiour Office does not imply that they are therefore intrusted with the choice of those that are to be advanced to a greater And there was particular reason why the Deacons should be chosen by them they were to be the dispensers of the mony that was collected for the use of the poor and the people might be incouraged to give more liberally and all occasion of murmuring for the future might be taken away when the publick charity was distributed by persons of known integrity and such as they themselves had chosen So that this instance does not seem fully to reach the purpose I shall therefore inquire into the other It is where Paul and Barnabas are said to have Ordained them Elders in every Church A man would wonder how the Peoples Power of choosing their Pastors should ever be proved from this place But it is attempted to be done by a Critical observation upon the Greek word which is here rendered ordained For it did first signify a popular way of election by majority of voices which was discerned by lifting up of hands And therefore some have imagined that these Elders were ordained in the Churches by their election and suffrage But this is more than can be manifestly proved from the word For though the original signification of it were what I mentioned but now yet afterwards it began to be used promiscuously for the appointing of any one to an office whether it were by a popular choice or by the Authority of a single person And therefore since this act of Ordination or appointment to office denoted by the Greek word here used is many times applyed to the Authoritative proceedings of particular men without any regard to the suffrages of the People and since it is here attributed to Paul and Barnabas and not to the multitude of believers it does not appear from this place that the whole Community had or rather it is evident that they had not any hand in the appointment of these Elders For I do not believe that one passage can be produced out of any good Author where the Magistrate or other Superiour issaid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or thus to ordain when the choice or appointment of the Officer was in the People and therefore when Paul and Barnabas are here said to have ordained if we should suppose that the voices of the multitude are implyed in this expression it would be an acception of the word for which we have not any example But if we should yield that by an unheard of straining of the Phrase here we might possibly find some little colour for the Peoples choice of their Pastors it could yet be no more than a favourable concession made unto them upon that occasion For that the suffrages of the multitude were not always necessary to the constituting of Elders seems very plain from those words of St Paul For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee Here Titus is intrusted with a power
of ordaining Elders and other matters relating to the better regulation of Church affairs And he was not chosen to this Office by the people but appointed unto it by St Paul and when he had thus received this Authority from him we cannot think that he was to depend upon the People in the exercise of it For he alone is commissioned to ordain Elders without any mention of the suffrages of the multitude And there cannot be the least shadow of a conjecture framed to the contrary from the nice consideration of the word For that which is here translated Ordain is not the same with that which is used in the other place for it signifies plainly to constitute place or set up without any intimation of lifting up of hands or any way of popular Election whatsoever So that we have neither precept not Example in the Scripture for the Peoples right to the choice of their Pastors But if it should be still urged against us that the Church of England is to be condemned for want of such a free choice as may be always pretended but I believe will never be proved necessary then to this we do reply that this freedom of choice is in some sort retained in our Church for all the Ministers in it are appointed according to the known Laws of this Land and to these every one of us by our representatives have at least virtually given our consent and a virtual consent in this case is allowed to be sufficient by some of the ablest Patrons of the People's right of Election SECT VI. But it is objected farther that the want of Discipline in our parochial Churches is a very great and unsufferable defect But there is no cause given for such an exception for every Minister has the approbation of those that are to be admitted and is impowered to reject scandalous offenders from the Holy Communion And these are certainly parts of Discipline which with the other acts of the Ministerial office shew that there is some order and Government in our parochial Assemblies If this should not be esteemed enough because in them we cannot inflict the highest kind of Ecclesiastical censures we do not conceive that there is any necessity that such a power should be granted unto them since it is abundantly supplyed by the Authority of the Diocesan which reaches every particular Church in the whole Jurisdiction And it would be as unreasonable to think that there is no Discipline in a Parish because there are some acts of it which cannot be there performed as it would be for the inhabitants of a village or hamlet to complain that they were under no Government because they had not the Power of life and death amongst themselves for the defects of the one are made up by the power of the Diocesan Church and those of the other by that of the Commonwealth whereof they are respective parts I do not find that our Saviour or his Apostles have made it necessary that all offences should be finally censured by the sole Power of that Congregation where they were committed This were to set up an uncontroulable Authority in every private Assembly and every twenty or thirty men or it may be fewer that should be pleased to enter into Covenant together and call themselves a Church as some contend they may would be ipso facto invested with a Power of determining all matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance without Appeal which is more than most Papists will allow to the Bishop of Rome What foundation there is for the erecting such a boundless power I cannot tell neither can I guess what good use is ever like to be made of it if it should be granted but this I know that the Church of England which is a society of Christians imbodied under certain Laws and Governours cannot be accused for want of Discipline if she does not permit the full exercise of it in our parochial Churches For in all Communities every member is influenced and directed by the good Constitution of the whole Body and what cannot be legally judged in a lower may be reserved for the decision of a superiour Court SECT VII But some are still dissatisfied with the Church of England because they imagine it is not a pure Church and if they have an opportunity of joining with another which they can suppose to be purer they think themselves obliged to do it For the resolution of this doubt these few things may be considered What it is that makes a pure Church Whether the Church of England be such a one Whether we are always bound to join with that Church which we conceive to be the most pure Now that Church questionless may be said to be pure whose doctrine is consonant to the word of God where the Sacraments are duly administred where all the fundamental Articles of our Faith are publickly imbraced where men are not required to profess or to do any thing that is contrary to the Rule of the Holy Gospel Such a Church cannot be denyed to be Pure For here is not the mixture of any unclean thing that can taint it with the least imaginable impurity or impress any blot or stain upon it Then that the Church of England is thus pure it will not be difficult to shew before any impartial Judge For what Doctrine does she teach that is not to be found in the Holy Scriptures What Sacrament does she deprive the people of either in the whole or in part What Article of our Belief is it that she rejects What is it that is repugnant to the Laws of Christ which she obliges us either to believe or practise Does she tell us that the Elements in the Holy Encharist are transubstantiated by a few Syllables pronounced by him that Officiates Does she teach us to adore Saints and Images and to pray for the Dead Does she cheat the people with forged Miracles and impose upon their credulity with foppish Legends Does she kindle an imaginary Purgatory fire in the other world that she may set up a thriving trade for Indulgences in this Can she be accused of these corruptions or a hundred more that might be named Is not her Doctrine confessed to be pure And is not her Discipline such at least as is not forbidden And if she be sound in both these I do not discern from what other fountains any Impurity can be derived upon Her And for what has been commonly excepted concerning the use of some external and Indifferent things she cannot possibly contract any thing of pollution from these for if they do not defile a man much less will they be able to corrupt a Church But though the Church of England should be proved and granted to be a pure Church yet we are still to inquire Whether if we can find some other which we esteem to be more pure we are not bound to join with that And to this it may be answered that when a Church is so