because it cannot be seen without an act of the understanding no more may the unity of the Catholick Church be for that reason judged invisible I have already shewed that the adequate notion of visible and invisible in this subject is to be not only the object of the bodily eye or other external sence but also of any humane intuition or certain perception or that which falls under humane cognizance and judgment § 9. The Polity of the Catholick Church THE Catholick Church is not as secular Kingdoms or Commonwealths are autonomical that is having within it self that Power of its own fundamental constitution and of the laws and officers and administrations belonging to it as a Church or spiritual polity but it hath received all these from Christ its Head King and Law giver Indeed as it includes Christ the Head it is in reference to him autonomical but here we consider it as a political Body visible upon earth and abstracted from its Head Nevertheless it hath according to the capacity of its acting that is in its several parts a power of secondary Laws or Canons either to impress the Laws of Christ upon its members or to regulate circumstantials and accidentals in Religion by determining things necessary in genere and not determined of Christ in spâ—câ—â— but left to humane determination The spiritual authority seated in the Church is not seated in the Church as Catholick so as to descend from it by way of derivation and communication to particular Churches but it is immediately seated in the several particular Churches as similar parts of one political Body the Church Catholick The Church Catholick is as one universal or Oecumenical Kingdom having one supream Lord one Body of Lawâ— one Form of Government one way of Enrollment into it and subiects who have freedom throughout the whole extent thereof radically and fundamentally always and actually to be used according to their occasions and capacities but having no Terrene Universal Administrator or Vicegerent personal or collective but several administrators in the several provinces or parts thereof invested with the same kind of authority respecting the whole kingdom radically or fundamentally but to be exercised ordinarily in their own stated limits and occasionally any where else according to a due call and order Wherefore tho it be one political society yet not so as to have one terrestrial vicarious Head personal or collective having legislation and jurisdiction over the whole And indeed no terrestrial Head is capable of the Government and Christ the Supream Head and Lord being powerfully present throughout the whole by his spirit causeth that such a vicarious Head is not wanted Indeed the Apostles as such were universal officers having Apostolick authority not only radically or habitually but actually also over the whole Catholick Church in regard they were divinely inspired and immediately commissioned by Christ under him to erect his Church and to establish his religion even the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government that was to be received by all Christians But this office was but temporary in the nature and formal reason of it and so expired with their persons and was not of the essence or a constitutive part of this society § 10. The Headship of a General Council examined BY Headship over the Church in this inquiry is not meant a dominion and Desporick power over it for the Church hath no Lord but Christ nor soveraign authority over it which is the power of legislation and final decisive judgment by which men stand or fall finally for the Church hath no King but Christ I exclude Headship in any such sence as not fit to come under consideration But the Query is Whether a general Council be supream in that kind of power which resides in the Church and is only ministerial and dispensatory that is whether it hath a supream ministry or Geconomy over the Catholick Church so that all Churches and ministers have their power conveyed to them from the same not as from the Fountain which is Christ alone but as from the first receptacle thereof and are subject to its authoritative regulation and determinations and finally accountable to it for their administrations Who can affirm that an Oecumenical council rightly so named was ever in being The councils that have born that name were conventions of Bishops within the Roman Empire except some very few that were without it and those living near the confines of it Whereupon let it be considered whether the said councils were truly Oecumenical or just representatives of the Catholick Church That which is wont to be said for the affirmative is that no Bishops were excluded from the right of voting therein but from all parts of the world they might come to them as rightful members of them if they would But what if no greater number of Bishops meet upon a summons to a General council than did at the council of Trent May such a convention be called an Oecumenical council because all might come that would when so small a number came as was comparatively nothing to the number of bishops throughout the world Or can the convention of a greater number suppose as many as met in the first Nicene council be justly called a representative of the Catholick Church or carry the sence of it when it bears no more proportion to it Surely it is not their freedom of access but their actual convening at least in a proportionable number that can justly give the denomination And what if the bishops without the limits of the Roman Empire would not come to a General council called by the Mandate of the Roman Emperour especially they that lived in the remoter parts as Ethiopia and India c Were they obliged to come to a general council in case it had been summoned in another especially a remoter Empire or Dominionâ— Moreover what if they could not come which may well be supposed by reason of the restraint of their several Princes or the length of the journey or insuperable difficulties or utter incapacities Tho the most illustrious part of the Catholick Church was contained in the Roman Empire yet an assembly of the bishops thereof could no more make a representative of the Catholick Church than an assembly of the bishops of the other part of the world without them could have done if there had been such an assembly Besides the ancient General councils were usually called in the Eastern parts of the Empire and tho the bishops of those parts might convene in a considerable number yet the number from the Western parts was inconsiderable and as none comparatively to a just proportion Let it be hereupon considered whether the said councils were a just representative and did carry the sence of that part of the Catholick Church that was included in that Empire And in this consideration it is not of little moment to observe what numbers of bishops were ordinarily congregated in the many provincial assemblies and that within
provinces of narrower circuits of ground And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council rightly so named can be For suppose it be not necessary to consist of all the bishops in the world but of some as delegates in the name of all yet it must consist of so many proportionably delegated from all in the several quarters as may signifie the sence and consent of all Hereupon let it be considered whether there be a possibility of such assemblies much more whether there be a possibility of the continuation or of the succession of them in such frequency as would be requisite in case such an assembly were Head of the Church Nor doth it stand with reason that an Oecumenical council in case it were existent can possibly execute the authority that belongs to the head of the Universal Church in overseeing all in receiving appeals from all in making authoritative determinations for all either immediately by it self or mediately by subordinate councils judicatories and ministers to be superintended regulated and determined by it in their proceedings Nor is there any notice given of the said headship of a General council more than of the Popes or any other bishops universal headship in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Christ hath given to his Church to wit the Holy Scriptures Nor is any rule given therein for the constitution of a General council whether it shall be made up only of the Clergy or only of such bishops as are of a higher order thâ—â— Presbyters or of all such bishops of the Catholick Church or if of some in the name of all what number there must be