the Age next succeeding the Apostles which may be a very probable Argument at least if not demonstrative of such a thing in the Apostles dayes too unless we find something in their practice and writings which may evidently prove the contrary which yet is not done and withal confessing the wisdom of the Church that brought in Bishops though they judge they were not there before if upon no other account yet for the maintenance of peace and remedy of Schism according to that known testimony of St. Hierom so much stood upon in this controversie Sect. 11 Now when thus much is fairly yielded and so willingly assented to when those who yet think themselves in conscience obliged by that Covenant which they have sworn for the extirpation of that Episcopacy with the appendices established among us yet judge themselves not obliged against Episcopacy nor against their Superiority and Jurisdiction as such but think they have fully satisfied their Obligation in the acceptance of and compliance with Episcopacy as reduced by Bishop Usher where yet that Superiority and Jurisdiction is still retained Methinks here is a fair step towards compliance an happy door of hope opened that we may agree The distance is not so wide as at first it did seem to be here are no terms now of Vsurpation Tyranny and Antichristianism assix't to Episcopal Authority Sect. 12 And what should now hinder a perfect compliance when men are satisfied that they may freely and chearfully go thus far what should hinder them but that they may make some steps farther And we all whether of the one or the other perswasion may account our selves so much concerned to promote the peace of the Church as to submit so far to the established government as the Laws under which we live require that we should 1. Except Is it that the Bishops are conceived to take too much upon them and do more than they should or are called to do Or 2. Is it that they will not suffer us to take our due and to do that which we should or that we are called and have authority to do for under these two heads must be comprised all that can with any shadow be pretended why we should not comply and submit so far as the Laws require Sect. 13 Now to give a full answer to both these I shall first premise these two things 1. That it is not the design of these papers and therefore none are here to expect it to enter upon the whole controversie of government or the jus divinum of this in particular nor here to undertake a full justification of all the particulars in the constitution or exercise of it for enough hath been already written pro and con on that subject My whole design here is not to revive but to do my part if God see us yet fit for such a blessing to put an end to disputes of this nature 2. Sect. 14 But all that I have here to do is howsoever the case stand whether there be truth or no in the charge against Bishops or Episcopacy which here I meddle not with and in the following sheets may possibly in a great measure take off to consider How far we of the inferior Orb who if we exercise our ministery in England are bound by the standing Laws of England to be under them may submit to their power obey and conform to these established Laws Now that I may give full satisfaction in this case I shall first lay down these two general conclusions which I must take as granted 1. Sect. 15 This I make one Postulatum and require it to be granted me which I think no intelligent considering man will deny Viz. That in order to the conduct of our consciences and the regulating of our actions we are not to enquire what is the calling office charge or duty of another but what is the charge office and duty incumbent upon our selves Particularly it concerns not us who are not called to this authority in the Church to be curious in examining whether the Bishops do or do not undertake a charge too great for them to manage what their power or what their duty and sins are or whether it be fit they should be established in such authority by a Law this is to go out of our sphere and to meddle where we are not concerned But They being in possession of this power and established in that authority by those Laws under which we live made by the unquestionable Supremacy and Legis-lative power in the Kingdom and to whom (a) Rom. 13.5 we must be subject Our business now only is to satisfie our selves and others whether and how far we are bound to conform to these Laws in our owning and submitting to that Episcopal authority which they have established Or how far we lawfully may do so and indeed what we lawfully may do we are in duty bound to do when by a just authority we are commanded to do it This I am sure is most necessary to gain and preserve our peace And therefore I cannot but condemn that preposterous course of some Ministers who had no way to commend their zeal to the world but by preaching to one Auditory the duties of another or inveighing against their sins Some preaching in the Court against the sins of the Country and before the Magistrate ripping up the irregularities of the Subject Others with equal yea possibly more bitterness inveighing before the people against the licentiousness of the Court the Pride of the Bishops and the sins of their Governours And what Beautifiers such men have proved we need not turn over the Annals of many ages to witness Sure I am this was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rightly to divide the word of truth (b) 2 Tim. 2.15 like that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a workman that needs not be ashamed of whom St. Paul speaks nor like the faithful and wise Steward of whom our Saviour (c) Luk. 12.42 to give to every one his own proper portion of meat in due season And when men have thus made it their business to consider (d) Mat. 7.3 the Motes in the eyes of others and neglect the Beam in their own To judge censure and condemn the carriages of their brethren and look over their own When Subjects and inferiors set themselves to examine the calling office duty and carriage and to dispute the Place authority and commands of their Superiors in Church or State The fruit of this can be nothing but Sedition or Rebellion schism or faction and mutual animosities hatred and contempt But could we learn every man to do what becomes himself if others be irregular let the sin lie upon them while we are careful to look to our own steps and faithfully to discharge the duties of our own place with how much chearfulness content and peace might we live together 2. Sect. 16 Another Postulatum I require likewise to be granted which I judge no conscientious
of this refusal in so many letters and syllables yet that which they do assign is by implication and in effect the same for it is as much as if they had said God himself hath imposed this calling upon us and not man and therefore except we should rather obey man than God we may not forbear for opposing the obedience of God to the obedience of man they therein plead a calling from God and not from man otherwise if they had received a calling from men there had been incongruity in the answer Considering that in common sense they ought so far to obey man forbidding them to exercise a calling which they do exercise only by vertue of that calling from men else by this reason there should be no power so to depose a man from his Ministry but that notwithstanding any Commandment of the Church or State he is still to continue in the exercise of his Ministry and should be bound to give that example which the Apostles did which is not only absurd but a conceit plainly tending to manifest Sedition Sect. 29 3. We are to know That though the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists preached publickly when they were not hindred by open violence and did not nor might they leave their Ministry upon any humane authority and commandment whatsoever because they did not enter into or exercise the same upon the will and pleasure of any man whatsoever yet they never erected and planted publick Churches and Ministry in the face of the Magistrate whether he would or no or in despite of him but such in respect of the Magistrate were as private and invisible as might be 4. Sect. 30 Neither were some of the Apostles only forbidden so as others should be suffered to preach the same Gospel in their places but the utter abolishing of Christian Religion was manifestly intended in silencing them But out Churches whereof we are Ministers are no private and secret Assemblies such as hide themselves from the face of a persecuting Magistrate but are publick professing their Worship doing their Religion in the face of the Magistrate and State yea and by his countenance authority and protection And we are set over these Churches not only by a calling of our people but also by the Authority of the Magistrate who hath an armed power to hinder such publick Actions and who is also willing to permit and maintain other true Ministers of the Gospel in those places where he forbiddeth some Sect. 31 By these it appears That the case of the Apostles and Ours is not the same nor can their answer to the High Priest and Elders from whom they received no call to preach and by whom they were forbidden to preach Jesus the design of that Council being not to forbid them alone and permit others to do it but utterly to abolish Christianity with any pretence fit us that we therefore should not lawfully obey and sit down in silence and recede from the exercise of our Ministery in a particular place upon the command of those from whom we received Authority there to minister and who though they silence and exclude us yet send others to minister to the needs of the Church in the same Gospel and therefore as the said Mr. Bradshaw so we conclude 1. If after our publick calling to minister in such a known and publick Church nor by the Church only but by the Magistrate also The Magistrate shall have matter against us just or unjust as to our obedience it matters not and shall in that regard forbid us to minister to our Church and the Bishop in these censures acting according to the Laws under which he and we are it bears the same reason I see not by what warrant in Gods Word we should think our selves bound notwithstanding to exercise our Ministery still except we should think such a Law of Ministery to lie upon us that we should be bound to run upon the Swords point of the Magistrate or oppose Sword to Sword which I am sure Christianity abominates Sect. 33 2. Yea and suppose the Magistrate should do it unjustly and against the will of the Church and should therein sin yet doth not the Church in that regard cease to be a Church nor ought she therein to resist the will of the Magistrate neither doth she stand bound in regard of her affection to her Minister how great and deserved soever to deprive herself of the protection of the Magistrate by leaving her publick standing to follow her Minister in private and in the dark refusing the benefit of other publick Ministers which with the good leave and liking of the Magistrate she may enjoy Sect. 34 3. Neither do I know what warrant any ordinary Minister hath by Gods Word in such a case so to draw any such Church or people to his private Ministery that thereby they should hazard their outward state and quiet in the Commonwealth where they live when in some competent measure they may publickly with the grace and favour of the Magistrate enjoy the ordinary means of salvation by another And except he have a calling to minister in some other Church he is to be content to live as a private member until it shall please God to reconcile the Magistrate unto him and to call him again to his own Church So far this learned man though a Non-conformist Sect. 35 Now I appeal to any that dissent most if it be not all truth for the main And change but the name of Magistrate into Bishop the reason is all one we may submit to one as well as to the other Though we should deny any such Authority to the Bishop as such yet because he in this acteth under the Laws and whatsoever Autho ity he hath by vertue of his Function in the Church yet it is certain that the exercise of this Authority here is by the leave and authority of the Magistrate So that here is nothing material in this exception but it still remains out of dispute that though it should be granted that the Bishops have no such power by any authority derived from Christ which yet we say they have yet we may lawfully submit to them in the exercise of it And let us do this we do our part and we shall live in peace Sect. 36.4 Partic. Ex ∣ cept 4. Another exception laid against the Bishops is this That though it be granted that they have some authority or if they have not that yet we may lawfully obey yet They exercise an Arbitrary power and this is not to be submitted to And of this nature is that fourth exception made by the Presbyterian Divines in their first paper of Proposals to His Majesty Viz. That some of the Bishops exercised an Arbitrary power as by sending forth their Articles of Visitation inquiring unwarrantably into several things and swearing the Church-Wardens to present accordingly so by many innovations and ceremonies imposed upon Ministers and People not required by Law Sect. 37
