An End to the CONTROVERSIE Between the CHURCH of ENGLAND AND DISSENTERS IN WHICH All their Pleas for Separation from the CHVRCH of ENGLAND are proved to be Insufficient from the Writings of the most Eminent among the Dissenters themselves And their Separation condemn'd by the Reformed Churches LONDON Printed for Richard Wellington at the Lute in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1697. TO THE READER THere are some 't is like who may think it an Vseless and Impertinent Piece of Work to write a Book on this Subject that has been lately so ingeniously handled by such Eminent and Learned Men as the Bishop of Worcester Dr. Comber Dr. Maurice c. But though no Man that I know will pretend to write better than they have done yet there are several things in this Book that have not been taken Notice of by any who have yet written on this Subject And since Mens Notions and Apprehensions are so different 't is like some may be mov'd with one Argument some with another according as it suits their several Judgments and Capacities But besides there are several Persons who desire to be satisfied concerning the Matters in Controversie between the Church of England and the Dissenters but are unwilling to bestow the Time or Pains to read over all the Books at large that have been written on this Subject For the Satisfaction chiefly of these sort of Men I have here as briefly as I cou'd set down the true state of the Controversie between us and the Arguments used on both Sides by the most Eminent Men that have written on this Subject From all which it does appear that the Church of England is as true a Part of the Catholick Church as any this day in the World and that all the Objections which the Dissenters make to her do arise from Ignorance and Mistaken Notions That all the Reform'd Churches beyond Seas do own her as a true Reform'd Church and do highly Condemn all those who Separate from her and declare them to be guilty of downright Schism And that the Dissenters in Condemning the Church of England do Condemn all the Reform'd Churches as well as this Church I cou'd have brought many more Authorities for the Proof of all this Matter but I purposely omit them because these which I have brought are sufficient and are such as the Dissenters never did nor I think never will Pretend to Answer Another Reason why I omit them is in hopes that the smallness of the Book may Invite some to the Reading of it that 't is like might be discourag'd at a larger Volume A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN The Church of ENGLAND AND The DISSENTERS WHEN God Almighty first created Man he gave him no other Law to walk by but that of Nature or Reason under which alone he liv'd for the first 2000 Years But at last this Law of Reason being greatly lett and blinded by Evil Customs it became necessary to give Men more Positive Laws and Rules to walk by Therefore God Almighty commanded Moses to write a Law for his People which we call the Mosaical Law and sometimes the Moral Law and is contained in the Old Testament And this Law God Almighty reveal'd to Men by the Mediation of an Angel but it being for a great part Typical and Ceremonial and therefore not so plain and easie to be understood as that of the New Testament God did then often appear to his People himself and teach them more immediately what he would have them do what not And under this Law of the Old Testament superadded to the Law of Reason or Nature which is the same in reasonable Creatures Men liv'd till God was pleas'd to reveal his Will to us after a more full and excellent manner by the Mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost in the New Testament And this Law of the New Testament is that under which we live at this Day a great part of the Old being hereby abolish'd See Galat. 4. And as this Law of the New Testament was reveal'd to us after a more excellent Manner than that of the Old so the Matter of it is most extraordinary containing nothing in it superfluous nor wanting any thing necessary to the directing all Men to Heaven on very easie terms It is so adapted and fitted to all Conditions of Men that the very meanest Capacities may easily understand every thing contain'd in it which is necessary to their Salvation And this Evangelical Law Christ and his Apostles have left as a Rule for all succeeding Ages to walk by But notwithstanding that our Saviour and his Apostles had left the World such Plain and Positive Rules to walk by that none that were not wilfully so cou'd be mistaken in them yet such has been the unhappiness of the Christian Church that it never wanted some within it of such restless and peevish Spirits as to disturb its Peace and Quiet by making Divisions and Schisms in it which St. Paul foresaw when he told the Elders Acts 20. 30. Also of your selves shall Men arise speaking perverse things to draw Disciples after them But though there have been always some Divisions in the Church ever since the first Planting of it yet for the first Three or Four Hundred Years they were much fewer than what have been since and those that were were much more discountenanc'd and oppos'd by the generality of Christians than they were afterwards In the Church of Africa a little before St. Augustine's Days there arose the Schism of the Donatists who separated upon the account that the Bishopricks were too Large and the Power of the Bishops too Great And because the Ministers were not so Able and Holy Men as they should be and because they dislik'd the Liturgies and Publick Prayers of the Church and for such-like Reasons And a little before in the Third Century began the Novatian Schism at Rome for that Novatus thinking the Bishopricks too Large would needs be chosen Bishop in the same City where Cornelius was chosen before But both these Schisms were condemned This by the Council of Carth. and the Council of Constantinople and by St. Cyprian Ep. 52. N. 4 c. And That of the Donatists by all the Catholick Bishops at the Conference at Carth. See Conference of the Third Day Chap. 4. And by St. Augustine in his Books against Permenian Petilian and the other Donatist Bishops But not long after about the Fifth and Sixth Century the Errors and Corruptions in the Church began to Increase more abundantly and appear more bare-fac'd and openly than formerly they had done for that as the Roman Empire began to decline there follow'd a general decay of Learning and gross Ignorance had over-spread the Earth insomuch that many of the Priests themselves cou'd not read Latin and then it was no difficult Matter to bring in what Heresies and Schisms Men wou'd And this was the time that most of the Errors and Corruptions of the