either definite or indefinite and proportionate to the number of those that are represented It is evident de facto that the officers of the Catholick Church as the particular bishops or pastors and the associations and conventions of them do not derive their spiritual authority from a General council Nor doth it appear that de jure they should derive their power from it any more than from the Pope § 11. The infallibility of the Catholick Church examined THE Romanists assert an insallibility about matters of faith somewhere seated within the Catholick Church as the perpetual priviledg thereof some of them place it in the Pope and others in a General council Hereupon this priviledg is to be considered whether it be and what it is The meaning of the term is a being not liable to be deceived or to deceive about those matters about which it is said to be That the catholick church is infallible in the essentials of the christian religion is a most indubitable truth for every member of the catholick church so remaining is infallible so far it involves a a contradiction that any such should err therein for it were as much as to be a christian and no christian The Query therefore is whether it be liable to errour in the integrals aâ—d accidentals of Religion Now the church remaining such is not necessarily or in its nature infallible so far and therefore if it be infallible it must be so from the free grant of Christ But it doth not appear in the Holy Scripture that any such grant is made to the church What was the Apostles doctrine and consequently the doctrine of the Church in their days obedient to their authority we know what the church universally held in any one age touching all the integral parts of religion much more concerning accidentals I conceive extreamly difficult if not impossible to be known But that the church hath de facto if not universally yet very generally erred in the same errour about some integrals of religion appears by the ancient general practise of some things now generally accounted erroneous as for instance the giving of the Lords Supper to infants Moreover it is evident that the whole Church in its several parts hath erred some in one point some in another and that no part thereof hath been found in which hath appeared no error in some point of Religion or other And if all the parts may variously err in several points why may not they also harmoniously err all of them in one and the same point If the Catholick Church be not infallible in all doctrines of Faith much less is any such Council infallible as was ever yet congregated or is ever like to be congregated Hereupon it follows that in all Controversies of doctrine we cannot stand finally to the decision of the Catholick Church if it were possible to be had or to the decision of any the largest Council that can possibly convene We cannot tell what the Catholick Church is nor what particular Churches or persons are sound parts thereof but by the holy Scriptures For what Criterion can be brought besides them Mens bare testimony of themselves is not to be rested on How can we know that the first Nicene Council was orthodox in its determination about the Sacred Trinity and the second Nicene Council erroneous in its determination for Image-worship but by finding that the former was consonant and the latter dissonant to the Scripture in their aforesaid determinations If it be said That of Councils called General those that consist of greater numbers of bishops must carry it against those that consist of lesser numbers let some proof either from Scripture or Reason be given for it What ground is there from either to conclude that in the time of the Arrian Heresie the major part of bishops in the Roman Empire or the major part of those that assembled in Council and for instance in the first Council at Nice might not possibly have been Arrians Moreover if the major part were to carry it in the first six Centuries why not also in the ten last That promise of Christ Mat. 28. I am with you always to the end of the world may imply That there shall be a successive continuation of Bishops or Pastors in the Catholick Church to the worlds end that shall be Orthodox in the Essentials yea and in the Integrals of Religion yet it doth not imply that they shall be the greater number of those that are called and reputed bishops or pastors within Christendom nor that the greater number of those being convened in Councils shall not err in their Conciliar determinations about matters of Faith § 12. Of the Indefectibility of the Catholick Church CHRIST hath promised the perpetuity of the Church in general in saying that he would build it on a Rock and the gates of Hell should not prevail against it and I am with you always to the end of the world but how far and in what respect this perpetuity and indefectibility is promised ought to be enquired into lest we expect or insist upon more than the promise hath ensured That which Christ hath promised cannot be less than that there be always upon earth a number of true believers or faithful Christians made visible by their external profession of Christianity successively
the Authority of the Pastors but as they are made for the present or absent Pastors who are separately of equal Office Power they are no Laws except in an equivocal sense but only Agreements Now in judging between these two ways of the subordination enquired of let it be considered first That every particular church hath power of government within it self as hath been before observed 2. That a particular church doth not derive that power from any other particular church or collective body of churches but hath it immediately from Christ 3. That yet the acts of government in every particular church have an influence into all the churches being but integral parts of one whole the Catholick church and consequently they are all of them nearly concerned in one another as members of the same body 4. Thereupon that particular churches combine in such collective bodies and associations as have been before mentioned is not arbitrary but their duty 5. That the greater collective bodies are in degrees more august and venerable than the lesser included in them and in that regard ought to have sway with the lesser and not meerly in regard of agreement For tho in the greater there be but the same power in specie with that in the lesser yet it is more amply and illustriously exerted 6. That in all Societies every part being ordered for the good of the whole and the more ample and comprehensive parts coming nearer to the nature and reason of the whole than the lesser and comprehended the more ample parts if they have not a proper governing power over the lesser have at least a preeminence over them for the ends sake and this preeminence hath the force of a proper superior power in bearing sway 7. Hence it follows that the acts of Synods if they be not directly acts of government over the particular Pastors yet they have the efficacy of government as being to be submitted to for the ends sake The general good § 22. What is and what is not of Divine Right in Ecclesiastical Polity WE must distinguish between things that belong to the church as a church or a Society divers in kind from all other Societies and those things that belong to it extrinsecally upon a reason common to it with other regular societies The former wholly rest upon Divine Right the latter are in genere requisite by the Law of Nature which requires decency and order and whatsoever is convenient in all societies and so far they rest upon Divine Right but in specie they are left to human determination according to the general Rules given of God in Nature or Scripture And it is to be noted That such is the sulness of Scripture that it contains all the general Rules of the Law of Nature What soever in matter of Church government doth go to the formal constitution of a church of Christ is of Divine Right The frame of the Church catholick as one spiritual society under Christ the head as before described wholly rests upon Divine Right and so the frame of particular churches as several spiritual Polities and integral parts of the Catholick church as before described is also of Divine Right if such Right be sufficiently signified by the Precepts and Rules given by the Apostles for the framing of them and by their practise therein Moreover the parcelling of that one great Society the Church-catholick into particular Political Societies under their proper spiritual Guides and Rulers is so