the Government Apostolical and necessary or only Prudential brought in by the Church and not repugnant to the Holy rule or only as the Bishops are impowered and Commissioned under the King being here established I see not how we can without sin refuse a peaceable compliance with it Sect. 56 And I have reason to hope such a compliance in a good measure because those learned Brethren who though in their Proposals to His Majesty they desire that Chancellors Arch-deacons Commissaries c. as such may not pass any censures purely Spiritual yet when they say only as such it may intimate they would not deny them under another notion as Commissioned under His Majesty to do so These Brethren I say add this But for the exercise of Civil Government and this by their words there may seem to include the acts of Government in the Church and ecclesiastical Causes so far as the Censures are not purely Spiritual coercively by Mulcts or corporal penalties by power derived from Your Majesty as Supreme over persons and things ecclesiastical we presume not at all to interpose but shall submit to any that act by Your Majesties Commission Were indeed these Considerations well weighed they would do much to a peaceable obedience Sect. 57 Except Partic. 7 7. I know but one material exception more referring to this charge that The Bishops take too much upon them And that is The matter of Ordination and now the Re-ordination for thus it is excepted The Bishops some of them do assume sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to themselves And now it is farther urged as unsufferable that upon their re-establishment they require a Re-ordination of all those who during the late Confusions were ordained only by a Presbytery Sect. 58 In answer to the business of a Superior ordo c. enough is already said But to the matter of Ordination and Re-ordination I say Answ 1 1. The Question is not what some challenge to themselves but how far we may yield in the thing that is challenged without sin If some challenge too much let them answer that but if we may without sin take from their hands that which we can legally have from no others I see not why we should in the least scruple to take it That Their hands are Necessary and that none can be regularly ordained without them is the Judgement of none of the least or lowest in the Church who think the Scripture speaks clearest on their side also For Though Timothy had the (h) 1 Tim. 4 14. Imposition of Hands of the Presbytery yet it is expressly said that he had (i) 2 Tim. 1.6 Pauls too and he not acting as one of them but under a distinct notion as the words if well weighed do more than intimate for whatsoever that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was which was given by that Laying on of Hands whether the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit usually in those dayes by the (k) Act. 8.17 18. Apostles hands or the Gift i. e. Authority of Ministery whether of a Bishop or Evangelist it matters not whatsoever I say the gift was it seems to be conferred (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chiefly by the hands of Paul and referred to the hands of the Presbytery (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but as assistants or associates with him But those texts seem to be more express where not only the Deacons were made by (n) Act 6.6 the sole hands of the Apostles but also in the ordaining of Presbyters we read that Barnabas and Paul those Apostles (o) Act. 14.23 did ordain Elders in every Church as they went we read not of any other hands with them St. Paul also layes this charge on Timothy (p) 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay thou hands suddenly on none intimating an act wherein he only was concerned for if there were other Presbyters or a Presbytery at Ephesus and they necessarily to joyn with him in every Ordination why is the charge only given to him why not the same caution urged on them And in that clause (q) T it 1. ◠For this cause left I thee in Creet that Thou shouldest ordain Elders in every City we see Titus infallibly left with authority to do this but we read not of any others appointed with him If any object He was an extraordinary Officer and Evangelist This signifies little for whatever he was he was an Apostolical person and for that time at least seated at that place for the particular Government of that church to perform not an extraordinary but a work of standing use in the Church the administration of an ordinary and perpetual Ordinance And why then in such a work he may not be conceived to act as a settled ordinary Officer I see not This we are sure of That Ordination was not given in those dayes without the hands of an Apostle or an Apostolical person We are not sure that it was not sometimes without the hands of the Presbytery Upon these grounds these learned and conscientious men judge a Necessity of the Episcopal or Apostolical hands though not excluding yet withal not necessarily requiring the hands of other Presbyters Sect. 59 On the other side that The Hands of Bishops are lawful in this work is granted so far by those who urge the greatest necessity of the Presbyterial Ordination yet excude not the Bishop See Jus Divin Minist Evang. 2. part who on their judgements ceaseth not to be at least a Presbyter and the Name of a Bishop doth not with them take away his interest of a Presbyter in Ordination nor nullifie the Orders because his Hands were in them Now then if we may but lawfully take it at the Bishops hands if it be required to be had from them alone though it should be supposed somewhat irregular and we can have it no other way without the violation of the Laws in being suppose they should sin in assuming that only to themselves which should be done joyntly with others yet we should not sin in taking it of them because they unquestionably have a power though possibly not the sole power Sect. 60 2. It is objected only Some Bishops challenge to themselves c. Now the matter is not what some particular men challenge but what the established constitution is It concerns not us to be of the same judgement with every particular Bishop but to obey them in that place where the Laws have set them and in that authority wherein the Constitutions of this Church have invested them Now the Laws of our Church give no such power of sole ordination nor doth any Bishop that I know or have heard practice it The Dean and Prebends were of old I doubt not accounted a standing Presbytery to the Bishop and the (r) Can. 31. Presence of four of these are expressly required to every Ordination viz. The Dean Arch-Deacon and two Prebendaries at least or in the necessary absence of them four other
we now speak of a Parish though the Diocess were not so large as in succeeding times Sect. 14 Answ 4 4. But grant every tittle of the exception That the Diâ—cess is by much too large c. What then may we not submit if any undertake a charge which he is not able to manage let him look to it he must give up his own account not we for him If any of us be called or invited to or offered such a place or power if we judge it too much for one man and the account too heavy on Gods name let us refuse it no man will enforce any to be a Bishop against his will But what is this to our obedience The extent of their charge may be occasion of sin to them who undertake what they cannot perform but can be no plea for us why we should not obey when we are required Had the Bishop none to govern but some ten or twenty of us which he might do we were then bound to obey him and though more be under his charge this exempts not us from our particular duty Sect. 15.3 Partic. Ex ∣ cept 3. Another exception is That though the Bishop hath authority over the flock yet being in eodem ordine he hath no power over others of the same order i. e. over other Presbyters which yet he challengeth and where he hath no authority to command there we have no obligation to obey And therefore 1. They cannot justly require nor are we bound to yield that Canonical obedience which we are required to promise at our Ordination and to swear at our institution into a Benefice 2. Nor have they any power to silence or suspend us from our ministery nor may we lay down the exercise thereof upon their pleasure Sect. 16 Answ Gener. 1 Answ 1. To all this I answer in general 1. If the Bishop be a distinct order then there is no place for this exception But this I shall not now dispute 2. But though a Bishop and a Presbyter be yielded to be not different Orders of Ministery as Presbyter and Deacon are yet one may be in a degree of eminency in the same order above the other And if it be but 1. For the conveniency of Administration and to keep peace and unity in the Church Or 2. That the King or Supreme Governour so is pleased to order the external Oeconomy either of these is enough to oblige an humble Christian to a peaceable submission though he were not convinced of the Divine right of the Superiority For where he hath no authority but only a possession we may ober for Peace and where he hath if not a Divine yet a Civil authority we must obey (q) Rom. 13.5 for conscience akâ— Sect. 17 Answ partic 2 Answ 2. But as to the two particulars I give this Answer 1. 