particular Congregations to which he gave full Power and Authority to govern themselves distinctly and Independent of all other Churches But where have they Authority for this Opinion Where do they find that Churches were limitted to particular Congregations not in Scripture for there is no tolerable Proof that the Churches planted by the Apostles were of this Nature 'T is possible at first there might have been no more Christians in a City than might meet together in one Congregation But where doth it appear that when they multiply'd into more Congregations they made new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government of this Dr. Stillingfleet says he is well assur'd there is no mark or Footstep in the New Testament or the whole History of the Primitive Church If they will follow the plain instances of Scripture they may better limit Churches to Private Families than to particular Congregations for of that we have a plain instance in Scripture Rom. 16. 3. 5. Col. 4. 15. in the House of Priscilla and Aquilla but not a word of the other And if they wou'd keep to these plain instances of Scripture they might fully enjoy the Liberty of their Consciences and avoid the Scandal of breaking the Laws But the Scripture is so far from making every Congregation an Independent Church that it plainly shews us the Notion of a Church was then the same with a Diocess or all the Christians of a City which were under the Inspection of one Bishop For if we observe the Language of the Scripture we shall find this Observation not once to fail that when Churches are spoken of they are the Churches of a Province As the Churches of Judaea 1 Thess 2. 14. The Churches of Asia 1 Cor. 16. 19. Of Syria and Cilicia Acts 15. 41. Churches of Galatia 1 Cor. 16. 1. Gal. 1. 2. Churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. 8. 1. But when all the Christians of a City are spoken of it is still call'd the Church of that City as the Church of Antioch the Church at Corinth the Church of Ephesus c. So that it seems plain from the Testimony of Scripture that Churches were not limitted to particular Congregations unless they will say that all the Christians in the largest of these Cities mention'd in Scripture were no more than cou'd conveniently meet in one Congregation which shall be shown to be otherwise hereafter But suppose we shou'd grant that the Apostolick Churches were Congregational as 't is plain they were not what then that might have been from the Circumstances of Times or small number of Christians in those Days must it therefore follow that they must always continue so Why do they not wash one anothers Feet as Christ did and commanded his Apostles to do the same * And if they must keep so precisely to the Practice of those Days why does any of their Ministers marry a Second Wife For St. Paul says plainly Let Bishops and Deacons be the Husbands of one Wife 1 Tim. 3. v. 2. 12. So the first Civil Government was by God's own Institution over Families they may by the same Rule think themselves bound to overthrow Kingdoms to bring things back to God's first Institution From whence it appears how ridiculous that fancy of theirs is That the Scripture is the only Rule of all things pertaining to Discipline and Worship and that we must stick so precisely to the Letter of it and to the practice of those Days as that 't is not lawful to vary from it in any little indifferent Circumstance for the sake of Publick Order or Conveniency But as this notion of Congregational Churches does not agree with the words of the New Testament so neither does it with the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church For by the ancient Canons of the Church it appears That the Notion of a Church was the same with that of a Diocess which comprehended many Congregations or Parishes See Canons Nicen. 6 15 16. Constant c. 6. Chalcedon 17. 20. 26. Antioch c. 2. 5. Codex Eccles Africae c. 53. 55. Concil Gangrae c. 6. Concil Carthag c. 10 11. And thus much as to the first Objection against the Constitution of our Church as differing from those of the Congregational way and therefore not of Christ's Institution The Second Objection against the Constitution of our Church is That our Diocesaâ— Churches and Bishops are unlawful For say they 'T is making a new Species of Churches and Church-Government without God's appointment For says Mr. Baxter according to Christ's Institution no Church must be bigger than that the same Bishop may perform the Pastoral Office to them in present Communion And so he will have threâ— sorts of Bishops by Divine Right First General Bishops that in every Nation are over many Churches Secondly Episcopâ— Gregis or Ruling Pastors of Single Congregations which are all true Presbyters Thirdly Episcopi Praesides which are the Presidents of the Presbyters in particular Churches This is Mr. Baxter's Notion of Bishops But others are not of his Mind and will allow of but one kind of Bishop and such they make the Pastor of every Congregation But that both these Notions of Episcopacy are false will appear For that First 't was an inviolable Rule in the Primitive Church that there must be but one Bishop in a City though 't were never so large for our Saviour having left no Rule about Limits the Apostles follow'd the Form of the Empire planting in every City a complete and entire Church whose Bishop as to his Power and Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical Matters resembled that of the Chief Magistrate of the City the Presbyters that of the Senates and the several Churches the several Corporations So says Dr. Still in his Mischiefs of Separation p. 237. and quotes Origen c. Cels l. 3. and Dr. Maurice in his Def. of Dioces Episcopacy p. 377 c. affirms the same and proves it at large And as far as the Territories of the City extended it self so far did the Diocess of the Bishop extend for the Church and the City had but one Territory But though this be a thing agreed upon by most Learned Men of all Persuasions that there was but one Bishop in a City in the Primitive Church yet because some may be so hardy as to deny this I will appeal to the Practice of the African Church for which Mr. Baxter Dr. Owen and the rest of the Dissenters express an esteem above all other Churches 'T was an inviolable Rule among the African Churches that there must be but one Bishop in a City though never so large and populous See Cod. Eccl. Africae c. 71. And at the famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholick and Donatist Bishops by the Command of Constantine the Emperor who was become Christian the Rule on both sides agreed was but One Bishop in a City or Diocess See Conference of the First Day And if there cou'd have been more than
of Alexandria and the Territories belong to it for he says Ap. p. 781 802. Maoretis is a Region belonging to Alexandria and all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria But because Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter Mr. Cotton and the rest have made choice of the Church of Carthage in Africk in St. Cyprian's time to make their appeals to Dr. Stillingfleet to avoid all Cavils as he tells us has chosen that very Church to be decided by as to the Episcopal Government now in dispute between us And therefore first he proves that there were a great number of Presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage at that time and therefore not likely to be one single Congregation And this he proves out of St. Cyprian's own Epistles in his Banishment Particularly in his 5th Book Ep. 28. he complains that a great number of his Clergy were absent and the few that remain'd were hardly sufficient for their Work And that these Presbyters and the whole Church were under the particular care and government of St. Cyprian as their Bishop appears by his own words Lib. 3. Ep. 10 and 12. to the People of Carthage he complains to them of his Presbyters that they did not reserve to their Bishop that honour due to his place for that they received Penitents to Communion without Imposition of Hands by the Bishop c. And in his Epist 28. he threatens to Excommunicate those Presbyters that should do so for the future And all the other Bishops gave their approbation to St. Cyprian for so doing And the same St. Cyprian in his 3 Book Ep. 65. tells them that a Bishop in the Church is in the place of Christ and that Disobedience to him is the occasion of Schisms and Disorders See more fully concerning this matter in Dr. Stillingfleet's Mischiefs of Separation p. 228 229. c. And now since Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter and the rest have agreed to appeal to the Church of Carthage we must suppose they allow no Deviations in that Church from the Primitive Institution and what that was then any one may judge And St. Augustine was another Bishop in the African Church he was Bishop of Hippo Regia the Diocess of which extended at least Forty Miles as appears by St. Augustine's own Epist 262. 