necessary in nature to the good of the whole that the Law of Nature hath made it unalterable It is intrinsick to all particular stated Churches and so of Divine Right that there be publick Assemblies thereof for the solemn Worship of God that there be Bishops Elders or spiritual Pastors therein and that these as Christs Officers guide the said Assemblies in publick Worship that therein they authoritatively preach the Word and in Christs Name offer the mercies of the Gospel upon his terms and denounce the threatnings of the Gospel against those that despise the mercies thereof that they dispence the Sacraments to the meet partakers and the spiritual censures upon those that justly fall under them that the members of these Societies explicitely or implicitely consent to their relation to their Pastors and one towards another It doth also intrinsecally belong to particular churches as they are integral parts of one Catholick church of which all the particular Christians contained in them are members and consequently it appears to be of Divine Right that they hold communion one with another and that they be imbodied according to their capacities in such Associations as have been before described As for all circumstantial variation and accidental modification of the things aforesaid with respect to meer decency order and convenience according to time and occasion being extrinsick to the spiritual frame and Polity of the Church as such and belonging in common to it with all orderly Societies they are of Divine Right only in genere but in specie they are left to those to whom the conduct and government of the church is committed to be determined according to the general Rules of Gods word Much of the controversie of this Age about several forms of Church-government is about things extrinsick to the church-state and but accidental modes thereof tho the several parties in the controversie make those Forms to which they adhere to be of Divine Right and necessary to a Church-state or as some speak a Church-organical Now in the said controverted Forms of Government there may be a great difference for some may be congruous to the divine and constitutive frame of the Church and advantageous to its ends others may be incongruous to it and destructive to its ends § 23. Of a True or False Church MANY notes of a true Church are contentiously brought in by those that would darken the truth by words without knowledg But without more ado the true and real being of a Church stands in its conformity to that Law of Christ upon which his Church is founded This Law is compleatly written in the Holy Scriptures The more of the aforesaid Conformity is sound in any Church the more true and sound it is and the less of it is found in any church the more corrupt and false it is and the more it declines from truth and soundness A Church may bear so much conformity to its Rule as is sufficient to the real being or essential state of a Christian church and yet withall bear such disconformity to its Rule as renders it very enormous A church holding all the essentials of Faith Worship Ministry and Government together with the addition of such Doctrine Worship Ministry and Government as is by consequence a denial of those essentials and a subverting of the foundation is a true church as to the essentials tho very enormous and dangerous And they that are of the communion of such a church who hold the essentials of Religion
against the Episcopacy of a bishop infimi gradus over many Churches makes not against the right of an overseer of other bishops such as Titus must needs be if he were indeed bishop of Crete which contained a hundred Cities and where bishops or elders were ordained in every City If either Scripture or Prudence guided by Scripture be for such an office I oppose it not Now a bishop of bishops may be taken in a twofold notion either for one of a higher order that is to say of an office specifically different from the subordinate bishops or for one of a higher degree only in the same order I suppose our Archbishops of Provinces do not own the former notion of a bishop of bishops but the latter only But the bishop of a Diocess is de facto that which the Archbishop of a Province doth not own namely a bishop of bishops in a different order from the Presbyters of his Diocess who have been already proved from Scripture to be bishops Hereupon the present inquiry is Whether the Word of God doth warrant the office of a bishop of bishops in either of the said notions And in this inquiry I shall consider what kind of Government the Apostles had over the Pastors or Elders of particular Churches 2. The Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus much alledged by the Hierarchical Divines 3. The preeminence of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia◠Apoc. 1. and 2. § 9. The BISHOPS Plen of being the Apostles Successors in their Governing-Power examined THO the Apostles in respect of that in them which was common to other officers call themselves Presbyters and Ministers but never bishops yet it is asserted by the asserters of Prelacy that bishops superior to Presbyters are the Apostles successors and thereupon have a governing-power over Presbyters Wherefore the Apostles governing-power and the said bishops right of succession thereunto is necessarily to be considered As touching this claimed succession in the governing power the defenders of prelacy say that Presbyters qua Presbyters succeed the Apostles in the office of governing But the Scripture doth not warrant this dividing of the office of teaching and governing And if the division cannot be proved in case there be a succession it must be into the whole and not into a part and so the Presbyters must succeed as well in ruling as in teaching Besides it hath been already proved that an authoritative Teacher of the Church is qua talis a Ruler The Apostles had no successors in their special office of Apostleship For not only the unction or qualification of an Apostle but also the intire Apostolick office as in its formal state or specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons It was an office by immediate Vocation from Christ without the intervention of man by election or ordination for the authentick promulgation of the Christian Doctrine and the erecting of the Christian Church throughout the World which is built on the foundation of their Doctrine and for the governing of all churches wherever they came and it eminently contained all the power of ordinary bishops and pastors The continuation of teaching and governing in the Church doth no more prove that the office of teaching and governing in the Apostles was quoad formale an ordinary office than that the office of teaching and governing in Christ himself was so But their teaching and governing was by immediate call and authentick and uncontrolable and therefore extraordinary And I do not know that the bishops say they are Apostles tho they say they are the successors of the Apostles Moreover in proper speaking the ordinary bishops or elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were not succedaneous to them but contemporary with them from the first planting of churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power And the bishops or elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops or elders and can rightfully claim no more power than they had Nevertheless let the Apostles governing power be inquired into as also what interest the bishops of the Hierarchical state have therein And in this query it is to be considered That the Presbyters whom the Apostles ordained and governed were bishops both in name and thing and consequently their example of ordaining and ruling such Presbyters is not rightly alledged to prove that bishops as their successors have an appropriated power of ordaining and ruling Presbyters of an inferior order which in Scripture times were not in being Further it is to be considered Whether the said governing-power were only a supereminent authority which they had as Apostles and infallible and to whom the last appeals in matters of religion were to be made or an ordinary governing power over the Churches and the bishops or elders thereof I conceive it most rational to take it in the former sense For we find that the ordinary stated government of particular Churches was in the particular Bishops or Elders and we find not that any of the Apostles did take away the same from them or that it was superceded by their presence or that they