1. To the matter of Canonical obedience To that That they require of us Canonical obedience which we are to Promise at our Ordination and to swear at our Institution to a Parochial charge which it is said they cannot justly require nor are we bound to yield I answer Answ 1 Sect. 18 Answ 1. Why may they not justly require it Is it for want of authority in their place No certainly Authority they have if as some judge they are the Primigenial Apostolical constitution yea founded in the very Apostolical Office without question they have it then à Deo And if it should be made appear to us when our great account comes to be given to have been so what shall we answer for our denial of it But if they came in afterwards by the Prudence of the Church to govern for the prevention of faction and schism still they are continued in the Authority And such a prudential constitution gives them power enough as to this nor can we be acquitted of Schism if we obey it not Or Is it because this obedience which they require is not to be required not this neither For obedience is a duty of inferiors to superiors and they being made superiors whether by God or the King it makes no difference in this case it is due to them they may require it and we are then bound to yield it Besides what is it that they require of us is it not that we do the duties of our places in the Church This we are bound to do whether they require it or no and sure it becomes not sin to us then only because it is required Sect. 19 Answ 2 2. But suppose we are not bound to yield this Canonical obedience yet may we not lawfully do it May a man lawfully do no more than by an express Law he is bound to do without doubt he may Exigua est bonitas ad legem esse bonus Were men proved to be never so much Usurpers yet I never knew any Casuist determine it unlawful to obey him in those things which we might lawfully do and wherein we prejudiced not the right of nor did break our Allegiance to our lawful Prince It is one thing what we are bound to do another what we lawfully may do Were the Bishops proved the greatest Usurpers as some men clamour yet I could never see any that durst say our obedience to them in lawful things was unlawful or that in obeying them we should disobey Christ where we are to do but the duties which Christ hath laid upon us or at least such as He hath not forbidden us And beyond this All the Canonical obedience required of us or promised by us extendeth not For what is it that we promise even this (r) See Form of Order Priests Reverently to obey our Ordinary and other chief Ministers unto whom the Government and charge is committed over us following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions and submitting our selves to their godly judgements What is here promised that a good Christian may not yield What do we promise more in the intent of the Law than to obey those who are set over us in licitis honestis in things lawful and honest and not repugnant to Gods Word They require no more we promise no more And this I am sure we may lawfully do so long as the Government is committed to them whether it be directly by Divine institution or only by the Authority of the King which even their greatest enemies must grant that it is it matters not as to this particular the lawfulness of our obeying thus far 2. Sect. 20.2 To the matter of silencing or suspending As to the other part of the exception There is indeed a great cry in the world against the Bishops for silencing and suspending Ministers which they are said to have no authority to do and it is pleaded that we may not submit here nor lay down the exercise of our Ministery upon their pleasure but that the (s) Act. 4 19. 5.29 Answer of the Apostles to those High Priests Rulers and Elders
who commanded them to preach no more in the Name of Jesus must be ours That God hath imposed this calling upon us and therefore unless we would rather obey Man than God we may not forbear the exercise of that office which God hath laid upon us with a (t) 1 Cor. 9.16 woe if we preach not Answ 1 Sect. 21 To all this I answer 1. To be silenced or suspended or deposed is but to be denied the liberty of and so consequently to be enjoyned to forbear the publick exercise of our Ministery upon the Bishops pleasure and to be deprived of that maintenance which we had while we were allowed to exercise our Ministery in such a place And in this the Bishops pleasure is the Magistrates pleasure The Bishop proceeding according to the Laws And that the Magistrate hath power and under him consequently the Bishop to deny any particular man this liberty within his Dominions I know none that doubteth if he shall do this caussesly the sin is his but submission and obedience is our duty Sect. 22 Answ 2 2. But more The Bishops as such if they have any place in the Church Are Ecclesiastical Governours and their work is to Over-see to watch over and for the flock (v) To take care of the Church of God 1 Tim. 3.5 ne quid ecclesia detrimenti capiat Their care it must be that Tares be not sowen among the Wheat nor corrupt and heretical doctrine preached for the pure Word of God that the souls of men be not poysoned with rotten principles or leavened with Heresie or stirred up to Schisme or Sedition but that they be built up in the most holy faith instructed in sound doctrine encouraged to Piety and lead in the wayes of Purity and Peace And therefore it cannot but lie upon them to be cautious what persons they admit into the Ministry and to watch how they continue in it And their power equally extendeth to the silencing suspending or ejecting those who are Seditious or Scandalous as to the denial of their admission or to the admitting of such as are able and faithful It is no more then what the Apostle (x) Act. 20.28 32. gave in charge to those Elders or Bishops for so they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Miletum to watch because of the Wolves that would enter And for which the Lord reproves (y) Rev. 2.14 15 20. those Asian Angels that they permitted the doctrines of Balaam and the Nicolaitans to be taught and Jezebel to prophesie And this power is clearly manifest in those Apostolical charges to (z) 1 Tim 1.3 4 6 7. 5.19 20 21 22. 2 Tim 2.14 4 2 3. Tit. 1 5 10 11. 3.10 11. Timothy and Titus which are frequent in those Epistles For the truth is if the Bishops have not this power it is not possible they should perform their duty or discharge their trust to God or his Church If any of them abuse this power it is only their personal sin and they abuse but their own power for such an authority they cannot be denied to have if they have any power or authority in the Church at all Sect. 23 Answ 3 3. And how unjust soever the censure may be in him that gives it yet that we may lawfully sit down in silence I think is beyond dispute for though our Ministery be from God and the Calling of Divine Institution yet it is conferred on particulars this or that person by men and they exercise this ministery by vertue of that Calling which they had from men Now common sense and reason telleth us that we may lawfully obey men forbidding us the exercise of a Ministery which though the ministery be from God yet we have power to exercise in such a place by vertue of that Calling only which we had from men Sect. 24 Answ 4 4. Neither doth that answer of the Apostles to the High-Priest and Council and their resolution and practice to preach the same Christ still notwithstanding that Prohibition any way lay such a necessity upon any in our case to disobey and to refuse to lay down the exercise of our ministery when we are required And as to this let me crave leave here to mind the Reader 1. That this was one of the great arguments which Johnson the Brownist made against our Church assemblies Sect. 25. The Separatists objection that it was not lawful to communicate with them because our ministery was the ministery of Antichrists Apostacy this he would prove because none could stand publick Ministers except they receive of the Prelates Priesthood and Deaconry and without and against the peoples consent they are by the Prelates alone silenced deprived and degraded from exercising any ministery in those assemblies who yet ought not to suffer themselves to be silenced and deposed from their publick ministery no not by the lawful Magistrate Here we see in this mans mouth impudence and Sedition more than enough yet this bold assertion he labours to prove by this very Reply of the Apostles who would not at the command even of the lawful Magistrate cease to preach But 2. Sect 26. Answered by a Non-conformist What answer was given to him will exactly fit our case also I shall give it in the words of Master William Bradshaw Both because they speak fully to the Objection and in this so far justifie the Bishops power as to lay a necessity both upon the Minister and people to submit with peace and also to shew how even then when they say the Church groaned under the highest exorbitancy of Episcopacy The soberer non-conformists who did not acknowledge the Prelacy did yet judge it lawfull to submit to their power and to forbear the exercise of their ministery upon their pleasure For one of these was that Master Bradshaw and set aside his dissent from the established Order of the Church I doubt not a pious sober sound Divine and even then when himself was silenced upon the account of Non-conformity writing in the defence of our Church-Assemblies justifying our Communion proving the unreasonableness of separation from them in which Book (a) Unreason of Separat p. 90 Sect. 27. he gives this answer to the Separatist 1. When he i. e. Johnson the Separatist distinguisheth between silencing and deposing by lawful Magistrates and by Prelates as indeed he seemed to do when he said We are silenced by Prelates when the Apostles would not no not by the lawful Magistrates is in our case where the Prelates do it by Authority and Commission from the lawful Magistrate a distinction without a difference Sect. 22 2. Whereas the Separatist had said The Apostles did not make their immediate calling from God the ground of their refusal but this That they ought to obey God rather than men which is a Duty required of all Ministers and Christians He answereth That Though the Apostles did not assign their immediate calling from God as the ground
Answ 1 I answer 1. Those things which are really innovations and imposed and not required by Law surely we are not bound to obey nor do I know any that affirms we should sin if we submit not to them nor will it be charged upon those that deny them but upon such as impose them if the peace of the Church be violated Yet let it be considered also Sect. 38 Answ 2 2. Though such and such particular Rites may not be specially ordained by a positive Law for them yet if there be a general Law impowring the Bishops to order appoint and require what shall be for the peace of the Church and order in it what shall be for the conveniencies solemnity and decency of Administration and of all this leave them to be the judges what they now do so require they cannot be said to require without or against Law And if these particulars which they require be not manifestly against the Word of God I cannot see how we can be excused from sin if we disobey considering that establishment which by Law they have among us Sect. 39 Answ 3 3. But may we do nothing but what we are bound to do yea are we not bound for peace sake to do all that we lawfully may do Suppose our Governours should lay the peace of the Church upon such slight matters as are of no consideration in comparison with it and this be indeed their imprudence and possibly their sin Yet when this is done if we submit not supposing the things to be lawful in themselves I see not but that the violation of the Churches peace will be laid upon us as well as upon them nor will their imprudence excuse our sin There may perhaps be some kind of sin in them requiring but I am sure when the things required are not materially evil there can be no sin in us in obeying Let us not therefore so much consider what they must or may require but what we may and should do when it is required and we shall have peace Sect. 40 Except Partic. 