'T is true the African Church came most near the Congregational way of any other the Diocess being smaller by reason of the many Sectaries there the Donatists and many others And that is the Reason Mr. Baxter and the rest express so great an Esteem for it But that their Bishopricks were much too large to serve either the Presbyterians or Independents turn and that they never allowed more than one Bishop in the largest Cities sufficiently appears by what has been said And in the African Code there is a Canon that says expresly no Bishop shall leave his Cathedral Church and go to any other Church in his Diocess to reside there See Codex Eccl. Africae c. 71. Which shows that the Bishops Territories and Jurisdiction extended into distant Places from the City as well in the African Churches as in others I shall only add to this that Calvin look'd upon it as a Thing out of dispute among Learned Men that a Church did not only take in the Christians of a City in the Primitive Times but of the adjacent Country also See Calv. Instit l. 4. c. 4. n. 2. But though there were never more than one Bishop in a City in the Primitive Church * v. Conc. Eph. Part 2. Act. 1. yet some Bishops have had Two or more Cities in their Diocess Timothy was Bishop of Farmissus and Eudocias Athanasius was Bishop of Diveltus and Sozopolis And there have been some Bishopricks that have had no City at all in them but only Villages for there were some Countries that had no Cities in them so have we at this Day Bishops in Ireland and Wales that have no Cities in their Diocess But it cannot be prov'd that the Jurisdiction of the Bishop and the extent of his Diocess was confin'd to any single Village So far from that that by the Canon of Sardica VI. all the Bishops Assembled at Sardica agree That it shall by no means be lawful to Ordain any Bishops in Villages or small Cities that the Dignity of a Bishop may not be contemptible from the meanness of the Place But says Mr. Clarkson and the rest The Apostles Ordain'd Elders in every Church and then Mr. Clarkson names the places to wit Antioch Iconium Lystra and other Villages and these Elders or Presbyters they will have Bishops But first I say That during the Apostle's days the names Bishop and Presbyter were commonly used the one for the other but not after as shall be show'd hereafter and therefore these Elders or Presbyters here spoken of may be as well taken for ordinary Presbyters or Priests as for Bishops But allowing these Presbyters were Bishops what advantage will it be to them for first it does not appear that the Apostles confin'd their Authority to those places but the contrary is evident and unless they can prove this it will not serve their turn But Secondly these Cities over which the Apostles appointed Elders were large Cities at that time by much too great to come together in one Congregation Iconium was then a Metropolitan and had many other Cities under it And the rest were all large Cities But before I conclude this point I must make one Observation and that is That Mr. Clarkson to prove that a Bishop of a City had no more but one Congregation undertakes to shew how small some Cities were but 't is remarkable he quotes for his Authority some Author who speaks of them long before there were any Bishops and because they might have been small places then will needs have them to be so in the days of the Apostles which is very ridiculous for under the Roman Emperours both the Roman and the Grecian Cities were at their height and did very much surpass both for their magnificence and number of people any that have been before or since nor is this to be wonder'd at since our Cities do now stand upon much narrower Foundations as to their constitution our Cities have seldom any Liberties half a mile beyond their Walls and are generally but an Assembly of Trades-men whereas the Roman Cities had each a Territory as it were a County belonging to it which was under the jurisdiction of the City Magistrate and the Citizens were the Lords of the adjacent Country I have now shew'd that the Government of the Church by Diocesan Bishops is agreeable to the practice of the best and purest Ages of the Church and to the Judgment of the wisest and holiest Fathers of it And that their Power and Jurisdiction was as absolute and extended as far or farther than any Bishops this day in England I shall shew hereafter that Episcopal Government as now settled in England has
testimony of the Person chosen And to that end 't is true the People were to be present at the nomination of a new Bishop for since they were to be Men blameless and of good report 't was but fit that the People that best knew his Life and Conversation should be present to testify the same And herewith agrees St. Cyprian Ep. 68. whom Mr. Baxter vouches for the contrary says he The Bishop shou'd be chosen in the presence of the People that by their presence their Faults may be publish'd or their good Actions commended but says not a word of the Peoples Power of Electing him All our Ordinations must be done in the publick view of the People who are demanded of the Bishop whether any of them can or will except against the Persons to be admitted See the Form of Ordination in the Book of Common Prayer As to the Elections of Deacons 't is to be noted that 't was properly no Church Power which they had but they were Stewards of the Common Stock and therefore 't was but reasonable the Community should be satisfied in the choice of them St. Chrysostom in his Book de Sacerdotio complains much of the unfitness of the People to judge in such matters So does St. Augustine Ep. 110. And indeed were there no other Reasons against the Peoples choosing their own Ministers but the mischiefs that would necessarily attend it 't were sufficient for when ever the People assum'd this Power of choosing it caus'd so great Disturbances in the Church that at Antioch the Divisions of the People about the choice of a Bishop in the time of Constantine had kindled such a Flame as had almost destroy'd both Church and City The like at Rome upon the choice of Damascus And if the People have the Power of choosing their own Ministers what shou'd hinder but there may be a Presbyterian Independant Anabaptist Quaker and Papist teacher all in one Parish and so this would set open a door to infinite Divisions And therefore to avoid the great Evils and inconveniences of popular Elections the Power of choosing their own Ministers was taken away from the People by several Councils as 12. and 13. Can. Conc. Laodicea Conc. Antioch c. 18. c. Conc. 2d of Nice c. 3. The Reason that first gave Lay-men a title to the nomination of Ministers was when Christian Princes and others had given large Endowments to the Church 't was thought but just that they should have the nomination of the Ministers for those Churches that they had built and indow'd And this was a Prerogative in the Kings of England ever since the first foundation of a Christian Church here and long before any freedom of Elections was pretended to See Stat. 25. Edw. 3. and the Case of the King 's Ecclesiastical Power in Lord Cook 's 8th Rep. and the Case of Praemunire in Sir John Davenant's Reports Case ult And this title of Patronage has been confirmed to Lay-men by several Councils as 1st Coun. of Orange Anno Dom. 441. 