less perfect and some of them as Jerome were almost contumelious against it Yet in those times some appeared to give some check to those contumelies cast upon Marriage When Christianity obtained the Empire those Laws which were made in special favour of Marriage and disadvantage of single Life were abrogated and the Monastick state was greatly propagated and priviledged Yea in later times Married persons were encouraged to forsake their yokefellows and go into Monasteries § 7. Upon this occasion I am led to consider what worth or excellence in celebate and virginity more than in the Married Life can be shewed from the Holy Scripture or from right reason In the Scripture we find no greater excellence ascribed to single continence than to Matrimonial chastity It is said 1 Cor. 7.1 It is good for a man not to touch a Woman The goodness here spoken of is a moral convenience and in that respect to abstain from Marriage is here said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or vertuous For it is vertuous to choose that which is most commodious to Christian life and to avoid all avoidable hinderances of the freer exercise of godliness Now divers cares and troubles which accompany Marriage may well be avoided by one who hath the special gift of continence And those difficulties and sufferings which come upon us in times of the Churches calamities may be better born and the temptations thereof more easily escaped in a single than in a Married Life In the same Chapter vers 25 26. Virginity is commended not from its intrinsick excellency as far as that appears but from its conveniency in regard of the distresses of the Church The Apostle saith It is good for the present distress Here also he useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shews that the thing is vertuously good but upon what account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It had in that state of things a Moral convenience and therefore to make choice of it was vertuous Yet he shews vers 28. that to Marry in such a time is no sin tho not to Marry be more expedient Likewise vers 32 33 34. and so to the end of the Chapter single Life is prefered before Marriage by reason of its convenience and on no other account § 8. Marriage was instituted for man in the state of innocence And it must needs be acknowleeged by all that in that state it would have been altogether as pure and perfect as Celibate and Virginity If Matrimony by reason of the fall be accompanied with some unavoidable irregularities or inordinate motions in the sensitive Nature single life is a like yea perhaps more obnoxious in that respect Matrimonial chastity is as truly chastity as Virginal chastity And the same degree of Matrimonial chastity is equally pure with the same degree of Virginal chastity or to speak in other terms there may be as great chastity both of body and mind in Matrimony as in Virginity If there be a glory and excellency in that Victory over sense which they have who having the gift of continence abstain from the sensitive pleasure of the Marriage-bed it may be equalled by the sobriety and regularity of the use of the Marriage bed being accompanied with a Christian Wisdom Fortitude and Patience in bearing and managing the difficulties of the Married condition for the glory of God and the good of the Church and Commonwealth besides the private good of Families And there appears much less self-denial in a single than in a married life to be exercised by those that have the gift of continence § 9. Principles tending to render Marriage vile and loathsome have been propagated by some out of an excessive admiration of Virginity and total abstinence from carnal conjunction and by others whose interest it was to inhance the reputation of single life for the strengthning of the Papal Kingdom Of which sort are these viz. The natural desire of copulation is prohibited lust That corporeal delight may not be intended in the conjugal act That a mans desire of pleasure with his own Wife cannot be without sin That a man doth sin except he come to the act with grief Accordingly some Popish Writers have said That most frequently mortal sin and always venial sin is committed in the conjugal act And the truth is if these things were true they were enough to deter from Marriage all those that have a due care of their own souls Some of great name among the Ancients held That there should have been no commixtion of Sexes in the state of innocence because tho it were used for procreation alone yet as they thought it could not have been without shameful lust § 10. Now for the redargation of such opinions let it be considered that when men otherwise very worthy shall give scope to their own conceits and shall advance self-chosen ways they will overlook the clearest evidence both of Scripture and Reason For what other cause could be rendered for the creation of the different Sexes but the foresaid commixtion And of a man and his wife in the state of innocence it was said They shall be one flesh And for the vehement desire of the said conjunction it is in it self an Animal Faculty for the conservation of the Species as the like desire of ingestion and egestion is for the conservation of the individual Since the Fall the sensitive appetite ought to be distinguished from its inordinacy from which by grace it may be separated and so it may be alike pure and sinless with other parts of human nature in this imperfect state And this being granted in other kinds of sensitive appetite why should it be denied in the kind here treated of Some say of it That it is a brutifying act and that the mind is so carried away therein that it can think nothing worthy of a wise man But I make no question but godly persons know the contrary by experience And I can see no reason but that they who have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts as all true Christians have may by due care carry themselves in this matter with a due sobriety and regularity and that the more perfect Christians ordinarily do so And tho herein they be not perfectly yet they are prevalently pure And that it is perfectly pure can scarce be said of any good act in the present state of mankind The delight of eating and drinking after hunger and thirst or of rest after labour doth swallow up Reason in the Vicious or more or less disturb it according to the degree of their intemperance And so the delight here considered doth swallow up Reason in them that use it inordinately and that more or less according to the degree of their inordinacy But as the delight of eating and drinking doth not brutifie the temperate so the delight here considered doth not brutifie them that use it purely and soberly not in opposition but subordination to spiritual delights § 11. Indeed it
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