5 5. The next great Exception is The Bishops claim to be Spiritual Lords contrary to the Royal Prerogative of Jesus Christ the only Lord and King of the Church The same which Johnson the Separatist made against our Churches See Unreason of Separat p. 47 48. and expressly contrary to that rule of the (b) 1 Pet. 5.2 3. Apostle where they if those Elders be supposed to be Bishops are only to oversee the Flock and not as Lords over Gods heritage but as ensamples to the Flock Yea contrary to the Royal dignity of the King and temporal Magistrate both in civil and ecclesiastical causes For they have their voices and authority in Parliament for enacting Laws for the Common-wealth They are Rulers of Provinces and Diocesses in ecclesiastical causes in civil State and dignity some of them above all all of them above some of the Nobles Justices and other Magistrates of the Land They and their Courts handle and determine civil causes and affairs that appertain to the Magistracy they inflict civil mulcts and penalties give Licences in several cases all the Priests and Deacons are exempt from the Magistrates Jurisdiction in divers things and answerable only or chiefly to the Prelates and their Officers Sect. 41 For Answer Here is a great charge indeed but it signifies nothing as to the business before us viz. our submission for Peace sake For Answ 1 1. Should they claim to be what they are not for there is a vast difference between to be and to claim to be may we yet not lawfully obey them in things honest though we own not their claim I judge we may The claim may be unjust in them and yet the things which they require of us may be fit to be done by us Sect. 42 Answ 2 2. Though they should claim more than belongs to them yet this makes not a nullity of that authority which is their due What they may justly require as Bishops and Governours of the Church they may require had they not those Titles of Spiritual Lords and then the addition of that Title destroyes not their power of Bishops Sect. 43 Answ 3 3. But They neither are nor claim to be such Spiritual Lords as the Objection implyeth as even the (c) Bradsh unreas of Separ p. 65. learned Non-conformists have acknowledged and which their Canons and practice shew For those things which are antecedently necessary by the Law of God they do command and press not as their own but as the Laws of Christ. And for things which are of another nature the practice whereof is made necessary pro Hic Nunc by their constitutions they prescribe them not so as to bind the conscience of any to the acknowledgement and approbation thereof as necessary things but only to obey them in practice and for external order and as things indifferent in themselves which we are no longer obliged to than they are commanded And therefore they cannot be said to arrogate such an Office of Spiritual Lords as the Apostle condemns nor in that sense wherein Christ alone is Lord of his Church They never attempting to introduce a new worship of God or enjoyning subscription to new Articles of Faith But requiring only the same Articles to be believed which Christ hath revealed and ordering only the external mode and circumstances of worship the substance of which is only from Christ as to decency order and edification of which they as the Governours of the Church here must be in a very great measure acknowledged the Judges and which are by Christ left free to the Church to order according to the condition of Time and Place and other Circumstances Sect. 44 Answ 4 4. And as they encroach not upon the Prerogative Royal of Jesus Christ so neither do they infringe the Authority of the King and Civil Magistrate And to evidence this I need say no more than that which the forecited (d) Unreas of Separ p. 47. Mr. Bradshaw though no friend to the Bishop hath said in answer to this very objection 1. That the Prelates claim their voyces in Parliament not as Divine Ordinances appertaining to their Prelateships but as an honour annexed to the same by the Civil Magistrate 2. Their Authority in causes ecclesiastical over Provinvinces c. is either such as the Magistrate himself may execute and administer in his own person if he please or such as is not for Him as a Magistrate to execute The first sort The Bishops administer only by vertue of the Magistrates own Commission and therein they impair not either his dignity or supremacy much less in the other part of their authority which belongeth not to the Magistrate himself to execute especially when they use not this neither without his consent licence and approbation 3. That all are above some some above all the Nobles Justices c. is a free and voluntary honour
granted to them by the Civil Magistrate and held in tenure from him and not claimed as pertaining to the Episcopal function by Divine right 4. Their Courts determine no other civil causes than the Civil Magistrate and his Laws do permit or if any do the fault is not in the Prelateship but in the persons Further they inflict civil punishments give licences exact oaths c. by authority from the Magistrate whose substitutes therein they are And therefore the Prelates neither in this nor in any of the former instances can be said to impair the dignity authority or supremacy of the Civil Magistrate but herein do all things in and by the protection of his authority 5. If all our Ministers be exempt from the Magistrates Jurisdiction in some things appertaining to them but in what things I know not this very exemption it self is an act of the Magistrates Jurisdiction and depends upon his pleasure and how can it then any wayes impair the same Sect. 45 These things may satisfie in answer to this exception The Honours and Lordships given to the Bishops is a civil additament which we have no reason to envy them neither doth that Title or their rule and dominion infringe the Prerogative of Christ or the Power and Authority of the King And how their Honours and power in the Church should discharge us of our obedience or be a ground of our contentions I must profess I see not how any rational account can be given to any considering man Sect. 46 Except partic 6 6. But if they have a power themselves yet how can they set up and substitute and require our obedience to other officers which in the Church are confessedly not of divine institution for this also is an exception against our Episcopacy and thus did the Presbyterian Divines give it in in their (e) 1. Pap. of Propos except 2. against Bishops Proposals to His Majesty That by reason of the disability to discharge their duties and trusts personally The Bishops did depute the Administration of much of their trust even in matters of Spiritual Cognizance to Commissaries Chancellors and Officials whereof some are meer secular persons and could not administer that power which originally pertaineth to the Officers of the Church And again in their Second paper to His Majesty presented in reference to His Majesties Declaration communicated to them before its publication they say The Prelacy which we disclaim is That of Diocesans upon the claim of a superior order to a Presbyter assuming the sole power of Ordination and of Publick admonition of particular offendors enjoyning Penitence excommunicating and absolving besides Confirmation over so many Churches as necessitated the corruption of Discipline and using of Humane officers as Chancellors Surrogates Officials Commissaries Arch-deacons while the undoubted officers of Christ the Pastors of particular Churches were hindred from the exercise of their office Sect. 47 Answ 1 Answ 1. How much these things may signifie towards the design for which they were urged by these Brethren petitioning for an alteration of the establishment which here I meddle not with sure I am should all these things be granted they signifie nothing as to the exemption of us from a peaceable submission to these officers being established And this is all that I here aim at As to the Diocesses and Superior Order I have already spoken to them the matter of Ordination I shall examine under the next exception Sect. 48 Answ 2 2. As to Publick admonition Penances Excommunication and Absolving c. I say that such censures as these are to be executed in the Church none that knows the nature of a Church and is acquainted with the Scriptures did ever or do now question The censures are necessary the ends great To preserve the Church in Purity and Peace To keep men from Scandal and Schism To recover the lapsed sinner To restore the Penitent To strengthen the weak To confirm and establish the doubtful to make the Church (f) Cant. 6.4 10 comely and beautiful in her self and terrible to her enemies as a well marshalled Army Now when we acknowledge the Censures of Divine institution and of so great necessity why should we quarrel at the Administrators which yet are not so uncapable of this trust as some may conceive The Bishops on all hands are granted an interest in the power of the Keyes even by those who will not acknowledge them above the Presbyters Now if they exercise this power alone or with others yet excluding some whom we judge to have an interest with them yet what they do they do by vertue of that authority which they have The taking too much upon them or any male-administration may be personal faults but no ground for us to refuse obedience Sect. 49 Answ 3 3. Neither do these inferior officers pass these Censures alone but with others nor do any according to our constitutions keep Courts in affairs of this nature but with someone or more Presbyters there with them Sect. 50 Answ 4 4. But grant that these Officers have not a Divine institution but substitute under the Bishop by an authority meerly humane though some conceive some footsteps of an Archdeacon in Scripture in Silas and Mark to Paul and Barnabas although not under the same name Yet 1. The Lay-Elders beyond all doubt are as much secular persons as any of these and have as little a foundation in Scripture as these as to the being Ecclesiastical officers and the passing of Church-censures and then methinks these men that could admit them may admit these If their being secular persons be an argument against these sure I am it is as strong against them and with us more for they never had any legal establishment in this Church as these have But 2. The legal establishment of these Officers by the Laws of the Kingdom is enough to engage our submission to those Laws and upon this account may even those men with a good conscience obey them who yet acknowledge not a Divine institution of them nor a Divine right in Episcopacy it self For 1. Sect. 51 I think there is very much truth in those words of Archbishop Whitgift which I find cited but miserably misapplied by Johnson the Separatist viz. The substance and nature of Government must be taken out of the Word of God and consisteth in these parts That the Word be truly taught the Sacraments rightly administred Vertue furthered Vice repressed and the Church kept in quietness and order All this is certainly of Divine institution and this we may and must submit to And this is all which the Bishops and Officers under them are impowered to do But saith he the Officers of the Church whereby this Government is wrought be not namely and particularly expressed in Scripture but in some points left to the discretion and liberty of the Church to be disposed according to the state of times persons and places Now if there be a truth in this which