2d Counc of Arles Anno 452. 9th Counc of Toledo c. And this Right of presentation is not only us'd in England but in other reform'd Churches In Denmark the Archbishops and Bishops are appointed by the King so they are in Swedeland So in other Lutheran Churches the Superintendants are appointed by the several Princes and the Patrons present before Ordination The Synod of Dort hath a Salvo for the right of Patronage In France the Ministers are chosen by Ministers at Geneva by the Council of State who have Power likewise to depose them And Beza in his Ep. 83. declares against the Peoples choosing their Ministers as a thing without any ground in Scripture Grotius Ep. ad Boatslaer Ep. 62. p. 21. agrees herein How comes then our English Dissenters to make this a ground of Separation to wit The depriving the People of their Right of choosing their own Ministers when 't is evident they never had any such Right but when they got it by Usurpation And 't is contrary to the general practice of the Church in all Ages and even to the practice of other reform'd Churches at this day But besides the unwarrantableness of the Peoples choosing their Ministers and the great mischiefs that attend it by making the People run into Divisions and Factions 't is a thing very unreasonable in it self that such an ignorant proud unpeaceable sort of People as Mr. Baxter himself confesses in his Sacrilegiae Dissert p. 102. c. the ordinary sort of Christians to be should be made judges of their Ministers abilities and soundness of Doctrines who are most apt to revile the best and gravest Ministers as the same Mr. Baxter says himself in his Cure of Divis p. 393. Sure 't is more likely that the King and Parliament and the Governours of the Church shou'd provide able and fit Ministers for us than such sort of People as these unless any will be so ridiculous as to suppose that the Magistrates and Clergy are all bad men and the ignorant common People the only incouragers of Vertue They may say 't is as unreasonable on the other hand that all the People of a Parish shou'd be oblig'd to take a Minister put into the Cure by some young raw extravagant Heir that had the good Fortune to be born to an Estate to which the Advowson did belong but perhaps is as ignorant and unfit to judge of the abilities of a Minister as the meanest in the Parish To this I answer That though such ignorant Persons may sometimes have the right of Presentation yet they have not the Power of putting into the Cure any Minister they please for the Patron has only the right of presenting his Clerk who must be admitted and instituted by the Bishop before the Cure is said to be full and if the Bishop with the rest of his Clergy after examination had c. do think him any way unqualified for the Cure of Souls he may reject him and put the Patron to present another qualify'd for the Office which if he neglect to do within six Months from the time the Church became void he shall lose his presentation for that turn and the Bishop shall present So that the Patron it seems cannot put whom he will on the People for their Pastor but is bound to find Personam idoneam a fit Person And now before we pass from this matter let us see whether the Civil Magistrate has Power to silence Ministers or not Doubtless he has otherwise 't is impossible that any Kingdom should be safe for since the generality of the People are so apt to be led by their Spiritual Guides and take their Notions of Loyalty and Obedience from them 't is strange to imagine that Ministers shall be allow'd to Preach up Sedition Heresy or what Doctrine they please and it shall not be in the Power of the Magistrate to silence them But say our Dissenters we are
Church of Rome were introduced as Dr. Comber observes in his Advice to the Roman Catholicks of England Under this Cloud of Ignorance and Darkness did the Church lie hid for many Hundreds of Years till about the Year 1510. when it pleased God to open the Eyes of some of his People and to let them see those great Abuses with which the World had been so long abus'd and under the Burden of which the Church had groan'd for so many Hundred Years And though here in England there has been for many Years before the Reformation a strong Disposition that way as may appear by the several Acts of Parliament made since the Conquest to lessen and take away the Pope's Power and Authority as well in Ecclesiastical as Civil Matters within these Kingdoms See Coke's 5th Rep. De jure Regis Ecclesiastico Yet the Pope had always so great an Interest at Court and the Clergy in the Nation having got most of the Lands into their own Hands that this glorious Design cou'd never be accomplish'd till it pleased God to make an open breach between King H. 8. and the Pope upon which he totally rejected the Pope's Supremacy and assum'd to himself the stile of Supream Head of the Church in these Nations and Defender of the Faith And thus the Pope being quite forsaken 't was likely Popery wou'd not live long having lost its Infallible Head And so indeed it prov'd For in King Edw. 6. days Popery was quite turn'd out of Doors by the general consent of the whole Nation whose Example many of the Churches beyond Seas follow'd And thus the general Reformation was happily begun and the Christian Church being stript of all its antick Disguises began to appear again and shine forth in its natural Form and Brightness But because 't was impossible to bring the People clearly off from what they and their Ancestors had been bred up in and accustom'd to for so many Ages or to make them capable of distinguishing on a sudden between things hurtful in Religion and things Indifferent therefore 't was thought convenient that no Alterations shou'd be made in things Indifferent nor any Scruples rais'd about them which wou'd at that time have hinder'd much the Reformation since many were with difficulty enough brought to things necessary So that for this Reason as also to let our Enemies see that we did not break Communion with them for Indifferent things many things were retain'd at the beginning of the Reformation that were afterwards Reform'd In the days of Edw. VI. the Liturgy and Publick Service of the Church was Corrected and Amended And this was done with all the Care and Deliberation imaginable and the King and Parliament took the best Advice in the doing of it that cou'd be had either at home or abroad Which makes me indeed admire to hear every illiterate Dissenter find so many Faults in the Liturgies and Worship of the Church of England that was so well approv'd of then by all those Holy Bishops and Martyrs that were our first Reformers and by Calvin Bucer and all the Eminent Divines beyond Seas 'T is very strange to think that such Excellent Men and Men of such indefatigable Pains and great Integrity as Cranmer Ridly Latimer and Bradford c. were after all their diligent Enquiry and fervent Prayers to God that he would direct them in the Performance and Management of so great a Work cou'd not after all spy so much as a mote of Unlawfulness in those