reserved to themselves a negative voice in the government of the Churches Now if their governing power were only the said supereminent Apostolick authority they had no successors therein and tho teaching and ruling be of standing necessity and consequently of perpetual duration in the Church yet there is no standing necessity of that teaching and ruling as taken formally in that extraordinary state and manner as before expressed But if they exercised an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and bishops to be continued by succession such kind of Bishops over whom that power was exercised cannot claim a right of succession into the same but they must be officers of an higher orb Consequently if the Hierarchical Bishops claim the right of succession to the Apostles in their governing-power they must needs be of a higher orb than the first Bishops of particular Churches over whom that power was exercised And if this Hypothesis of the Apostles having an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and Bishops do sufficiently prove the right of the succession of Bishops of a higher orb in the same power I shall not oppose it But only I take notice that these higher Bishops are not of the same kind with those first bishops that were under that governing power and of which we read in Scripture That the Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops was not consistent with their Apostolick office being a general charge extending to the Church universal That any Apostle did appropriate a Diocess to himself and challenge the sole Episcopal authority therein cannot be proved The several Apostles for the better carrying on of the work of their office did make choice of several regions more especially to exercise their function in There was an agreement that Peter should go to the Circumcision and Paul to the Uncircumcision But as
they but Christ makes the office and not they but Christ gives the power that belongs to the office from which they cannot detract The ordination of Timothy is said to be by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 If it be said that by the Presbytery is meant a company of Bishops it it granted that Presbyters and Bishops were all one If it be said they were a company of none but Diocesan Bishops that had subject-presbyters of an inferior order under them let it be proved from Scripture It is said by some That only the Diocesan Bishops ordain authoritatively and the Presbyters concomitantly founding the distinction on those two Texts 2 Tim. 1.6 and 1 Tim 4.14 it being said in the one That Timothy received the gift by the putting on of Paul's hands and in the other by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this it is answered 1. That the imposition of hands mentioned 2 Tim. 1.6 might be in confirmation for the first receiving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism and the following effects of the spirit of love power and of a sound mind argue so much 2. If any of a higher state than Presbyters laid hands on Timothy in his ordination yet the phrase of Presbytery argues that they did it as presbyters 3. If it was Paul that ordained Timothy authoritatively and the presbytery but concomitantly our bishops cannot thence claim the sole authoritative ordination for Paul was of an order above them and was no otherwise a bishop than as having Episcopal power eminently contained in his Apostolick office 4. If the presbytery there mentioned be a company of bishops of an order superior to presbyters it will follow by this distinction that such a bishop ordains not authoritatively but concomitantly 5. The said Texts afford no ground for the distinction of authoritative and concomitant ordination According to the hierarchical principle the bishop is enabled to give orders not by his power of jurisdiction but by his power of order Now a presbyter hath as much of the Character and Sacrament of order as a bishop and the consecration of a bishop is not held a distinct Sacrament of order from the ordination of a presbyter and the truth is the form of consecrating a bishop according to the English Ordinal is expressive of no more power of order than is given to the presbyter in the form of his ordination in the said Ordinal The conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in the present form of ordination shews that the order is conveyed by them as well as by the bishop Their imposition of hands is an authoritative benediction and dedication of the party ordained Let any instance be produced of the imposition of hands by any such as had no power of conveying that which was signified by that ceremony I mean of conveying it so far as mans act can reach unto To say it is only a sign of their giving consent is a poor evasion for the people give consent also If presbyters are at any time allowed to ordain by commission from a Bishop they cannot do it rightly if they have not an intrinsick power of doing it For the Bishops commission or license cannot give a new spiritual power to a Presbyter which was not in him before at least radically or habitually § 24. Of a valid Ministry AS Christ allows the Church to receive such to Baptism and the Lords Supper as he doth not receive so he allows the Church to call some to the Ministry whom he doth not call For it is his prerogative to be the Searcher of the Hearts and men can judg but by appearance Such as Christ doth not allow the Church to call to the Ministry may by his permission through the Churches mal-administration be called thereunto and being so called they abide therein by his permission till they be cast out by due reformation and so long their calling is valid as to external order And such are Ministers to others tho not to their own good and Chrsts ordinances by them administred are valid and effectual to those intents for which he appointed them The whole current of Scripture shews that Gods ordinances are not made void by the close hypocrisie or gross impiety of the dispensers thereof and the contrary opinion tends to unchurch Churches and to deny the Christendom of the Christian World for the most part As we must distinguish between miscarriages in admission and the nullity of the office so between defects or corruptions in the office it self and the nullity thereof The Priesthood and Worship in the Temple at Jerusalem was often much corrupted yet it was true for the substance thereof but the Priesthood appointed for the Calves at Dan and Bethel was false for the substance and a nullity Tho the sacrificing Priesthood at Dan and Bethel were a nullity yet the Ten Tribes had the substance of the true religion and some external acts of worship true and valid as circumcision and so retained something of a Church So now among the Papists there is the substance of the Christian Religion and some thing of a Church and Ministry and ordinances The Ministry of the Popish Priests with reference to the Sacrifice of the Mass is a nullity but as ordained to preach the Gospel and Baptize and to any other parts of the proper work of the Ministry it is not a nullity but their administration in those things is valid § 25. Of the Magistrates Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs MAgistratical and Ecclesiastical power are in their nature wholly divers and they are not subordinate but collateral powers yet Ministers are subject to Magistrates and Magistrates to Ministers in divers respects according to the nature of the power that is seated in either of them The Magistratical power is Imperial the Ecclesiastical is ministerial and so the pastor is under the magistrate as his Ruler by the sword not only in civil but in sacred things and the magistrate is under the pastor as his Ruler by the word or his authoritative teacher The pastors power over the magistrate is no dimunution to his right for it takes away none of his authoritty nor doth it hinder the exercise and efficacy of it but it is his benefit because it is an authoritative administring to him the mercies of the Gospel in Christs Name and if he be not under that authoritative administration he is not under the blessing of the Gospel Howbeit the pastoral discipline may not be so exercised towards the supream magistrate as by dishonouring him to make him less capable of improving his office to the common good which the excommunicating of him would do but if magistrates whether of higher or lower rank be excommunicated nevertheless they must be obeyed The magistrates power over the pastor is no diminution to his spiritual authority for it is not given to hinder but to further the efficacy and exercise thereof So that both powers are mutually