fully agreed That When a thing appears to be a duty it is then not only lawful but necessary and it must supersede all dispute about the near lawfulnesse or expediency such a thing now not only may but must be dore Here we are not to make scruples or examine whether it be fit to be done because if a Duty it cannot be omitted without sin And without question a 〈◊〉 once supposedâ— Dâ—â—y is by the same supposed lawful expedient yea necessary and no imagined expedience may superâ—â—de a necessary duty Sect. 6 4. It is as clearly evident and granted by all That a Law made by a Lawful thougl Hâ—mâ—â— Aâ—â—â—ority â—â—yeth an Obligation upon the Conscience The Obe◠〈◊〉 a thing indifferent but in Conscience we are bould to yield it and if we refuse it we are under the guilt not only of the breach of an Humane Law but of sin against God whâ— gave the [i] Prov. 8.15.16 power to the Law makers and whose [k] Rom. 13.1.2.5 ordinance is despised in the contempt of those laws The powers have their authority from God They are ordained of God therefore to resist or disobey them is to resist and disobey God and the end is Damnation the proper [l] Rom. 6.21 23. fruit and end of sin and Therefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath the fear of anger or punishment by those in Authority but for Conscience sake as obliged in Conscience to a duty which God requires 5. It is also I thinâ— unquestionable among all knowing and considering men That though no powers can oblige a Subject by any Law to what is materially evil Conscience being primarily bound [m] Nullaâ—st necessitas â—â—â—inquendi qâ—ibas una est necessitas nâ—n delinquendi not to sin by the Law of him who is God and Lord of all yet A just authority commanding that which was before a duty a new Obligation is laid upon the Conscience by this command of men added to the command of God so that Conscience is now tyed in a double bond even from God and Man and to disobey now would be a double sin yea farther Sect. 7 6. It cannot be divided That A just Authority commanding or forbidding that which was before lawful either to be done or forborn bringeth now an Obligation upon the Conscience of the Subject which was not obliged before so far that what I might lawfully do without sin now when commanded I am bound to do it and sin by the breach of an obliging law if I do it not and what I might lawfully forbear before now when forbidden I not onely may but must forbear and conscience is obliged in sin if I forbear it not e. g. Christians are undoubtedly bound to acts of Publick and solemn worship of God suppose particularly on the Lords day and it being perfectly indifferent at what hour of the day their publick meetings shall be it being beyond dispute that they may lawfully assemble at any hour but they being once by authority of Church or State determined to such an hour by that command they are bound to assemble at the time appointed it being a circumstance on all hands confessed where they may command and we may obey Again to Fast and humble our selves before the Lord upon occasion of our provoking sins or the presence or sear of some heavy judgements to implore pardon for the one and the removing or preventing of the other is without question a duty upon us by the law of God and so it is also to meet for publick Praise and Thanksgiving but the partic lar dayes and times are confessedly indifferent and none that I know ever doubted the power of humane authority to determine them and having so determined we are obliged to observe them Even those who yet scruple the religious observation of the constant Fasts and Feasts prescribed in this Church such as the Lent Fast Ember weeks Vigils and the observation of Saints dayes and the particular solemnities of Christs Birth Resurrection and Ascension c. yet grant in Thesi this to be true That it is in the power of the Magistrate to appoint dayes either of Fasting or Thanksgiving and that his law obligeth the Subject to observe them accordingly which is an infallible evidence that in things thus purely indifferent the law of a just Authority obligeth where before we were not obliged And those Reverend Divines commissioned by his Majesty to treat about the Alteration of the Liturgy making not this an exception against the Ceremonies imposed That because they are in themselves indifferent a law is not to be made concerning them or if made that we are not obliged but onely this they desire such a law not to be made because though they be indifferent in the judgement of the imposers yet they are not so in the judgement of the opposers but held by some of them to be sinful and unlawful in themselves and by others very inconvenient and unsuitable to the simplicity of the Gospel Which assures me that were they in their judgments lawful to be observed the command would not be a plea why they should not be observed I might give several other instances of such indifferencies It is without doubt lawful in it self to eat Fish or Flesh at any time but when upon just reasons or prudential motives a just authority shall command an abstinence from Flesh for such a season we are for that season obliged to forbear it so far as we are really able unlesse we have a dispensation by the same authority that made the law And indeed it concernes not Subjects to enquire the reasons why the law is made but whether the thing be lawfull the matter of that law be not evil and when it was lawful before it becomes a duty now For the lawes of a just authority come in [n] Prov. 8.15 Rom. 13.1 6. the Power of God and it is a duty to be subject for conscience sake as before was shewed and therefore to deny to do that which is commanded when it is commanded or because it is commanded is an high contempt of the ordinance of God a sin of an high nature before God Sect. 9 7. Hence it also undeniably followeth nor is it denied by any who understand the nature and obligation of a law That where a law made by such authority requireth our active obedience i. e. to do or not do such a thing and layeth a penalty on those who observe it not the conscience is obliged to the duty and it is not sufficient to submit to the penalty because the law engageth to the Fenalty onely secondarily and accidentally upon mens failures but obligeth conscience primarily and intentionally to the duty required The sanction or penalty being added to preserve the honour and authority of the law that it may not be contemned that when men do not or will not for conscience obey they may by the terrour of the punishment be
of particular and distinctive Habits or Ornaments used for the solemnity of other publick Actions none ever questioned the Royal Robes of the King on the Throne The Robes of Nobles in Parliament of Judges on their Tribunals of Professors in the Chaire in the Schooles Why should we quarrel at the Robes of Bishops in their Consistories or of Ministers in the solemnity of Religious Worship But in this we have enough acknowledged by our Brethren in their account of the Conference Those say m Account of proceed Reply to Answ §. 13. they that scruple the Surplice do it not as it is an habit determined of as decent but as they think it made an holy Vestment and so a part of external worship as Aarons Vestments were Well then it is allowed as determined of as decent Our Church determines no more requires no more Why shall we Dispute against it as an holy Vestment as Aarons was which was never so Imposed when by such a Dispute we must either violate the Laws of Charity by affixing an imputation upon our Church as if she did teach us to Judaize which she doth not or break the Peace of the Church by setting up a man of straw of our own framing and fighting against that which none maintains that we may find our selves matter of Dispute and contention And how this agrees with the Rules of Piety and sentiments of the Gospel let the world judge But if not required as an holy Vestment §. 14. Object yet it is as a Symbolical Sign to signifie purity and beauty to which nothing more suitable than white Linnen wherein the n Rev. 15.6 Angels have appeared as the Bishops o Account of proceed Ans to §. 13. say in their Answer They say so indeed but what then let it be considered 1. Whatsoever those Reverend Fathers §. 15. Sol. or any else may rationally conceive as the Reason of the Law or may in Dispute use as a Medium to prove the decency or conveniency of such an Habit yet this proves not that it is Imposed on us under such a notion or for such an end or signification nor indeed doth the Law prescribe it as such but at most as decent yea it only requires the use or wearing of it Which if we may do as it is confessed we may as accounted decent I see not how we can be acquitted of Sedition and Disobedience in contending and raising Disputes against it in such a notion as the Law mentions not § 16 2. But suppose it used and ordered to be used as a symbolical or teaching Sign to resemble purity and beauty may we not wear it Let even Mr Baxter be judge who telleth us p Baxt. five Disput disp 5. c. 2. §. 40. 1. If the Magistrate do Impose the Surplice who is a lawfull Governour as a decent Habit for a Minister in Gods service though he there passeth a hard censure upon the Magistrate for so doing for which let himself be accountable yet he acknowledgeth that he medleth with nothing but what is within the reach of his own power then he lawfully may do it Some decent Habit saith he is necessary either the Magistrate or Minister himself or associated Pastors must determine what by the same reason may the Bishop or a Synod legally Convened and acting by the Authority of the King If the Magistrate or Synod saith he again tye all to one habit suppose it indecent yet this is but an imprudent use of Power it is a thing within their reach they do not an alian work but their own work amisse and therefore the thing it self being lawfull I would obey and use that Garment 2. Yea though secondarily the whitenesse be to signifie purity and so it be made a teaching sign yet would I obey for secondarily we may lawfully and piously make teaching-signes of our food and raiment and every thing we see I know not what need be added more to justifie this use we have here enough acknowledged to engage a full compliance with and a peaceable submission to Authority in this case For what is added of the unlawfull use of it if the Magistrate make the Primary-reason thereof to be an Instituted Sacramental sign to work grace on the soul or to engage us to God is nothing at all to the purpose but to seek knots in a Bullrush or to raise Disputes and trouble the waters that are quiet when we know the Surplice is not Imposed on us nor pretended to be so on any such account or to any such end § 17 3. For the lawfullnesse and expediency of the wearing a Surplice I shall onely adde this one Argument which that truly Pious and eminently learned Mr Gataker sometimes used to one who came to him for resolution in this very case which I had from his own mouth it is this To wear the Surplice if it be unlawfull it is so either as a thing sinfull in it self and so sinfully evil or only as inconvenient or inexpedient But it is neither evil in it self nor inconvenient or inexpedient Therefore Vpon no account unlawfull And if neither sinnefull nor inconvenient what should hinder any from obeying the Law that enjoyns it 1. It was granted and it must be confessed that it cannot be said to be sinnefull or evil in it self for all Garments are equally lawfull 2. If the doubt be about the inconvenience or inexpediency of it the best way is to compare things and cases and so judge And thus did that Learned man resolve it We are called to the Ministry and enjoyned to Preach the Gospel q 1 Cor. 9.16 Woe unto us if we do it not viz. where we may have liberty to do it Now the Laws enjoyn us in our sacred Ministrations to wear this Habit if we Conforme and wear it we have leave and liberty in our places to exercise our Ministery if not it is denied Now let any sober and rational man judge which of these two is more convenient or expedient To wear a Surplice which is not evil and then to exercise our Ministry which is our necessary duty or to lay aside our Ministry and deprive the Church of the benefit of those parts and abilities which God hath given us and we are necessarily bound to employ for their edification rather than comply in the circumstance of an Habit which beyond all dispute may be worn without sin So that in the matter of the Surplice there is no such matter of scruple to a serious man as to interrupt our peace 2. And as little ground of scruple or contention is there in the gesture of Kneeling at the Communion §. 18. Kneeling at the Communion if men would seriously consider the nature of the Action and what is required For there are that I know but these three things considerable objected against it 1. Excepted against It was not used by Christ and his Apostles at the first Institution 2.