things that now every Dissenting Preacher though never so raw or illiterate yea and the very meanest of the People can see such Beams in 'T is certain that our terms of Communion are the same or rather easier now than they were then as most of the Dissenters will allow and as Dr. Stillingfleet has prov'd at large in his Mischiefs of Separation During all the Reign of King Edward VI. there were no Divisions in this Church about these Matters There might have been some in those Days that might have wish'd for a farther Reformation as no Church ever yet wanted such But there was no such thing as Separation from the Church and going to separate Meetings upon that account No 't was so far from that that when actual Separation was first begun in Queen Elizabeth's Days those who practis'd it were severely Condemned by most of those who were very desirous of a farther Reformation The time when Separation first began in the Church of England was about the Beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign For after Queen Mary's Death the Ministers and others who were Banished and Fled in her time began to flock back again into England but the Impressions which were made on some of our Divines during their Banishment especially those who continued at Geneva a place always inveterate against Ceremonies did not wear off at their return home but after a little while they began to insinuate into the People who are ever fond of Novelties a hatred to the Livery of Antichrist as they call'd the Vestments and Ceremonies upon which some of the People began to Separate and this was the first occasion of pressing Uniformity with Laws and Penalties The Queen and Parliament now began to see it Necessary for the Quiet of the Church and Nation and for the avoiding farther Divisions upon this account that all the Clergy shou'd give some assurance of their Conformity and Obedience to the Laws of this Land and the Religion Establish'd by Law and to the Orders and Discipline of the Church agreeable to Law And accordingly certain Articles and Subscriptions were agreed on and such of the Clergy as would not Subscribe thereto were Suspended They who were Suspended writ to their Oracle at Geneva Beza who was a Man of greatest Authority with them to know what they shou'd do Beza advises them That if they cannot otherwise be continued in their Offices but by wronging their Consciences that they should submit and live quietly but by no means to exercise their Function against the Will of their Queen and Bishops for says he We tremble at the thoughts of that * See Dr. Stillingfleet's Mischief of Separation Pag. 20 21 c. But he tells them farther That though he does not approve of the Ceremonies yet being not Evil in themselves he does not think them of that moment as that the Ministers shou'd leave their Functions for them or the People forsake the Ordinances rather than hear those who did Conform And it seems indeed that the more Serious and Learned of those Divines who in their Banishment had suck'd in a Dislike to the Church of England way of Worship did not think fit to Separate from it upon that account or to endeavour too hastily the Reforming of it for Dr. Burnet in his Book of Travels tells us That in Switzerland he met with several Letters from some of our English Clergy to Bullinger who had procur'd a kind Reception to be given to several of them in
Switzerland during the Persecution of Queen Mary By which Letters it appears that several of the Clergy who had been beyond Seas upon their return Home did endeavour to Perswade Queen Elizabeth to let the Matters of the Habits for the Clergy c. fall Particularly Sands afterwards Archbishop of York Horn afterwards Bishop of Winchester Jewel and Grindal But Grindal in one of his Letters to Bullinger says They were all resolved to submit to the Laws and to wait for a fit opportunity to reverse them And he laments the ill Effects of the Opposition that some had made to them He also thanks Bullinger for the Letter he wrote to justifie the lawful Use of the Habits c. And in fine they all allow'd the lawfulness but not the fitness of them and that they ought to submit to the Law till it shou'd please God to reverse it lawfully See Burnet's Travels p. 51 52. But though the wiser sort among them did not think fit to proceed to actual Separation from the Church upon the account of those indifferent things yet some there were of a more fierce and turbulent Spirit who had not Patience to wait God's leisure but either a Reformation must be made presently according to their wild Notions and the Queen and Parliament must tack about immediately to their Pleasures or else to your Tents O Israel They will set up Churches of their own and forsake us utterly as a Superstitious and Idolatrous Church not fit to be communicated with And thus began our unhappy Divisions in the Church of England I shall not trouble my self to trace this Matter through the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth King James the First and King Charles the First nor to show how they daily increas'd and grew wider Nor the many Sub-Divisions and Scandalous Breaches that were daily made among themselves ever since the beginning of Separation As between Brown and Barrow Brown and Harrison Barrow and Johnson Johnson and Ainsworth who all left England to gather Separate Churches to themselves in the Low-Countries But scarce had been well there till they fell out all among themselves one Man and his Company being accurs'd and avoided by the other and his Followers and the one Church receiving the Persons excommunicated by the other till they became ridiculous to Spectators and at last some of them were glad to return into England This Matter has been so fully related by Dr. Stillingfleet in his Mischiefs of Separation p. 51 52 c. that 't were needless here to repeat it I shall only take notice that ever since King James the Second's Accession to the Crown the Church of England had laid aside all thoughts of Controversie with the Dissenters in hopes that they wou'd have joyn'd for their common Safety with them in stopping the Inundation of Popery that was ready to break in upon these Nations and swallow them both up But while most of our Eminent Divines of the Church of England as Dr. Tillotson Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Burnet Dr. Comber Dr. Sherlock and the rest were imploy'd in writing against the Incendiaries of Rome the Dissenters our Brethren instead of assisting us were making themselves ready for War with us as appear'd soon after For when God Almighty had happily plac'd King William in the Throne a Convocation was immediately call'd in hopes that some Terms of Accommodation might have been Agreed upon between us And which in all probability wou'd have taken Effect if the Dissenting Ministers had been as forward as we for how much inclin'd our Clergy were to a Reconciliation notwithstanding the Aspersion laid on them by the Dissenters of their having no such Design does sufficiently appear by several of their Writings See Dr. Tillotson's Sermon Preached at the Yorkshire Feast Anno 1679. Pag. 28. And Dr. Sherlock's Sermon before the Lord Mayor Nov. 1688. See likewise the Petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Bishops for which they were committed to the Tower And see the Articles recommended by the Archbishop of Canterbury to all the Bishops within his Province And Dr. Stillingfleet's Preface to his Mischiefs of Separation By all which it sufficiently