supernatural help in remembring and attesting it The first Churches received the Testimony from the first witnesses upon naturally certain and infallible evidence it being impossible that those witnesses could by combination deceive the world in such matters of fact in the very age and place when and where the things are pretended to be done and said And these Churches had the concomitance of supernatural attestation in themselves by the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost and by miracles wrought by them The Christians or Churches of the next age received the testimony from those of the first with a greater evidence of natural infallible Certainty for that the Doctrine was delivered to them in the records of sacred Scripture and both the miracles and reporters were more numerous and they were dispersed over much of the world and with these also was the supernatural evidence of miracles We of the present age receive it insallibly from the Churches of all precedent ages successively to this day by the same way with greater advantages in some respects and with lesser in others not upon the Churches bare authority but the natural Cerainty of the infallible tradition of the Holy Scriptures or records of this religion and of the perpetual exercise thereof according to those records in all essential points wherein it was naturally impossible for the precedent ages to impose falshoods upon the subsequent And this rational evidence of the Churches tradition was in conjunction with the histories of heathens and the concessions of the Churches enemies infidels and hereticks all which did acknowledg the verity of the matters of fact There is natural evidence of the impossibility that all the witnesses and reporters being so many of such condition and in such circumstances should agree to deceive and never be detected for there is no possible sufficient cause that so many thousand believers and reporters in so many several countries throughout the world should be deceived or be herein mad or sensless and that those many thousands should be able in these matters unanimously to agree to deceive more than themselves into a belief of the same untruth in the very time and place where the things were said to be done And no sufficient cause can be given but that some among so many malicious enemies should have detected the deceit especially considering the numbers of Apostates and the contentions of Heriticks Besides all this there is a succession of the same spirit of Wisdom and Goodness which was in the Apostles and their hearers continued to this day and is wrought by their Doctrine § 20. Of the infallible Knowledg of the Sense of Scripture AS we may be infallibly certain of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scripture so likewise of the sence of the Scripture at least in points fundamental or essential to the Christian Religion and that without an infallible Teacher We may certainly know that an interpretation of Scripture repugnant to the common reason of mankind and to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true if we can certainly know any thing is impossible to be true and consequently we may infallibly know it The sence of Scripture in many things and those most material to Christian faith and life is so evident from the plain open and ample expression thereof that he that runs may read it if his understanding be notoriously prejudiced And if we cannot know the said sense to be necessarily true we can know nothing to be so and so we are at uncertainty for every thing It will surely be granted by all that we may as certainly know the sense of Scripture in things plainy and amply expressed as the sense of any other writings as for instance of the Writings of Euclide in the definitions and axioms in which men are universally agreed If any say the words in which the said definitions and axiomes are expressed may possibly bear another sense it is answered That they may absolutely considered because words which have their sense ad placitum and from common use being absolutely considered may have a divers sense from what they have by common use but those words being respectively considered as setled by use cannot possibly bear another sense unless we imagine the greatest absurdity imaginable in the Writer Besides they that pretend the possibility of another sense I suppose do mean sense and not nonsense And how a divers sense of all those words in Euclide that is not pure nonsense should arise out of the same words and so conjoined is by me incomprehensible But if the possibility of the thing be comprehensible or so great an absurdity be imaginable in a Writer led only by a humane spirit it is not imaginable in Writers divinely inspired That the Holy Ghost should write unintelligibly and wholly diversly from the common use of words in things absolutely necessary to salvation is impossible If an infallible Teacher be necessary to give the sense of Scripture in all things and no other sense than what is so given can be safely rested in then either the right sense of that infallible Teachers words if he be at a distance cannot be known but by some other present infallible Teacher or else that pretended infallible Teacher is more able or more willing to ascertain us of his meaning than the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture To speak of seeking the meaning of Scripture from the sense that the Catholick Church hath thereof is but vain talk For first the Catholick church never yet hath and never is like to come together till the day of judgment to declare their sense of the things in question nor have they written it in any book or number of books 2. Never did any true Representative of the Catholick Church or any thing like it as yet come together or any way declare what is their sense of the Scripture and the things in question nor is ever like to do 3. Tho it be granted that the Catholick Church cannot err in the essentials of Christian Religion as indeed no true member thereof can for it would involve a contradiction yet there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that a great if not the greater part of the Catholick Church may err in the integrals much more in the accidentals of Religion yea there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that the whole Catholick Church may err at least per vices in the several parts thereof some in one thing some in another And all this is testified by experience in the great diversities of opinions about these things in the several parts of the Catholick Church yea and by the difference of judgment and practise of the larger parts thereof even from those among us who hold this principle of the necessity of standing to their judgment Wherefore shall we think that God puts men upon such dissiculties yea impossibilities of finding out the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures at least in the main points of
bishop to delegate his Episcopal power to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man if that Clergy-man be not as Christs commissioned Officer authorized to exert that power 18. The sentence of excommunication is denounced for any non observaâ—ce of the judgment of the Court tho in cases of doubtful right and in the smallest matters But no proof of such practice can be produced from the first ages And let the bishops themselves judg howsoever contempt may be pretended in the case Whether many who are usually so sentenced either upon doubtful or trivial matters do indeed deserve to be adjudged to such a state as that sentence duly administred doth import 19. The Parish Minister is bound to denounce in his Church the sentence of Excommunication decreed by the Court tho he have no cognizance of the cause and tho he know the sentence to be unjâ—st But no such practice was known in the ancient church 20. Ministers at their Ordination receive that Office which essentially includes an Authority and Obligation to teach their flocks yet they may not preach without a license from the bishop in their own proper charges or cures tho they perform other Offices of the Ministry But anciently it was not so 21. The present bishops require of their Clergy an Oath of Canonical obedience but let any proof be given that the ancient bishops did ever impose such an Oath or that the presbyters ever took it 22 The Parish minister hath