Protestant ever doubted Viz. That the sins of Governours and some irregularities in Government are not sufficient to discharge the subject of his duty nor are they a plea that can justifie his disobedience It is possible some Princes may be vitious or their Government faulty yet their male-administration is no ground for the peoples rebellion They shall answer their sin to God but in the mean time we must be subject It is possible there may be vices in the persons of some Bishops for they are men there may be errors in the constitution and administration of the Government for it is in the hands of men who are not yet perfect if therefore we shall neither own them nor their authority upon the same reason we must cast off all government and authority whatsoever For what government is there so righteous what persons so holy but men who are unwilling to obey will be ready to plead the government tyrannical and the persons wicked as Korah and his Complices to Moses and Aaron (e) Num. 16.3 Ye take too much upon you all the congregation is holy wherefore lift ye up your selves Yea what government so Sacred what governours so righteous but will discover too much of error and irregularity while men are men and on this side heaven if then we may have a just plea to refuse obedience until our Governours be free from the common corruptions of men and the Government every way faultless or until we judge them so and can find nothing that can be said against either Rebellion could be no sin till we get beyond the grave nor should we ever obey any humane power in Church or State till there is no Church or State on earth to be obeyed Sect. 17 These two things being granted as they cannot be denied it is easie to see what answer to make as to those forenamed pleas viz. suppose those two charges to be true against the Bishops That they take too much upon themselves or That they will not suffer us to take our due and do all that we should which yet by the way I have not seen proved yet these are not ground enough to hinder our compliance and notwithstanding all these may a sober conscientious Christian who seriously mindeth the discharge of his own duty peaceably conform to the Laws established But let us a little examine the Particulars objected CHAP. V. The Particular exceptions against Bishops as they are said to take too much upon themselves answered Sect. 1 THe first General and Great exception taken against the Bishops is That they take too much upon themselves 1. General except That the Bishops take too â—â—ch upon themselves and to this head I referre those four exceptions which the Divines of the contrary perswasion have made in their Former paper of Proposals to His Majesty concerning the Discipline and Ceremonies of the Church of England And they are these 1. The great extent of the Bishops Diocess too large for his personal inspection 2. His deputing the Administration of much of the trust to Commissaries Chancellors Officials c. secular persons 3. Some affirming Episcopacy a distinct order and assuming the sole Power of Ordination 4. Exercising an arbitrary power as in Articles of Visitation c. These are the great things charged on them Sect. 2. Answered in general and we may judge the greatest for had there been any thing of an higher nature to have been pleaded against them no doubt it would have been given in Now then suppose these things cleared and that being proved they were a real and just ground to petition and by all legal wayes to endeavour a Reformation Yet still if this desired Reformation cannot be obtained but these things must continue all this hinders not but we may lawfully obey and submit in peace Sect. 3 But to give a more full answer that may be satisfactory to every considering man I shall a little consider the particulars And because some have said more and I would gladly satisfie all scruples I shall rank the particular Exceptions in another order that I may take in and answer all that is material in the Objections There are these seven things said to prove that they take too much upon them which are the great exceptions against Episcopacy as it is with us established Sect. 4.1 Partic. ex ∣ cept 1. That they assume a power which was never instituted by God that hath no foot-steps in the New Testament and they are therefore Intruders and Vsurpers and not to be obeyâ—d Sect. 5 Answ 1 Answ 1. But suppose they are not intruders what then becomes of this plea Sub judice lis esâ— it is not yet determined against them some learned and pious men who are both able to judge and willing to be convinced of the truth yet cannot be convinced of any such usurpation yea they think that they have clear foot-steps of such a government in the Apostolical practice Suppose there were something in the Apostolical Commission besides that which was extraordinary in them which made them standing constant Officers of the Church even where they were superior to other Presbyters for that they were superior is out of question and that this superiority was a part of their extraordinary Commission is not yet proved and then because they continued not in their own persons but in their successors these must be Bishops or none which is the judgement of many and of one who is instar omnium (f) See confer at Newcastle with Mr. Henderson and with the Divines at the Isle of Wight His late Majesty and some foot-steps of such a thing seem to appear in the holy Canon where the Churches still send to Paul about their affairs and St. Paul writing to Timothy and Titus directeth them in the exercise of the (g) 1 Tim. 5.19 20 21 22. Tit. 1.5 11.3.10 Acts of Jurisdiction distinct from and over Presbyters which intimates that they had such a power as to Ordination and Censures That these had such a Jurisdiction and in particular Cities as affixt to them at least at that time is evident The one being to Abide at Ephesus and for this work (h) 1 Tim. 1.3 To charge some that they do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach any other or strange Doctrine and this is an act of authority over them The other (i) Tit. 1.5 left at Creet to Govern and (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Order the affairs of that Church this is also an act of Authority And suppose these were not as some say they were only Evangelists a general occasional and extraordinary Officer for that time but constant standing Officers in the Church for ever as some not without ground do judge for there being a constant necessity of the same works why should there not be the same Officer to do those works The change of the name Apostle Evangelist then and Bishop now proves not a change of the
mal-administration of the power in their hands so far as their charge extends They judge their charge to be no more than to oversee the Churches to take care that able Pastors be provided for the particular cure and inspection of the several Flocks and that these do their duties in their places and that the people yield their due obedience to them and to their Superiors Sect. 11 Answ 2 2. It is granted That the bounds of the Episcopal charge were not so large in the Primitive times as they are now no not generally in many centuries of years But withall it must be not denied that this consideration makes not a nullity of the Office nor doth the lessening or inlarging the bounds of their charge at all make a change or alteration in the charge it self For in those little Bishopricks either there was an imparity or superiority or there was noâ— The Bishop had Presbyters under him or he had not If now ye say that he had not ye say something indeed to the purpose but it remains to be proved and the stream of Antiquity speaks the contrary For to omit the mention of the third and fourth Ages whereof none that I know ever doubted when Ignatius of Antioch in those Epistles which were never yet denied to be his and are by Videlius Vossius and our learned Vsher acknowledged to be genuine doth expresly make this distinction and requires the Obedience of the Presbytâ—r to the Bishop as those who have read Ignatius know so well that it would be lost labour to produce particular passages when it is the main design and argument of some of those Epistles as particularly that ad Trallenses which is wholly Hortatory ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Vnity in Doctrine and Sanctity of Life For the preserving of this unity and purity of Doctrine he exhorteth as to avoid all Hereticks against whom he solidly proves the Deity and Incarnation of Christ so to yield a due obedience to their Pastors both the Bishops because they watch for their souls and to the Presbyters and Deacons because they are Ministers of the Church of God and there have the place of Jesus Christ Particularly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reverence the Bishop and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as ye reverence Christ and adds As the Apostles have commanded So again in that ad Magnesianos which is Paraenetical and Hortatory also and the designe of it is to exhort obedience to the Bishop yea though he be young which he presseth by several arguments as That we are in this case not so much to look to Age as ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The oldest are not always the wisest And farther urgeth the examples of a young Daniel and a young Samuel reproving an old Eli and Jeremy Solomon Josiah Timothy And again that it is a terrible thing to contemn the Bishop for in him is God also contemned And saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is fit to obey the Bishop and in nothing to oppose him And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As the Lord Christ did nothing without the Father so must you do nothing without your Bishop I need cite no more though I might add much to this purpose out of those Epistles ad Philadelphenses ad Smyrnenses where he disputes of the power and authority of the Bishop I know that even these are said also to be so interpolated that it is hard to know Ignatius in Ignatius But that is a strange interpolation which shall leave nothing genuine and it would be scarce parallelled that the main design of a genuine Epistle should be spurious Grant them interpolated must it needs be the hard hap of poor Episcopacy to be principally guilty and wheresoever that is mentioned or urged though it be so often so professedly must that Epistle for the Bishops sake be either rejected as spurious or this particular be concluded the interpolation Nothing of antient records then shall have any credit with us when we have a mind to charge them with corruptions Therefore until these be proved spurious passages we shall account them genuine Ignatius Ignatius I say doing this as it proves this Imparity and Superiority as antient as his time which was the very next age to the Apostles so it hath some force to perswade us that it was so even in the Apostles days both because he was so near them and so more likely to know the practice of the time but just before him and also because he was for a good season contemporary and coetaneous with some of the Apostles particularly S. John who would certainly have contradicted him had he pleaded for a power which Christ never approved nor the Apostles owned Sect. 12 And if this Imparity or Superiority be granted to have been in those narrower limits it must not it cannot with any shadow of reason be denied where the bounds are farther extended If one two or three Presbyters may be under a Bishop then may also ten twenty an hundred More or fewer alter not the nature of the office Kings and Princes are as perfectly and justly such now when of larger Empires and Dominious as those of old who were Kings but of some single Cities or petty Territories They are not to be cast out because their Dominions are conceived too large but to be obeyed because they are Kings So neither are our Diocesans therefore less Bishops because their Bishopricks are greater than those in the Antient Ages For if any were they fewer or more were to obey the Bishop then so are we though more if by the Establishment here we are put under his jurisdiction to obey him still Sect. 13 Answ 3 3. Nor is it yet proved that Even then their bounds were so streight as to be limited to one Parish or single Congregation For if there were many of these Churches in association joined in one and so One Church for acts of Government to which particular Churches were subordinate as the (p) See Assemblies answ to Reas of Dissent Brethr. and Vindicat. of Presbyt Govern by the Province of Lond. Presbyterian Brethren not only grant but challenge and lay it a foundation of their Classical and Provincial and National Assemblies as The Church of Jerusalem Ephesus c. with other City Churches which say they consisted of more single Congregations than one Then if there were a Bishop as it appears there was either He must be yielded to be over all this association or if a distinct Bishop to every particular Congregation then those several Bishops must be under and subordinate to the Colledge of Presbyters which I have not yet seen affirmed So that here was a larger charge than of one single Parish And in after ages it is most evident that their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had not that strict sense which now it hath but the Parish was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consisting of more Parishes than one as