appears how desirous they were for a Reconciliation But instead of listning to any such thing does our Dissenters break forth into open Acts of Hostility and at that very time when we were actually Treating of Accommodation with them do they Publish several of their Books one upon the back of another in which they endeavour nothing less than the total Overthrow of our Church by pretending to prove That the Constitution of our Church is New and Unlawful and that our Worship is Idolatrous and Sinful Had this been at a Time when their way of Worship was not tolerated or ours impos'd on them with Penalties they had been the more excusable Or had we began to expose their Extempore way of Praying as we might easily have done but at such a time as that was to become the Aggressors was ungrateful as well as unseasonable But now since the Dissenters have thought fit to revive the Controversie between us I hope they cannot take it unkindly of us if we endeavour to Vindicate our Church and to remove those Aspersions that they have groundlesly cast upon her But this has been done so learnedly and fully by so many of our Learned Divines already that I will not pretend to do it better or to say much more than what they have said before me I shall only here lay down briefly the Substance of what I have Collected out of the best Authors on both sides that have writ lately on this Subject For there may be some who wou'd be willing to be satisfied in this Matter and yet can neither bestow the Time nor Pains to read all the Books of Controversie over which have been writ on this Subject First then We will examine the Pleas which the Dissenters use for Separation and show the insufficiency of them and that they do not justifie Separation according to their own Principles All the Pleas at this time made use of for Separation may be reduced to these Three Heads First Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church Second To the terms of Communion with it Third To the Consciences of Dissenters As to the First to wit such as relate to the Constitution of our Churches They say First That our Parochial Churches are not according to Christ's Institution as being different from those of the Congregational way Secondly That our Diocesan Bishops are Unlawful Thirdly That our National Church has no Foundation and wants Discipline all being swallowed up in the Bishops And the Pastors of every Parish who ought to have full Power to execute every part of it are depriv'd thereof And Fourthly That the People are depriv'd of their right of chusing their own Pastors First say they Our Parochial Churches are not according to Christ's Institution For Christ they say instituted no other kind of Churches than
one Bishop in a City the two great Schisms of the Donatists in Africa and the Novatian at Rome might have been avoided but instead hereof see how St. Cyprian among others aggravates the Schism of Novatius for being chosen Bishop in the same City where Cornelius was chosen before For says he since there cannot be a second after the first whosoever is made Bishop where one is made already is not another Bishop but none at all Cypr. Epist 52. n. 4. And the same St. Cyprian in his Epistle 55. n. 6. 9. declares That to have only one Bishop in a City was the best means to prevent Schism See St. Cypr. de Vnitate Eccles n. 3 4. And St. Augustine in his Epistle 162. to the same purpose But now that 't is so plainly prov'd that there was never allow'd but one Bishop in a City in the Primitive Church they have no way to reconcile this to their Hypothesis but by endeavouring to prove that either the Cities were very small in those days or else the number of Christians in them were so few as that they might all conveniently meet in one Congregation And this they are not satisfied to do in the ordinary Cities which Mr. Clarkson in his Book of Primitive Episcopacy affirms were no larger than our ordinary Market-Towns in England But even in the very largest and most populous Cities they will not allow that there were more Christians than cou'd conveniently meet together in one Church to serve God as in Rome Alexandria Constantinople Carthage and the rest All which far exceeded any now in the World both for largeness and number of People This seems to be very strange Old Rome was at that time a City so large and populous that it excell'd London as it is at this day as far as London now does New Rome and had by Computation at that time above 1000000 Inhabitants as Dr. Maurice shows in his Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy p. 340. And seems indeed to be very probable if one considers those vast and mighty Pieces of Workmanship that appear to have been done there the Ruins of which are to be seen at this day as Dr. Burnet in his Travels tells us who gathers from thence That that City must have been vastly populous about that time And it was in Aurclius his days 50 Miles in Circumference Dr. M. p. 212. And yet will Mr. Clarkson allow no more Christians in this great City than cou'd meet in one Congregation So of Alexandria which was 1â— Miles in Circumference according to Pliny l. 5. 9. and the rest all greater far than London now is But to serve their turn they will reduce them all to the narrow limits of a single Congregation and by consequence give all the rest to the Devil by making them Unchristian Hereticks Schismaticks c. 'T is strange that Christianity shou'd make no better a Progress considering the largeness of the Cities and Multitude of People in them and considering the Care and Industry of the Apostles and Learned Fathers of those Ages and their extraordinary Gifts that in so large and populous a City as Rome Christianity shou'd gain no more Proselytes in 300 Years than cou'd meet all in one Church notwithstanding St. Paul himself had Preach'd there for many Years The very Quakers in London which is not comparable to Old Rome have made more Proselytes already than the Apostles in much longer time for were all the Quakers in London assembled in one Congregation I doubt that never a Church in the Kingdom wou'd be found large enough to contain them But besides if the number of Christians were so few as these Dissenters wou'd make them how was it possible for them to possess themselves of the whole Roman Empire in less than 300 Years They had no Interest at Court nor in the Army but were persecuted by the Emperors all that time unless in two Reigns so that there can be no other Human Cause assign'd for it but their great Numbers But farther 't is plain that there were some great Cities entirely Christian from the Apostles days as Cesaria and Lydda Acts 9. 35. and others So that in the first 300 Years whole Cities and Countries being become Christian as Eusebius affirms Praep. Evang. l. 1. p. 12 13. ' t was impossible for a single Congregation to contain a quarter of the Christians of a City much less of a whole Diocess For besides the large and populous City every Bishop had a Territory within his Diocess which extended it self for several Miles round the City For every City had a large Territory as it were a County round about it which was under the Jurisdiction of the Civil Magistrate who govern'd the City and as far as the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate reach'd in Civil Matters so far did the Jurisdiction of the Bishop reach in Ecclesiastical Matters See Can. Apostolic 34. by which a Bishop is forbid to do any thing without the consent of his Metropolitan or Archbishop but what relates to his own Diocess and the Territories under it And see Can. Antioch 9. 