A Compendious DISCOURSE UPON THE CASE As it stands between the Church of England and of Rome on the one hand and again between the same Church of England and those Congregations which have divided from it on the other hand TOGETHER WITH The Treatise of the Division of the English Church and the Romish upon the REFORMATION Enlarged with some Explicatory Additionalls By H. F. D.D. LONDON Printed by J. G. for R. Royston at the Anstel in Ivy-lane 1655. To the READER BE pleased to understand that for amending not a few faults escaped in the first Edition of the Treatise touching The Division of the English and Romish Church upon the Reformation the Printer intended a second In order to which the Corrections were sent up to him with some explicatory Additionalls but other more necessary imployments intervening caused him to lay it aside and when I thought he had forgotten it and was willing he should doe so he lets me know he had reprinted some sheets of it I did not like he should after almost two years suppression send it abroad with no more advantage it came therefore into my minde to draw up the Case into a more compendious and methodicall Discourse and to adde the other part of the Case as it stands betweene us and those that have divided from us still making references to the like points and passages as they lye scattered in the Two Treatises before printed This of the Division c. and that other of Certain considerations touching this Church What is here done is intended and accordingly contrived with such brevity and plainnesse as the Cause would well permit for satisfaction of those who not acquainted with large Controversies are ready to receive the instruction given them and being still in the Vnity and Communion of this Chu are willing to continue therein notwithstanding the Temptations on both sides or else following the seduction of the one side or the other Romish or Sectarian in the simplicity of their hearts are not unwilling to return upon discovery of the Error and danger of their Way Which that they may see I pray God in time to open their Eyes ERRATA PAge 15. l. 28. adde former p. 24. l. 11. after serving God adde Rom. 12. 1. p. 28. l. 15. for or Western r. and Western l. 25. after of which tima adde i. e. of the four first generall Councels p. 31. l. 20. for Christ alwayes r. and alwayes p. 45. l. 27. after yet adde they think p. 49. l. 13. for Act r. Article p. 54. l. 6. for of r. or p. 87. ult. for preserving r. preventing p. 111. 16. for understanding r. undervaluing p. 122. l. 25. for know r. knew p. 126. l. 11. for that may r. that they may p. 129. l. 25. for his r. their p. 136. l. 15. for the old Prophet r. old Prophets p. 144. for cares r. jarres A Compendious Discourse upon the case as it stands between the Church of England and of Rome on the one side And again between the same Church of England and those who have divided from it on the other §. I. The Church of England I Need not premise any thing for distinguishing the three Parties concerned in this case They are too much at odds and their differences too many and notorious yet lest there be a mistake in Names because all the Sects in this Nation call themselves Churches and Churches of England therefore by the Church of England is understood the Church of Christ in this Land established upon the Reformation holding out her Doctrine and Government in the 39. Articles her Liturgy and Publick Divine Service in the Book of Common-Prayer and all those are called Sectaries and are proved so to be who of what perswasion soever have departed from or refused to hold communion with this Church upon dislike of Doctrine Government Liturgy Rites and Ceremonies or any of these The Church of England standing thus between the Church of Rome on the one hand and the aforesaid Sects which have divided from it on the other hand is challenged and assaulted by both put now to defend it self against both Which brings to mind the Device of some Romanist who to make himself merry has pictured an English Protestant standing between a Papist and an Independent borrowing Arguments and Reasons from the One to oppose or answer the Other Against the Papists he must plead as do all Sectaries Invisibility of the Church Scripture alone Liberty of private judgment against other Sects he must help himself by urging as do the Papists the visible condition of the Church the Authority of it Catholick Tradition and Practice and the Succession of Bishops and Pastors Well the Romanists may thus seemingly please themselves but indeed This of all other Reformed Churches has been and is by reason of its most regular Reformation their great eye-sore and heart-sorrow And the English Protestant or obedient Son of the Church of England as he is well set between a Papist and Sectarie as between two Extremes so he onely is able to stand against the opposition or pretensions of both for if we examine the false Grounds and deceiving Principles of Both as to this point of the Constitution Government and Communion of the Church we shall clearly see the Truth lyes in the midst between both and the Church of ENGLAND holds and maintains it To give some Instances §. II. First instance in Holy and Catholick I. The Church of Christ according to the Article of our Beliefe is One Holy Catholick The Romanists run away with the name Catholick appropriating it to themselves and every Sect with the title Holy holding themselves the only Congregations of Saints And as the Romanists enforce the name Catholick to the prejudice of the Title Holy admitting no Church to be Catholick that will not defile it self with their errors and corruptions So Sectaries under pretence of advancing Holinesse and purity and of gathering a Holy Church and assembly of known Saints overthrow the Catholick and draw the Church of Christ into a corner confining it to their own Sect or perswasion Now see the Church of England in the midst which by a most regular and warrantable Reformation had respect to both and in relation to the title Holy provided for purity of Doctrine and worship so that there can be no just complaint of Errors retained and for purity of life by coercion of Ecclesiasticall censure so that no scandalous or notorious offender should be suffered So in relation to the title Catholick this Church did retain as for Belief so for practice whatever had that stamp of Consent of all Ages upon it not confining the Church of Christ within the bounds of her perswasion but leaving it stil Catholick and communicable to all such Christian Assemblies as doe not wilfully cut themselves off but are careful so far as they have means to hold the Vnity of faith with the bond of charity which is necessary