not the liberty of examining whether the Infant brought to Baptism be a capable subject thereof that is Whether he be the child of a Christian or Infidel but he must baptize the child of every one that is presented by Godfathers and Godmothers who commonly have little or no interest in the Infant nor care of its education and who not seldome are but Boys and Girls 23. Confirmation is to be administred only by the bishop and yet it is in an ordinary way impossible for him to examine all persons to be confirmed by him within his Diocess Consequently it cannot be duly administred to multitudes of persons that are to be presented thereunto and they that are confirmed are few in comparison of those that are not But the ancient bishops being bishops of one particular Church were capable of taking the oversight of every particular person of their flocks and did personally perform the same 24. A great part of the adult members of parish-Parish-churches are such as understand not what Christianity is but the ancient churches were careful that all their members might be competently knowing in the Religion which they professed as appears by their discipline towards the Catechumeni and the long time before they admitted them to baptism 25. The Parish ministers have no remedy but to give the Sacrament to ignorant and scandalous persons that offer themselves thereunto they can but accuse the openly wicked in the Chancellors Court and but for one time deny the Sacrament to some kind of notorious sinners but then they are bound to prosecute them in the Court and to procure a sentence against them there where not one notorious sinner of a multitude is or can be brought to a due tryal in regard of the way of proceeding in Ecclesiastical Courts and the multitude of souls in every Diocess The consequent hereof is the general intrusion of the grosly ignorant and profane who pollute the communion of the Church and eat and drink damnation to themselves 26. All parishioners that are of age are compelled to receive the Sacrament how unfit or unwilling soever they be by the terrors of penalties subsequent to excommunication and those that have been excommunicated for refusing to receive are absolved from that sentence if being driven thereunto they will receive the Sacrament rather than lye in Gaol And the Parish-ministers are compelled to give the Sacrament to such 27. Many Orthodox Learned and Pious men duly qualified for the Ministry are cast and kept out of it for not declaring an unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in the Liturgy and Book of Ordination Let any proof be given that ever any of the ancient Bishops or Churches thought all the points contained in those books so necessary to be assented and consented to or that any of them so severely required the like conformity to opinions forms and ceremonies of the like nature and reason 28. The present bishops debar all Christians from the Lords Supper who through unfeigned scruple of conscience refuse to kneel in the act of receiving the Sacramental bread and wine and they debar from baptism the children of those Parents who judg it unlawful for them to permit the signing of their children with the sign of the Cross But the ancient bishops did not so nor doth the practise of Antiquity warrant the same 29. The greatest severity of the present Church-discipline is directed against Ministers and people who observe not full conformity to the Rules Forms Rights and Ceremonies prescribed in the Liturgy and Canons But the ancient bishops exercised it against those who subverted the Christian faith by damnable Heresies or enormously transgressed the Rules of soberness righteousness and godliness prescribed of God in his word 30. The Oath imposed upon the Church-wardens to make their Presentments according to the Book of Articles framed by the bishop hath had this consequence which ought to be laid to heart that commonly they would rather overlook their Oath than become accusers of their honest neighbours not only those who withdraw from but those who hold communion with the Parish churches 31. The requiring of the reordination of those ministers who have been ordained by presbyters is contrary to the practise of the ancient Church it contradicts the judgments of many Eminent bishops and other Divines of the Church of England who have maintained the validity of Presbyterial ordination it nullifies the ministry of all the Foreign Reformed Churches and of most if not of all the Lutheran churches and it advances the Church of Rome above them for the priests of the Church of Rome upon their conversion are received without reordination whereas those that come from the Foreign Reformed churches must be reordained before they be admitted to the ministry in the church of England And all this is done when in Scripture the office of a bishop and presbyter is one and the same and the difference between them came in afterwards by Ecclesiastical custome It is commonly said That Churches and Bishops being now delivered from their ancient low and distressed state under the tyranny and persecution of the Heathen powers and enjoying the patronage and bounty of Christian Rulers should not be consined to their ancient meanness narrowness and weakness but be enlarged in opulency amplitude and potency answerable to the Civil State Ans It is freely granted that the state Ecclesiastical should in reasonable proportion partake of the prosperity of the Civil state But the question still remains 1. Whether
the forms of sacred administrations but also all the Rubricks together with the Calender and Tables and every part thereof comes within the compass of this declaration As concerning the import of the assent and consent to be given thereunto I take it unquestionably to signifie according to the genuine sense of the words our approbation or allowance of the use of all things as aforesaid and not meerly to bind us for peace sake not to oppose them Wherefore if the use of any one thing great or small therein comprehended be not allowable there is just ground of refusing this declaration Assent and consent to the use of all things supposeth that all are lawful it supposeth also that all things are so far fit to be used as to have no such evil consequence as may justly forbid their use it supposeth also that the whole and every part of this book is so far true as to have no errors which doth entrench upon the Christian Faith or hath bad influence on mens lives I think I may comply for charity and peace sake in the use of indifferent things of no hurtful tendency tho they be unuseful or unprofitable yet I query whether I may declare my unfeigned assent and consent to the use of those unuseful or unprofitable things or to the using of them instead of things useful and profitable I think some little errors and untruths of inconsiderable consequence such as little mis translations or misapplications of Scripture-phrase may be tolerated in the service of God yet I query whether I may declare such assent and consent to all and every thing as doth express a justifying of those little errors and untruths or an allowing of the retained use of them My bare using of them necessarily signifies no more than that I judg them to be tolerable but my declaring consent to the required use of them signifies that I judg them to be allowable I think I may joyn in a prayer as it is sound and good for the substance tho it hath some little error doctrinal or historical couched in it yet I query whether I may personally use or consent â—o the use of such error I query whether I may declare unfeigned assent and consent to the use of things in themselves indifferent if I heartily wish they were not used in regard of inconveniences or offences arising from them I query also Whether I may declare my assent and consent to the use of a Rubrick being an injunction if I disallow the injoining of the thing prescribed in it and in consenting to a rule or law as such I consent not only to the doing of the thing prescribed but to the prescribing or enjoining thereof Forasmuch as I am not sufficiently clear whether the words unfeigned assent and consent do import only an acknowledgment of the things as simply lawful and passable or besides this an approbation thereof as laudable and desirable I do here in some particulars resolve diversly according to the different supposition of the higher or lower meaning of the said words Of the Second Article of Subscription required by the Thirty sixth Canon THo the declaration