10. But that the Bishops Territories and Jurisdiction extended far beyond the Walls or Bounds of the City is most evident for Theodoret who was Bishop of Cyrus had a Diocess 40 Miles square and yet he reckon'd his Episcopacy of Divine Institution See his Epist 42. And he had within his Diocess 800 Parish Churches as appears by his Epist 113. to Leo. This is an Instance so clear against our Dissenters that Mr. Baxter and Mr. Clarkson and the rest have no way to Answer it but first that it came from the Vatican Library which Objection is fully removed by Dr. Stillingfleet in his Mischief of Separation p. 256. and by Dr. Maur. Def. of Dioc. Episc p. 396. and this Epist of Theod. prov'd to be his own by comparing it with his other Writings and also by the clear Testimony of Liberatus who infallibly knew Theodoret's Stile and Writings Neither does it follow that because it came from the Vatican Library therefore it must not be Authentick But when People are Drowning rather than sink they will catch hold of a Bull-rush The other Exception they take to this Testimony of Theodoret is That he was not Bishop of a single Diocess but of a Province and that Theodoret was an Archbishop but that Cyprus of which he was then Bishop was no Metropolis at that time nor Theodoret Primate of a Province but under a Metropolitan appears by his 16 Ep. and by his 81 82 34 94 and 161. Alexander was then his Metropolitan But Theodoret was not the only Bishop that had such a large Diocess for St. Chrysostom had one full as large and which contained as many Parishes he was Bishop of Constantinople and all the Territories thereto belonging and did not think it in his Conscience too large for if he did so good a Man as he would either have divided or quitted it And Athanasius was Bishop
therefore they who differ in these Circumstances do not differ in the act of Worship but in the manner See the Harmony of Confessions where you will find what the Opinions of other Reformed Churches are concerning the Lawfulness and Usefulness of Ceremonies The latter Helvetian Confession saith That there are different Rites and Ceremonies found in the Churches let no Man judge hereby that the Churches dissent And the Confession of Bohemia hath Wherefore those Rites and those good Ceremonies ought only to be kept which among the People of Christ do Edifie therefore whether they be extent or brought in by the Bishops or by the Councils Ecclesiastical or by other Authors whatsoever the simpler sort are not to trouble themselves about that but must use them to that which is good And a little after Although our Men do not equally observe all Ceremonies with other Churches which is not a thing necessary to be done yet are they not so minded as to move any Dissentions for the cause of Ceremonies although they be not judged to be altogether necessary so that they be not found contrary to God's Word And the Augustine Confession has Some Men then may ask whether we would have this life of Man to be without Order without Ceremonies In no wise But we teach That the true Pastors in their Churches may Ordain Publick Rites or Ceremonies And Beza in his 24th Epist agrees herein as has been said before And Calvin in his Book of the True way of Reformation Ch. 16. says He would not contend about Ceremonies not only those which are for decency but those which are Symbolical Let all things be done decently and in order says the Scripture And St. Paul tell us 1 Cor. 14. 33. God is not the author of confusion but of peace as in all the Churches of the Saints But to come home to our Dissenters Mr. Baxter in his Poor Man's Family Book p. 337. speaking of our publick Worship in our Parish Churches says In all the lawful Orders Gestures and Manners of behaviour in God's Worship affect not to differ from the rest but conform your self to the use of the Church for in the Church singularity is a Discord c. See Vines on the Sacrament to the same purpose p. 39. and many more Instances of this kind might be given but what has been said is sufficient to shew that such Ceremonies as serve for Order or Edification and are not directly contrary to God's Law are to be used according to the Opinion of all the Reformed Churches and most Eminent Men both at home and abroad Now How shall we know what Ceremonies are lawful and what not It is to be noted That the nature of Ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine which goes along with it and may be lawful and not lawful as that is If a Ceremony be made a substantial part of God's Worship and unalterable or be suppos'd so necessary as that the doing of it would be a thing meritorious or pleasing to God and the not doing of it sinful tho' there were no human Law which requir'd the doing of it Then it becomes sinful because it makes the Scriptures insufficient And this it was that made the Jewish Ceremony of washing before Meat sinful And so it is in many of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome But when Ceremonies are injoin'd for the sake of Order and Uniformity in God's Worship according to the general Rules of the Scripture and to prevent the great Mischiefs which we should inevitably fall into if every Pastor and People were suffered to follow their several different judgments in the manner of God's Worship then they are lawful and good But say they If these Ceremonies do not bind the Consciences of Men Why does the Discipline and Censures of the Church force Men to use them I answer The Church does not oblige Men to the observance of these Ceremonies as things that bind the Conscience or which are necessary to be done or not done in themselves but the Reason why Men are forced to observe them and punish'd if they refuse is because they are appointed by the Church and disobedience to the Laws of Church or State made not contrary to the Law of God is sinful Rom. 13. 5. and 2. And for this they are punish'd and also for disturbing the publick Peace And thus we justify our bowing at the name of Jesus at seasonable times and all our Ceremonies since the Church has appointed them we ought to obey unless we can prove them to be sinful which no Man can do so long as the Worship is directed to a true Object to wit the Person of Christ As for the Ceremony of Bowing towards the Altar Note the Canon that appointed it did not oblige any to the observance of it but left them to their liberty As to the posture appointed by the Church of England for receiving the Lord's Supper to wit Kneeling 'T is a Circumstance which may be varied according to the Discretion of the Church In the Primitive Church it was always taken in the posture of Adoration which posture varied according to the Customs of Countries Now Kneeling being the posture of Adoration in these Kingdoms the Church of England has therefore appointed that it be taken kneeling And indeed 't is but very reasonable that so Sacred an Ordinance and so great a Benefit should be received in the most thankful and humble posture that may be and that surely is on our Knees which is also the fittest posture for those high strains of Devotion with which so Sacred a Work ought to be attended at the very instant of taking it The only Objection that I know is made against this posture of Kneeling at the Sacrament is because it is Idolatrous and contrary to Christ's own Practice 'T is strange that they will make us and the greatest part of the Reform'd Churches all Idolaters whether we will or no Does not our Book of Common Prayer at the end of the Communion Service tell them as plain as words can express it That we pay no Adoration to any thing in the Sacrament but Christ himself which is in Heaven and yet will they make us Idolaters for all this Has any of them ever writ so strong against Idolizing the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as our Divines of the Church of England have done And yet will they perswade us we are Idolaters They may as well believe that we Worship the Stones in the Church-Walls when we kneel down to Pray in them And truly I fear many of them do so which makes them use that posture so seldom in their publick Meetings For you shall seldom see in any of their Meetings scarce one of the whole Congregation on their Knees not even at repeating the Lord's Prayer if it happen to be said which is not often Their usual postures of Praying in their publick Congregations are either