Orthodox Presbyters said a Reverend Bishop of our Church are by an insuperable necessity forced to ordain other Presbyters that the Church fail not the Church and Ministry being but res unius aetatis and in one Age gone if no Succession of Ministers be provided and if Presbyters ordain not there are no other to do it in this case I should not dare to pronounce such Ordinations void Upon this account the Bishops had reason not to require of them a Re-ordination because they denied not the validity of their Ministry nor would be so unchristian as to unchurch those that gave it an invincible necessity putting them upon this or none Sect. 79 But the case with us is of another nature and a different consideration It is now not concerning the admission of strangers into our Churches who regularly could have no other but a Presbyterial Ordination in their own from whence they came and to whom we are to give the right hand of fellowship notwithstanding this difference in an external Order but concerning the members and subjects of our own who by the standing Laws of this Church and State were bound to receive and legally could receive only that Ordination which could not be conferred without the hands of a Bishop and which they might have had had they not first by a popular fury thrown out the Bishops So that though the Ordination received from Presbyters as to the Ministry it self may be yielded valid yet here as to the manner and entring into it it will be in every Episcopal judgment and considering the Laws establishing Episcopacy here never yet repelaed I see not how it can be otherwise accounted Schismatical The former Bishops would not require Re-ordination of those who came from other Churches which were Presbyterial because they denied not their Evangelical Ministry as to the substance of it that they might not seem to condemn those Churches as no true Churches of Christ Yet instances may be given of some that were of this Church whose Ordination would not be allowed which they had taken abroad from a Forraign Presbytery which they might have had but refused from the Bishops at home And upon the same reason now of their own members they also require a Re-ordination that they may not condemn themselves as Antichristian nor justifie the popular fury that cast them out nor countenance a Schism in our own Church Sect. 80 4. But the main of our enquiry must be not how justly or rationally they may require it but how far those who are concerned may submit to it being required The reason of exacting it and the prudential consideration of it our Governours who require it I presume are able to give though it concerns not us to be curiously inquisitive into the reasons of their commands as was before acknowledged It concerns us only to satisfie our souls in this whether we may obey or no whether should those whom it concerns lie under a guilt of sin should they submit to a Re-ordination by Episcopal hands I am fully convinced they should not For whatsoever may be the judgements of men and the practice of some Churches at some time yet sure I am 1. Sect. 81 We find not in the whole Scriptures any thing expressly forbidding it or that I know tending thereunto There is much stress laid upon One Baptism but no such thing upon One Ordination It is then such as cannot be condemned as Contra Fidem 2. Sect. 82 Nor is it Contra Bonos Mores I know not which way it can be charged to do any thing to the hinderance of a sober just or godly life Men may be as ardent in their affections as devout in their worship as conscientious in their obedience to God as loyal to their King as humble sober meek just charitable to their Neighbours as they are or may be without it Yea in some cases it furthers and helps forward these duties for before some conscientions men did doubt of the Mission of their Ministers how justly I dispute not but they did so and were under a temptation to reject their message Now they acknowledge them indeed sent and legally established and Commissioned and their words now have authority and their Message received as of Embassadors of Christ How much this conduceth to perswade men to obey the Gospel which they preach I need not use many words to prove The experience of Thousands will attest and evidence it And that it hinders not yea promotes obedience to Rulers is clear for the very submission to it is an act of obedience to their Laws So that this Re-ordination being neither against Faith nor good Manners I see no reason but that according to that known (h) Quod neque contra fidem neque contra bonos more 's injungitur indifferentèr est habendum pro corum inter quos vivitur socîetate tenendis est Aug ad Jan. Ep. 118. rule of St. Austin it is to be held and reputed indifferent and to be kept and observed for their sake and communion among whom we live 3. We may well distinguish between what is necessary ad essentiam ministerij and what is necessary ad exercitium pro Hic Nunc. A man may have all things conferred which pertain to the essence or substance of Ministery and yet there may be an use yea an accidental and occasional necessity of something else to enable him to exercise his Ministery at such a time and in such a place Or which comes all to one as (x) Humph. of Re-ord Sect. 2. p. 16. one distinguisheth between what is required to the setting apart a man to the office of a Minister in the sight of God and what is requisite to make him received as such among men and give him full authority and repute to execute his Ministery in the Place or Church where he is or shall be called So that even those who judge their former Ministery valid in fore Dei and may not therefore renounce it as null nor indeed is that required yet may see as a necessity from the Pleasure of their Governours so a lawfulness in the thing viz. To be ordained again Not to make them simply Ministers or Presbyters anew but to make them Presbyters for as our Church useth the word which is equivalent Priests of the Church of England i. e. that they may have authority to use and exercise their Ministery and be received as such in This Church of England and particularly in those places where they shall be called to minister For thus saith the Bishop in the Ordaining him (i) Form of Order Priests Take thou authority to preach the Word and Minister the Sacraments in the Congregation where thou shalt be appointed Whereby there is not only a Ministery conferred but an authority to exercise that Ministery in the English Church and a freedom a legal and regular liberty to use it in the place to which he is called And what sin or
and because so is the Will of God that we should do For if we yield to Episcopacy though not as a Divine yet as an Humane Constitution not repugnant to the Word of God and so much without doubt whatsoever it be more it is with us being established here by the known Laws When then they require this of men I see not how it can be avoided but by vertue of those forementioned texts it ought to be done Re-ordination being in this case as is well noted but a submission to that Order of Church Politie which is by the established Laws made by the Powers not only in being but who have the undoubted Soveraignty and legal authority again set over us In a word 8. Sect. 88 Lastly It is not of no consideration that we in this case not only consider what is necessary to make a man a Minister of Christ but also what is requisite to qualifie a man for the legal maintenance which doth belong to such a Ministery in England And those who deny the necessity of a superadded Episcopal Ordination as to the former end yet must see a necessity at least the use and lawfulness of it to the latter Upon such an account as this no man ever questioned the lawfulness of a double Marriage When the late Usurping Powers required this to be Solemnized by the Civil Magistrate no man doubted but those who were either not satisfied in Conscience of that way or doubted the ill consequences when the tide should turn the Laws as then standing not allowing the Legitimation of the issue of such a Marriage might lawfully as many and all wise men did be Married again by the Minister according to the Laws in force without incurring the guilt of any sin thereby And why may not a second Ordination be admitted upon the consideration of the like consequences One is no more a Sacrament than the other One is as much an Ordinance of God as the other The Name of God would be no more taken in vain in the one than in the other Nor can I by any thing in Scripture find there should be any sin in the one as before it is stated than in the other Sure I am the Holy Scripture no where condemneth it hath no where given us a Law against a second Ordination and (x) Rom. 4.15 where there is no Law how there should be a Transgression I say not I but a wiser than any of us even St. Paul himself could never see He that is desired to see more of this Subject let him consult that little book of Mr. Humphreys professedly handling this question of Re-ordination where he will see the lawfulness of it at least as to the receiver clearly and fully proved the main doubts and scruples about it and difficulties in it untied and solved To that I referre the Reader In the mean time This may be enough to perswade and shew that men lawfully may in this thing submit to and comply with the Orders of our Superiours without sin Having now solved these doubts as to matter of Ordination and Re-ordination and answered all the most material Objections I hope I have laid such grounds as may satisfie all serious and considering men of the if not necessity yet lawfulness of our submission to the Government the Episcopacy established with us notwithstanding these great exceptions taken against them in matters referring to the first general head wherein the Bishops are said to take too much upon themselves and to challenge a power which is not theirs CHAP. VI. The other general Exception against the Bishops as hindering the particular Pastors from the exercise of their Office answered Sect 1 WHen I have satisfied the scruples that refer to the next general head I think I have said enough as to the matter of Government and shall have sufficiently cleared this That notwithstanding all this there may be a peaceable submission a due conformity lawfully yielded General Ex ∣ ception 2 2. This Exception is That the Bishops as they are said to take too much upon themselves so will not suffer others to take their due but hinder the undoubted Officers of Christ the Pastors of particular Churches from the exercise of their office particularly as some have objected that part of Government and Discipline which they think they should and do judge they are called and have authority to administer every particular Pastor being bound to a personal ministration of all the Ordinances of Christ to that particular Church committed to his charge So it is objected Answ 1 Sect. 2 To this the Answer is readily returned in few words 1. That the particular Pastors of the several Congregations are the undoubted Officers of Christ there is none that I know among all those concerning whom the dispute now is who doth in the least deny 2. Answ 2 For the main unquestionable parts of their Office Sect. 3 they are so far from being hindered the exercise of them that they are most expressely enjoyned to perform them For the preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments the two principal works of the Evangelical ministery they are expressely sent to do them and have these given in charge to them in the very forme of their Ordination (a) Form of Order Prieste Take thou authority to preach the Word of God and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation where thou shalt be so appointed Here are the Keyes expressely given into their hands and no small part of the power of the Keyes viz. The Key of Doctrine to preach the Word which was never denied them and the Key of Discipline too thus far as to open to Door and let persons into the Church by Baptism when the same authority is given them to administer the Sacraments as to preach the Word Yea farther 3. Answ 3 Sect. 4 Is not a great part of the power of binding and loosing put into their hands Have they not this Commission given them yea before they receive their particular Mission by the Bible put into their hands at the very imposition of the Bishops and other Presbyters hands in these words (b) Form of Order Priests Receive the holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins tho dost retaine they are retained And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of his holy Sacraments In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost Where observe Their Commission is given them in the very same forme which (c) John 20.22 23. Christ himself used in commissionating his Apostles which some have quarrelled at in the practice of our Church as if it were an abuse of the Scripture and assuming a power which Christ never gave to the Bishops The Form used Receive the Holy Ghost vindicated To give the Holy Ghost nor is the Holy Ghost given to all on whom the Bishops so lay their hands But indeed