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
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 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
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
their or the like Principles may in time consider it and not think it enough to say the Lord be glorified because they prosper and are become rich but rather enquire whether that they have done be as to their private advantage and gain so to the behoofe of Gods Church and the advancement of true Religion and whether the Lord to whom they have so oft appealed by their Fasts and Thanksgivings can indeed own their doings as making for his glory certainly the Lord must deny himself which he will not do if he own Injustice Schisme and Sacriledge Hee forbeares a while and keepes silence for Causes best known to himself and men prospering by those sins think he is such a one as themselves approving their doings but he will reprove them and set before them what they have done He will appeare and they shall be ashamed If such considerations as these prevaile not with them that doe gain by the formentioned sins yet let the word of exhortation take hold upon you all you that have followed the Schism in the simplicity of your hearts not engaged by any design of gain or self-interest but only deceived with the pretence of Purity in Gods worship and of strictnesse of life Doe not make your selves guilty of other mens sins sins that cannot stand with Righteousnesse or that Charity which the Apostle requires so strictly 1 Cor. 13. without which all your other supposed Purity Faith or Knowledge is nothing will stand you in no stead Consider sadly how those you follow have led you from the Unity of this your Nationall Church and thereby from the profession of Catholick Primitive Truth from Obedienee to your lawfull Governors and Guides who bore the same Office taught the same Doctrine held the same way of publick Worship as did those martyrd Bishops in Primitive Times as did also those other in Queene Marie's dayes How I say they have led you from this Catholique Communion into a way of which whether Classicall or Congregationall we see the late and irregular beginning it being but the product of some tumultuary Reformations made in France Geneva Holland or Scotland and by those that would be contentious here imitated and violently attempted to the disturbance of this Church not without the down-right guilt of Schism and Sacriledge Consider it sadly and do as those Confessors did who being led away by the Novation Schismaticks under like pretence of purity and strictness as soon as they perceived their error confessed it and returned to the Unity of the Catholick Church as St. Cyprian often relates and propounds it as an example and motive for Unity Do you so and then may you obteine what you pretend was your aim and desire Purity and righteousnesse indeed which you cannot in the way of Schisme by reason it holds not a perfect Rule of Righteousness but such as is strict in denying small things and flying appearances of Evill but large in admitting great Offences teaching to straine at Gnats and swallow Camells to scruple at a Rite and Ceremony but makes no bones of Disobedience Schisme Sacriledge and so necessarily leaves your Consciences while ye are in that Communion defiled with your partaking in such sinnes But return into the Unity of this Church and shew your Communion with it in the publique worship of God Liturgy and Sacrament then may you perfect Holinsse in the feare of God and with good Conscience peforme all the parts of Purity and Righteousnesse And do it in Gods name according to all the Duties he requires of you and according to all the opportnuities he puts into your hands So will your Purity and Righteousnesse exceed that of the Pharisees and as many as walk after this Rule Peace be on them and Mercy and on the Israel of God Amen The End It holds the truth between Romanists and Sectaries In Catholick Practice and Tradition In the visible and invisible condition of the Church The Article touching the Church In the Papal Infallibility and private judgment In the due subordination of Pastors and Governors National-Church Reformation Publick or Private Actual Non-communion Schisme Difference of it in regard of the parties between which Difference in degrees of it Iust cause for Reformation Trial of a Church as to a safe communion with it A necessary Rule Such authority in the nationall Ch of Engl. VVhat makes a Church Christian Orthodox Protestant and reformed we have not cast off the Faith received Bishop of Rome his pretence to universall jurisdiction Impossible to make it good His special pretence to jurisdiction over this Chur Conclusion of the whole case as it stands with the Roman Church Difference 'twixt just and distempered Reformations 1. Church Government 2. Church Authority in making Decrees Orders 3. Force of Church-Custome 4. Vnion of charity 5. Admonition and rejection of Hereticks and Schismaticks Application of the Premises VVant of Purity Ancient Schismaticks had like pretence of purity VVhat is meant by a Bishop Force of universall practise or Catholick Tradition Presbytery Elders and Bishops Of the first Elders set in the Church by the Apostles No example or precept in Scripture for the Adversaries pretension The alteration of Church-government from Presbyterian to Episcopall not imaginable Of other reformed Churches which have not Bishops Our Liturgy how agreeing with the Mass-book Lawfulnesse of set Formes Expediency of set Forms in publick Expediency of Set Formes in publique Spirituall gifts to be used but with submission to the Chur Lords Prayer undervalued neglected Not burthensome or superstitious Vse of Ceremonies significant Standing up at Creed Ring in Marriage Cross in Baptisme Kneeling at the Sacrament Bowing at the name Circumstantialls of VVorship Objective terminations of VVorship and Circumstantiall Instances Confusion the Issue of Error having passed due bounds Confusion levelling upon levelling Self-Condemnation of the Pharisees How it concernes these days Gods Iudgements on Schism and Sacriledge VVhy God suffers Error so much to prevaile against Truth Confusion of boundless Error Punished often with its owne pretences Exhort to all that truly desire Purity which cannot be had truly in the state of Schisme