of assent and consent be restrained to the use of things yet it doth not appear that the subscription required by the Thirty-sixth Canon is so restrained For these words thereof That the Book of Common-prayer and of ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons contains nothing contrary to the word of God seem plainly comprehensive as well of things asserted as of things to be done or used and the truth of the one sort seems to be acknowledged as well as the use of the other sort to be allowed And to say That nothing therein is contrary to the word of God seems to me as much as to say that all things therein are agreeable to the word of God The word of God is the Rule by which all things in the Liturgy ought to be regulated Now for a thing that is under a Rule to be not contrary to the Rule is all one as to be agreeable thereunto Any moral act not contrary to Gods Law is agreeable to it and what is not agreeable to it is contrary to it Here followeth a Consideration of divers particulars contained in the Liturgy Of the Order how the Holy Scripture is appointed to be read I Do not think it in it self unlawful or utterly unfit that some Apocryphal Chapters should be read in the Church But I question whether I may consent to the use of the Calendar and Tables so far as they direct to the reading of Apocryphal Chapters in the same place and under the same title with Canonical Chapters also to the reading of the proper lessons tho apocryphal rather than the lessons in the ordinary course tho canonical I grant that the Church in her Articles of Religion doth sufficiently distinguish between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books nevertheless the aforesaid use of the Apocryphal Chapters in the liturgy without any distinction of the Canonical there given may tempt the Vulgar to take them for Gods word It is to be noted that in the order of reading the lessons the title of holy Scripture and Old Testament is given to the Apocrypha I am more concerned to know whether there be no sufficient objection against the matter of any of the Apocryphal Chapters appointed to be read which may prove them not fit to be used in Divine service Judith c. 9. approveth the fact of Simeon against the Sichemites as performed by divine assistance and approbation and desires the like assistance in her enterprize Chap. 10. and C. 11. she speaks things untrue In defence of the prescribed use of these Chapters it is said that these things are related historically and not for imitation as many things are in the Canonical Scripture Such as were Elijah's intercession against Israel and both his and Jonah's passionate desire of death But this doth not satisfie for those unwarrantable passages which in Canonical Scripture are related historically are sufficiently signified to be unwarrantable as in particular those speeches of Elijah and Jonah are plainly notified to be their weaknesses But the aforesaid passages in Judith seem to be recorded in way of approbation being deliberate in a solemn prayer for success in an enterprize and she expresly prays for success in her deceit and nothing of the disallowance of these things is intimated in that story I ask Whether the reading hereof as a holy lesson doth not tend to the imboldning of men in such undertakings and at least whether it hath not the appearance of evil from which we ought to abstain by the Apostles precept I might further object That there is little evidence of the Historical truth of this Book But on this I insist not Tob. 5.12 The Angel Raphael is brought in telling a falshood in express terms viz. that he was Azarias the son of Ananias the great of Tobits brethren Tho this fift chapter be left out of the
Idolatry in any kind BY the meer appearance of idolatry I understand not external or meerly corporeal idolatry of which I have before spoken For this differs from that on this manner That is an outward sign of inward worship tho it be but seeming or feigned but this is only an appearance of being such a sign when it is not Query about incurvation towards the Altar or Communion-Table Whether it give not an appearance of idolatry before the Vulgar and those that are less accurate in distinguishing between an object to which and toward which Query much more about directing worship towards a Crucifix or other pictures tho but as to objects of remembrance The same appearance may be in the mixing of expressions of veneration to Saints or Angels amidst the worship of God tho they be not those expressions that are appropriated to Gods worship but only such as are common to the worship due to God and the creatures There may be indeed a notorious signifying of the difference of our veneration towards them from what is due to God Howbeit for fear of scandal it may be better wholly forborn Also the like appearance may be in bowing to a King or Potentate amidst the Worship of God except time custom and manner of doing do notoriously notifie the distinction Also when that which is a common expression both of Civil and Religious honour shall be made by a King to be a symbol of giving divinee honour to him if one use that expression towards him or his image with a civil intent without protesting against the idolatrous use thereof § 21. Whether a course of Idolatry in what kind soever infer a state of damnation THE meaning of this Question is Whether all Idolatry be mortal sin not only in respect of desert but existence as sins whose ordinary habitual practice denies the being of grace and presence of the sanctifying Spirit That all idolatry in whatsoever degree is not of this nature is plain For idolatry in general is the giving of that honour to the creature which is due to the Creator alone and this lies not only in solemn avowed worship but in the affection of the heart There are Idola seculi as well as Idola templi And it is too common among the true worshippers of God to rob him of his honour and to place it upon the creature and that habitually as on a Child or Wealth c. tho only in a mortified and not in a prevalent degree The remainders of covetousness which is idolatry is a witness hereof And if this may be in reference to the idols of the heart why not also in reference to the idols of the Templ◠Nay more easily may it be in this later than in the former respect in some devout persons that live in darker times and places because it may proceed not from the love of the creature more than God but meerly from ignorance and error about the way of Divine Worship Wherefore I doubt not but many holy Souls in darker Ages Countries have been habitually or customarily guilty of a lower kind of Idolatry in making Idols to themselves not simply as God but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the excessive honour they gave to the creature did not distroy the sincerity of their Devotion towards God nor deny their unfeigned giving of the highest honour to him alone For such we now speak of may heartily and prevalently own the true God and all the essentials of Religion and so they may be of the true Church of God as True is taken for the essence and not for the integral perfectness and healthfulness of the Church The Third Part Of Superstition less than Idolatry § 1. Of excess in the quantity or measure of Religious Observances ALL Superstition is an excess in Religion The excess in the object thereof being opened in the Second Part here it remains that I speak of that which is in the Acts thereof and this excess is either in the measure or in the kind when the Rule of Religion is transgressed in either of these ways and in some instances there may be an excess in both Excess in the quantity or measure of Religious Observances is when tho the thing in kind were not an excess yet for the quantity it is more than conduceth to the end of Religion yea is an hindrance thereto as for Example Prayer or Preaching of the word too Prolix or at an unseasonable time too rigid a pressing of Religious Exercises on the Lords day or at any other time lawfully set apart thereunto contrary to the works of Mercy or present necessity yea that conveniency to life and converse which doth not divert the mind from the things of God too much care and curiosity about circumstances of Decency and Order and too great a heaping up of Rites and Formalities § 2. Of Excess in Religious Observances for the kind thereof EXcess in the kind is when mans presumption in giving honour to God gives such signs of honour to him as for kind he would not should be given but hath