but the Holy Scriptures that is as such as Canonical or under the name of Holy Scripture as is to be seen in that Council of Carthage where they allow the reading of others in their proper place and for their proper end and this farther appeares by that of the Council of Hippo which abridging that 3 d of Carthage gives us this account of it (x) Scripturae Canonicae l â—gendae quae sunt praeter quas aliae non legantur Conc. Hippon Can. 36. These are the Holy Scriptures to be read in the Church and besides these let no other be read i. e. no other for such or for Holy Scripture It is the unquestionable prerogative of the Sacred Scriptures to be the prime and supreme rule of Faith and Manners and nothing is to be read as such viz. as the undoubted or immediate rule of either but the Scriptures alone and therefore by those ancient Fathers and Councils they were accounted onely Canonical and none else admitted for Trial of Truth or proof of Doctrine But yet all Apochrypha were not accounted either prophane or impious but there were some called (y) Ecclesiastici à majoribus appellati quia in ecclesia recepti c. Jo. Drus de quaest per epist 107. Ecclesiastical because received and read in the Church among other godly books though not as a rule of Faith yet as instruction in manners hence those books were of old called in a sort Canonical or Deutero-Canonici not equal to the Scriptures but went after them in a secondary place and preferred before others In this sense I take that of St. Austin speaking of the times after Haggai Zechary and Malachy (z) Aug. de civ â—â— Dei lib. 18. c. 36. Quorum supputatio Temporum The supputation of which times saith he is not found in holy Scripture called Canonical but in others which though the Jewes do not yet our Church doth reckon for Canonical i. e. in a secondary place such for in another place he speaks otherwise of them [a] In Apocryphis eist invenitur aliqua veritas tamen propter multa falsa est Canonica authoritas August de civit Dei lib. 15. Cap. 23. In the Apocrypha though there be found some truth yet because of the many falshoods there is no Canonical authority i.e. properly such But by these testimonies it is clear that they were read in the Church though not as the undoubted rule of faith yet as instructions builded thereupon Sect. 18 And that they might be so read we have the concurring judgements of others also of later dayes even in the Reformed Churches yea of some Non-conformists [b] See Balls Trial of Separ Ch. 7. Answ to Object 6. here also He that pleaseth may see c) See Hutton Answ to Reasons chap. 10. gathered to his hand the judgments of (d) Zanth de Relig. c. 1. artâ—â— 4 et 5. Zanchy (e) Hiper lib. 1. Meâ—h Theol. Hiperius (f) Pellic. praefat in Apochryph et praefat in Judith Pellican one highly esteemed by Bucer Zuinglius and Melancthon and the learned in those days and g) Kimedonc de Script verb Dei l. 6. c 90. Kimedoncius a Professor of Divinity at Hidelburgh who have judged these books to have been received next to the Scriptures with great reverence profitably rehearsed fruitful and profitable to the edifieation of the people not Canons of faith but instructions for manners 2. Neither hath our Church received or prescribed them in any other notion a mark of distinction is set upon them they being called no other than Apocrypha and therefore cannot rationally be judged to be prescribed as Canonical especially when the expresse words of our (h) Artic. 6. of the Church of England Articles are The other books as St. Hierom saith the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners but doth not apply them to establish any doctrine and these are the third of Esdras and the rest that follow Sect. 19 3. Nor can our reading of them though in that time and place be with reason judged to put an higher authority upon them than the Church hath done which prescribeth them Yea though they are read for instruction and example it followeth not that we are taught to practice every thing or imitate every particular in any example there or to esteem every action good any more than we are to practice or imitate every thing that we read done in the Scriptures The reading of (i) Gen. 9.21 Noahs being drunk (k) Gen. 19.33 35 36. Lots incest (l) Gen. 42.15 Joseph swearing by the life of Pharaoh (m) 2 Sam. 11 4-18 12.9 Davids adultery and murder (n) 1 King 11.5 Solomons idolatry (o) Num. 12.1 Aaron and Miriams sedition (p) Act. 15.39 Paul and Barnabas's angry parting (q) Matth. 26.70 Peters denial and (r) Gal. 2.11 Sect. 20. dissimulation c. is neither an allowance of these infirmities nor a ground to practice the like There are other uses of examples than imitation they are in cautelam as well as in sequelam for caution as well as instruction Nor can there be any more allowance of all the actions lies or fumigations in Tobit or Judith by reading them than there is of those other So that yet here is nothing to conclude it sinful to read these books according to the order prescribed The highest that can be imagined is which yet I dare not determine or may be want of Prudence in requiring them but no shadow of unlawfulnesse in obeying the prescription which is Sect. 21. Except 4. The Absolution Answered but to read these Books not to justifie every thing in them Sect. 22 4. For that other exception taken to that Form of Absolution in the visitation of the sick in these words I absolve thee This I conceive is of very little weight to be stood upon For 1. That such authority is given to the Ministers is and must be granted by all that acknowledge them to have any interest in the power of the Keyes and clearly given to them by Christ in that (s) Joh. 20.23 Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted From whence if any where we must fetch the ground of our Commission and Ministery and is so expressely signified by the order of our Church in her (t) Form of Order Briests Sect. 23. Ordinations 2. Nor do we without warrant agreeably to our Commission John 20. say By this authority committed to me I absolve thee When it is clear we do not that which is proper to God alone (u) Mar. 2.7 10. and to Jesus Christ as God actually to grant a pardon nor pretend to a power to free from any penalty due from God to sin nor as Judges give the sentence but only as Ministers under Christ and authorized by him declare that sentence and this not absolutely but expressely upon condition of sincere repentance
no transgression if no Law commanded them we were not bound to use them and to what purpose then should we make a stir and raise Disputes about them But 2. Suppose no particular Law or Act of Parliament to establish these in specie yet we cannot properly say they were forced if forced without Law for there was a standing Law an Act of Parliament in force untill 17. Car. 1. impowering the King to call together and commissionate the Bishops and Clergy to consult and determine about the affairs of the Church and this confirmed by the Royal Assent to be valid and binding So that if these things were Imposed by the Bishops so assembled with the Authority of the King we cannot call them illegal because they are clearly founded in the Law This therefore was no ground of dislike where the things Imposed are confessed not to be simply evil But § 6 2. They were disliked also saith he because the way of those things did cause men to suspect that somewhat worse was intended to be brought in by such preparations Here I cannot but take notice of the much want of Christian Charity that should be in men who study the interest of the Gospel and Religion It is not the property of Charity to be suspicious for as it c 1 Cor. 13.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thinketh i.e. plotteth or casteth no evil so it suspecteth none causelesly d Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it believeth all things hopeth all things it believeth all good hopeth all good of our neighbour untill it evidently see the contrary It could not be well done to be suspicious of worse when the things enjoyned were confessed not bad Object But the way of those times did give ground of suspicion § 7 Sol. But what was the way of those times was it not in these very disliked things the Name and Form of an Altar the Rails Adoration c and these all acknowledged not evil in se and how then were they the cause of suspicion of worse of these we have this full expression e Baxt. ibid. For the Name and Form of an Altar no doubt it is a thing indifferent and the Primitive Churches used the names of Sacrifice Altar and Priest and I think lawfully for my part but Metaphorically as the Scripture doth 2. §. 8. Adoration and Bowing towards the East As to Adoration or Bowing towards the East c. hear again the same Mr Baxter f Baxt. ibid. §. 17. God who hath commanded us to express our minds in several cases about his worship as Profession of Faith Confession of Sins c. hath by that means made it our duty to signifie our consent by some convenient sign And the special sign is left to our own or our Governours Determination g Id. ibid. §. 18. And to this end and on these terms saith he among some other things there mentioned was Adoring with their faces toward the East used heretofore by Christians as a signification of their own mind instead of words This then also is lawfull in his judgment 3. As to Organs and Church-Musick §. 9. Organs and Musick the same Author speaks as much as is desired and thus far consonant to truth h Baxt. ibid. §. 22. He that hath commanded us chearfully to sing his Praises hath not told us whether we shall use the Meeter or any melodious tune to help us or whether we shall use or not use a Musical Instrument or the help of more artificial Singers and Choristers These are left to our reason to determine c. And again i Id. ibid. §. 45. The Organs or other Instruments of Musick in Gods Worship being an help partly natural and partly artificial to the exhilerating our spirits for the Praise of God I know no Argument to prove them simply unlawfull but what would prove a Cup of Wine unlawful so the Tune and Meeter and Melodie of Singing unlawfull But these things are but the particular practises of some certain places and if enjoyned yet not generally only in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and Chappels We need not therefore busie our selves in Disputes of this nature when they are not nor are like to be matters of general imposition § 10 2. But the main of our enquiry is into those Ceremonies which are generally Imposed and by the Law required in all our Assemblies and these are of two sorts 1. One purely Civil though used in a sacred Action §. 11. Of the Ring in Marriage this is the Ring in Marriage What imaginable scruple can be in this I cannot divine Hear by Mr Baxter himself k Baxt. ibid. §. 23. In Civil Actions that are Religious only finally and by participation it is lawfull to use Symbolical Rites that are in their kind near of kin to Sacraments in their kind and may be called Civil Sacraments such as the sealing and delivering of Indentures or other Covenant-Writings the delivery of Possession of an House by a Key of the Temple by a Book and Bellrope of Land by a Turfe or Twig and of Civil Government by a Crown Scepter or Sword c. And again l Id. ibid. §. 43. For the Ring in Marriage I see no reason to scruple the lawfullnesse of it for though the Papists make a Sacrament of Marriage yet we have no reason to take it for an Ordinance of Divine Worship any more than the solemnizing of a Contract between Prince and People The Ceremonies of a Kings Coronation might as well be scrupled as those of Marriage c. The truth is I could never yet see any thing that had a shadow of reason against this use nor can I imagine what any sober Christian who hath not a mind to quarrel can have to say against the use of such a Symbolical Rite as the use of a Ring in such a businesse as Marriage I passe this therefore as not worth a Dispute But § 12 2. Other Rites there are enjoyned to be used in Actions purely Religious prescribed in the offices and parts of Divine Worship These are they which are the matters of most doubt and made the Subjects of the sharpest contentions and they are The Surplice Kneeling at the Lords Supper and the Crosse in Baptism For two of these we have enough yielded but the third stiffely opposed Let us examine them severally 1. §. 13. The Surplice justified For the Surplice I cannot but wonder what any rational man should in this make a matter of scruple when any garment of any colour is a thing perfectly indifferent by the confession of all and perfectly lawfull in genere to be worne and therefore if a particular garment in specie be determined and prescribed to some persons in some actions how should the use of that become unlawfull when the constant practice and custome of all times persons and places hath justified in some cases such a determination We never scruple the use