standing or lolling on their Elbows And at the Reading of the Holy Scriptures nay even of the Psalms themselves tho' they are the very highest strains of Devotion you shall see them all sitting on their Breeches and many of them with their Hats on But pray How comes the posture of sitting to be the only fit posture for receiving the Lord's Supper Was that the posture Christ us'd No if we will believe most learned Men they will tell us Christ gave it leaning which perhaps he might have done on purpose to let us see that he did not require any one set posture for leaning is a mean as it were between kneeling and standing and seems to incline equally to both Why do they not take it leaning as Christ did and after Supper and in an upper Room Why do they not observe all these Circumstances If one may be dispens'd with without sin Why not another If they will not be so civil as to Conform to the Church of England Why will they not follow the Example of other Reformed Churches the Churches of France and most of the Reformed Churches take it either standing or kneeling as being postures of Adoration But because they do our English Dissenters will take it in no other but that which is most irreverent and farthest from Adoration in the World to wit sitting on their Breeches 'T is a Feast say they and therefore sitting being a posture of ease is most suitable to it We own 't is a Feast but not a common but Spiritual Feast and therefore we ought to take it not in the posture we use at our common Tables but in a more decent and reverent Posture To conclude this Point I shall give you the words of one of the most Eminent of the Non-conformist Preachers in this Matter Vines in his Book on the Sacrament p. 39. says 'T is no corruption to vary in occasional Circumstances in administring the Lord's Supper such as time and place and posture c. Mr. Baxter has several times declar'd the same and so has most of the Non-conformist Ministers And herewith agrees Hooker in his Eccles Polity lib. 5. p. 366. As to the Sign of the Cross in Baptism 'T is us'd only as a Solemn Rite or Ceremony of admission into the Church of England as 't is usual in admissions into Societies to use some particular Ceremonies Therefore as Baptism besides its Sacramental Efficacy is a Rite of admission into Christ's Catholick Church so the Sign of the Cross is into our Church of England We do not use it as 't is used in the Church of Rome for they use it as a dedicative Sign to God we only as a Token or declarative Sign to Men they use it before Baptism and make it part of it we after and make it no part of Baptism but allow the Baptism to be good without it and it to be omitted in Private Baptism if it be scrupled If it be said that since these Ceremonies are allowed to be things indifferent in themselves by the Church of England and are scrupled by the Dissenters why will the Church of England impose them I answer First 't is not fit nor convenient that such things as are thought necessary by the Governours of a Church to preserve the Order and Unity of it should be cast aside to humour some over scrupulous and restless Minds and who 't is like would not be satisfied were that granted Secondly It is more safe for the Church of England to follow the Example of the greatest part of the Reformed Churches which do allow and practise them than such a handful of People as the Dissenters of England c. And Thirdly There were as insignificant Ceremonies injoyn'd by the Apostles themselves as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ours are now notwithstanding some 〈◊〉 scruples concerning them as the Love Feasts and Holy Kiss c. till abolish'd by general consent And the Assembly of their own Divines at Westminster tell us The Apostles say they notwithstanding the difference of Men's Judgments did prescribe Rules of Vniformity See Papers for Accomodation p. 111. The next great Objection which the Dissenters make to the terms of our Communion is For that we tie up our Ministers to prescribed Forms of Prayer which is a stinting of the Spirit and hinders them from exercising their Gifts and is contrary to Scripture and the practice of the Primitive Church The Arguments which they commonly use against written Forms of Prayer are First They say that nothing but the Canonical Scripture and the lively Voice of God's Graces which they call Preaching and Extempore Prayer are to be brought into the Publick Worship of God and nothing that is Humane because subject to Infirmities and Errors But if so then must we exclude not only all written Prayers but the whole Bible too unless in the Original Tongue for all Translations of it are Humane and subject to Errors And also the Prayers and Preaching of the Pastors must be excluded for the Errors in the Sermons and Prayers of the Pastors cannot be said to be the lively Voices of God's own Graces And the Psalms in Metre must be also excluded Another Argument is That we must not make use of any outward helps in the action of Prayer for the Spirit they say helpeth our Infirmities and therefore written Forms and all other outward helps are sinful But let me ask them whether the Voice of another that Prayeth or Fasting or the lifting up of the Hands and Eyes 1 Tim. 2. 8. or Kneeling be Prayer it self or only outward helps to Prayer it self or make it more fervent Sure they are outward helps only and yet they are used in the very action of Prayer Again they say Reading a Prayer cannot be Praying for Prayer is the pouring forth Supplications to God the other a receiving in of such things as we Read But when one hears a Prayer pronounced by another his hearing does receive it into his Soul but yet at the same instant he doth power it forth as a Prayer to God Why then may not this be done as well when 't is read as when 't is pronounced by another But then they tell us That all Forms of Prayer are a stinting of the Spirit If so Why will they hear the Extempore Prayer of another Man is not this as much a Form of Prayer to all the Hearers as any written Form can be Doubtless it is How comes it then that the Spirit of the Hearers is not as much stinted when they joyn in this Form as if they had joyn'd in a written Form But since our Dissenters have the confidence to affirm That Forms of Prayer are sinful and were never used among Christians till lately in the time of Popery and Superstition and are supported only by the Ignorance and Lazyness of our Clergy I will shew That Forms of Prayer and Praises have been used by God's People in the time of the Old Testament and have been practised