forbidden the same God may forbid the kinds of Religious Observances either in particular as he did some heathenish rites to his people of old expressing them by name or else in general viz. by a general rule forbidding all of such a nature and reason in common Some kind of Religious Observances are unlawful in themselves or in the nature of the things as being naturally unfit to be offerrd to the Holy God namely such kind of Worship as was given to Bacchus and other like heathen gods who were served congruenti vitio And such need not to be forbidden in specie because they are naught in their common nature being vices and 't is enough to be forbidden in genere Some kinds of Religious Worship may not be vicious in their nature nor contrary to Gods holiness to command or allow Yet may be forbidden by the general precept of Scripture or other supernatural Revelation § 3. Of the Rule that limits the kinds of Worship OF Natural Worship the Law of Nature is the limiting Rule for all the kinds thereof Of positive Worship namely all that which in specie is not necessary in nature but is of free Determination the kinds thereof are supposed to be either restrained to Divine Institution or left to humane choice That there are Divine Institutions of positive Worship in sundry kinds is acknowledged by all that acknowledg the Scriptures Divine Authority And that many kinds of positive Worship have been taken up by humane discretion is known by all that know what is practiced in the World Now the Question is Whether these kinds that are of humane choice are lawful or lawfully intermingled in their use with Divine Institutions That all kinds of positive Worship should be left to humane choice seems in reason repugnant in regard of mans natural darkness in Divine things and proneness at the best to mistake therein and to
is undeniable and witnessed by the common sense of human nature that since the Fall a shameful turpitude doth inseperably adhere to this act And this is a natural intimation to mankind of their vicious propagation in their fallen state I mean in respect of original sin and a manifest sign of the common viciousness and brutishness in this case as also of the impotence of passion or sensual commotion to which all are obnoxious herein and ordinarily more than in other sensualities if it be not carefully brought under the due governnance of reason Wherefore that Cynical impudence which some are reported to have acted herein is to be abhorred of all men And even Human much more Christian modesty requires the greatest reservedness herein Nevertheless this inseparably adhering turpitude is not always and directly or of it self a sinfulness That there is a natural where there is not a sinful turpitude many instances do shew That many things just and honest and necessary have a kind of shamefulness in them is acknowledged by men in general If in the present instance there be always some sinfulness it is no other than what is found in all the good acts of men in this their imperfect state And those acts are not counted nor called sins by reason of such adhering sinfulness for that they are prevalently tho not perfectly good and virtuous § 12. Continence in single life is not a common but a special giâ—t which all have not received Mat. 19 10 11. When the Disciples said If the case of a man be so with his Wife it is good not to marry Our Saviour answered All men cannot receive this saying save they to whom it is given And v. 12. He that is able to receive it let him receive it The Apostle saith 2 Cor. 7.7 I would that every man were even as my self but every man hath his proper gift of God one after this manner another after that And of the unmarried and Widows he speaks If they cannot contain let them marry This shews that all have not that singular gift from God to preserve themselves in pureness of body and spirit without the remedy of Marriage And nothing can be produced from Scripture or Reason to argue that the bare want of the said singular gift is a sinful incontinence The general impetus of nature to the conjunction of Male and Female is necessary to the perpetuating of mankind And if it were not so generally implanted in nature there is reason to think that considering the many great intanglements and molestations that accompany Marriage many would not encumber themselves therewith and so would refuse to serve the Providence of God in the successive Generations of men upon Earth in that regular way of Procreation which he hath appointed for mankind from the beginning And who knows but in the state of Innocence as there might be vehement Hunger and Thirst so there might be an impetus of Nature to this conjuction I suppose that in the state of innocence the motions of the sensitive appetite would not be raised and laid immediately at the call of the rational appetite but from the sensitive nature it self as the immediate source and spring from which they issue and to which they return Yet I firmly hold that in that state the said motions were so perfectly under the government of the rational appetite doing its Office as thereby to be always diverted from whatsoever would be dishonest But I think that that good government must have been maintained by prudence and diligence not indeed with trouble and difficulty as now it is but with a pleasant and facile industry In case of Hunger and Thirst Innocent nature might admit a simple motion of sense to Eat and Drink in a time unseasonable for such an act but Reason and the rational appetite would so bridle it that no irregular act of Mind or Body should follow § 13. In the want of the gift of continence legitimate Matrimony is the remedy appointed of God 1 Cor. 7.1 It is good for a man not to touch Woman Nevertheless to avoid Fornication let every Man have his own Wife and every Woman her own Husband The meaning whereof is Tho in divers respects it be more convenient to be unmarried yet there is one respect of greater moment which commands the use thereof viz. to avoid Fornication And vers 9. It is better to Marry than to burn God doth not give to all to overcome the inordinacy of carnal desire without Marriage where it may be duly had and such as cannot otherwise overcome the said inordinacy must Marry if they can to keep themselves pure in Body and Mind or as 't is expressed in the Liturgy undefiled Members of Christs Body § 14. They who are unavoidably kept from Marriage or being in Wedlock are dâ—pâ—ived of conjugal imbraces by their yoke-fellows infirmities or necessary absence must rely upon God for strength to repress inordinate motions and to keep themselves in that purity of heart and life which is acceptable to him For the necessary help of his Grace is never wanting to those that use his means and keep within the bounds which he hath set God will not have his order broken nor his universal perpetual law transgressed such as the Law of Marriage is to satisfie mens natural desires But when they are debarred of Gods appointed remedy or when they have used it but are by his providence frustrated of the benefit thereof they must not transgress the limits which he hath set them but they must have patience and strive against nature and expect such relief from Gods Grace as shall be sufficient for them § 15. To be regulated by those Laws which God hath set in Nature and Scripture is mans uprightness but to depart from them to self-devised ways is his sin and folly under a shew of Wisdom and by pleasing himself therein he deviates more and more from the right way The general admiring of Monkery and Vows of single Life hath as much contributed to the corruption of the Christian Religion and the advancing of the Antichristian Impurity and Superstition as any institution or custom that ever was taken up in the Christian Church Howbeit some may be called to single Life for Religions sake according to the Words of our Saviour Matt. 19.12 There he Eunuchs which have made themselves Eunuchs for the kingdom of Heavens sake He that is able to receive it let him receive it Such as clearly know they have received the gift above mentioned may be called of God to single Life to imploy themselves more freely in serving God either in a publick or private calling All that are so gifted are not hereunto called because many of them may be required to glorifie God and do good in a Married state either in respect of their own Families or the Commonwealth But in regard there be few comparatively who have received this gift it is most rationally supposed that they