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
time of Constantine the Great which is near 1400 years Constantine by his Edict suppress'd all separate Meetings and among the rest the Novatians and silenc'd their Preachers though their Ordination was as good as any among our Nonconformists See Eusebius Vita Const lib. 3. cap. 63 64 65 66. And St. Augustine did very much commend the Emperour for so doing See Aug. Ep. 48. and see also his 4th Book against Cresconius a Donatist ch 51. All the Reform'd Churches in the World do at this day silence such Ministers as refuse to submit to the Orders and Government of their Church and believe they have Power so to do At Geneva their Council of State has the sole Power of Electing and Deposing Ministers Nay farther by the Constitution of Geneva they have Power not only to silence but to excommunicate such Ministers as shall contemn the Authority of the Church or by their obstinacy disturb the Order of it In the French Church if any refuse to subscribe to the Orders of their Church he is to be declared a Schismatick And Calvin himself Ep. Olevian pag. 311 and 122. says Let him that will not submit to the Orders of a Society be cast out But what need we go so far from home for Instances of this kind Let us see what the Opinion of our own Dissenters heretofore was in this matter First then in the great Dispute between the Brownists and the Non-conformists about the Ministers preaching c. against the Will of the Prince the Non conformists all agreed That the Apostles had Power immediately from God to set up his Kingdom but their Power was extraordinary and under Heathen Magistrates But our Ministers have no such extraordinary Power And our Magistrates being Christian are much more to be respected See Gifford a Non-conformist Minister his Answer to Barrow And see the Confutation of the Brownists by several Non-conformists who join'd together for that purpose publish'd by one Rathband by their command p. 51. And see Mr. Bradshaw his Answer to Johnson to the same purpose where he says That the Magistrate had no Power to silence the Apostles for that 't was manifest by the silencing of them was intended the utter extirpation of Christianity But the case is alter'd among us for the intent of a Christian Magistrate is not to silence all Christian Ministers but some particular men only so that the Question is not whether Minister or no but whether this or that Minister of Christ And doubtless every Christian Prince has Power to chuse what Men he thinks fittest for publick Offices in Church or State so long as they be equally qualified according to God's Law But to go on The Opinion and Practice of the Dissenters in the late unhappy Times are not yet forgotten they were all then of an opinion that Christ's Ministers may be silenc'd and accordingly put it in practice every Party as it serv'd their turn See their Solemn League and Covenant all who would not enter into it and solemnly swear to doe their utmost endeavour to abolish Episcopacy and set up Presbytery were immediately not only silenc'd but sequester'd though their Ministry was as much of Divine Right as any of theirs now Conscience then was no Plea for not taking this solemn Oath They would not suffer one of the old Clergy to teach a School Nay they would not allow their own Independent Brethren to preach though they had all taken Presbyterian Orders as they themselves See the Letter from the Presbyterian Ministers of London to the Assembly of Divines at Westminster Ann. 1645. Jan. 1. And the grand Debate c. And in New-England where the Independents have the Power they are all of the same Mind none is to preach publickly by their Laws where any two organick Churches Council of State or general Court shall declare their dissatisfaction thereat See their Body of Statutes which they have lately printed Nay they are not satisfied to silence such Ministers as will not conform but they banish them too as they did Mr. Willams and others And is it not very strange then that the silencing of such Ministers by the King and Governours of the Church who positively refuse to submit to the Orders of the Church or to give their Governours such a Test of their Obedience and Conformity to the Laws of the Church and State as they in their Discretion have thought fit to require of them that this should be a thing so unlawful and wicked now that has been practised in the purest Ages of the Church and by the Dissenters themselves when they were in Power and by all the Churches in the World at this day And indeed if the Tests which the Laws require of their Obedience and Loyalty be too severe and rigid they may blame themselves for it for Governours cannot be too cautious in securing the Peace and Safety of the Kingdom against a Faction that has once already overthrown this Monarchy and Church And give us all the Reason in the World to believe That they are ready to do the same again especially the latter as soon as ever it is in their Power The bitter Spirit they show in Scotland already and their Unchristian like behaviour to all those that differ from them in Opinion shews us plainly what we may expect here when ever they are able And thus much for the Pleas which the Dissenters use for Separation which relate to the Constitution of our Church The second sort are against the terms of Communion with it They say our terms of Communion are unlawful for that the Church of England injoins some things in God's Worship which are not expresly commanded in Scripture and so makes the Scriptures insufficient And these things are our Ceremonies and prescribed Forms of Prayer c. First as to our Ceremonies The Church of England uses no Ceremonies but such as were us'd in the purest Ages of the Church as Dr. Stillingfleet has prov'd in his Mischiefs of Separation And such as are now us'd by the greatest part of the Reform'd Churches beyond Seas The Lutheran Churches have the same and more Ceremonies than we have And yet these Churches have been thought fit to be united to the best Reform'd Churches by the best and wisest Protestants as appears by a Synod of the Reform'd Churches at Chareton in France Anno 1631. And indeed there is no Christian Church in the World but what do make Laws and Canons in Matters of Circumstance and compel both Ministers and People to obey the same They do not believe that every variation in Circumstance in God's Worship is setting up new parts of Worship as our Dissenters seem to do when they charge us with setting up new parts of Worship and making the Scriptures insufficient Adoration we all agree is a substantial and proper act of Divine Worship but whether this Adoration is perform'd by prostration or by bowing or by kneeling is a Circumstance in it self indifferent And
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