as nothing was lawful to the Levites that was not lawful to the Priests so nothing is lawful to Deacons that is not lawful to Presbyters in matter of Sacred Administration And the Bishop or Elder had the chief dispensation of the Churches money else how could he be enjoined to be given to Hospitality § 17. Of a Call to the Ministry MInisters are Stewards Overseers Heralds Ambassadors which are names of special office And the holy Scripture declares the perpetuity of this sacred function Eph. 4.14 in declaring the end thereof to be the perfecting of the Saints till Christs mystical body be compleat which is not till the end of all things And tho some offices as that of the Apostles were for the first times only yet others as Pastors and Teachers are for all times and the reason of the difference is manifest the work of the one being extraordinary and temporary and of the other ordinary and perpetual And that the work which is done by ministers be not left in common to all but appropriated to a special office or a state of authority and obligation to do that work there is a perpetual necessity in the Church of God for it being a work of the greatest importance in the world it is necessary that there be in some a state of special obligation thereunto lest being left as every mans work in the issue it prove to be no mans work The ministry being not a state common to all but a special office it is usurpation and intrusion for any one to take it up without a due call thereunto that is a commission or warrant to instate him in it As none can be a Herald or Ambassador or Steward by assuming any of these offices to himself but he must have commission or warrant from the Prince or Housholder so none can be authoritative preachers of Christs Gospel or stewards of his mysteries without a commission from him The Scripture declares That a mission is necessary Rom. 10.15 How shall they preach except they be sent That is without mission none preach with the authority of one of Christs Heralds Accordingly a rule is given for calling men to the ministry which rule is to be kept till the appearance of Christ 1 Tim 6.14 compared with chap. 5.17 21. What manner of preaching the Gospel is lawful for them that are no ministers hath been before spoken of The essence of the call to the ministry lies in Christs command to any man to do the work of the ministry and in his own consent accordingly to give up himself thereunto The said command is the efficient cause of a mans being a minister and the sufficient signification of that command and a mans own consent is each of them a causa sine qua non or a necessary condition thereof For it hath been already shewed it is Christ only that gives the office and power intrinsick to it and he doth it by his publick standing act in his law And in proper speaking it is no more given by man than the power of a Mayor is given by the Citizens that elect him or by the City-Officers that are appointed for his solemn investiture § 18. Of the immediate and mediate Call to the Ministry THE immediate Call to the ministry is extraordinary and it is either that which is altogether without the intervention of man as the Call of John Baptist of the twelve Apostles and of Paul Gal. 1.1 or that wherein though God use some ministry of man yet he makes an immediate designation of the person in an extraordinary way as the calling of Aaron and his sons to the Priesthood and of Matthias to the Apostleship They that receive an immediate call are able to give proof of it either by the gift of miracles or some other extraordinary testimony of God The extraordinary and immediate call did belong to the extraordinary offices but an ordinary and mediate call to the ordinary standing offices It is to be noted that at certain times in an ordinary office such eminent qualifications and successes may be given to some as exceed the common measure yet their call is not extraordinary for the kind thereof Luther in that high and eminent service which was done by him did not pretend an extraordinary and immediate call And none of our first Reformers renounced that ordinary call which they had under the corrupt state of the church The mediate call is by the intervention of man in the ordinary way of election and ordination which is so to be understood that neither the Electors nor Ordainers do properly make a minister nor give the ministerial authority nor doth the minister act by authority derived from the one or the other nor in their name as their officer commissioned by them but by authority derived from Christ and in his name as his officer It is Christ therefore that gives the office by the standing act of his Law immediately that is without any mediate efficient cause yet by the mediation of men as designing and inaugurating the person that receives it as the King is the immediate giver of the power of a Mayor tho the Corporation design the person that receives it and God is the immediate giver of the Husbands power but the application of it to such a person is by the womans consent Now in the mediate call mans part is necessary as well as Gods part and therefore in no wise to be neglected For what is done by man is necessary to give a sufficient signification of the will of Christ to put this or that person into the Ministry § 19. Of Election belonging to the Ministerial Call THAT Election which belongs to the setting up of Government is not always an act of government but sometimes of meer liberty as when a people elect a Ruler over them Meer Election to the Ministry made by men doth not confer the office nor apply it to the person but the most that it doth is to apply the person invested with the office to a certain company in the relation of their proper Minister Much controversie hath been about the right of Election to whom it belongs The peoples electing of their own Minister is just by the law of nature if it be not otherwise ordained by positive law as naturally all men choose Physitians for themselves and School-masters for their Children yet in some places and cases it is otherwise ordained and guardians are appointed by the Supreme Power and Physitians and School-masters in like manner yet so as none be constrained to use them It doth not appear that the divine law hath prescribed any certain way of election to the ministry as unfixed besides the mutual consent of the ordainer and ordained No proof of any as to the general ministry being chosen by the people appears in the New Testament The Apostles and the Seventy had a divine election Timothy was elected by Prophesie and it doth not appear Act. 1. That the
Calendar yet in other chapters appointed to be read this person who speaks that which was untrue is set forth for a holy Angel And c. 7.3 both the Angel and Tobias are reported to say to Raguel that which was false on the Angels part viz. that they were of the sons of Naphtalim who were captives in Niniveh Tho we read in Scripture that Angels were sometimes taken to be men and so called by them that took them to be such yet we do not read therein that any Holy Angels affirmed that they were men and such particular men by name Tob. 12.15 The Angel is reported to say I am Raphael one of the seven holy Angels which present the prayers of the Saints and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy one The presenting of the prayers of the Saints before God looks like a mediatory act And suppose it here signifies but an act of ministry not of mediation yet I question whether it be right to consent to the use of such a passage as seems to imply the mediation or intercession of Angels for us and which may give an occasion to believe it and be made use of to prove that opinion The story of Bell and the Dragon is thought to be fabulous and there may be some regret in consenting to its being appointed to be read at a time when it being omitted the first Chapter of Isaiah would come in course to be read Moreover the reading of the Apocrypha hath been excepted against as it excludeth much of the Canonical Scriptures and taketh in such Books in their stead as are commonly reputed fabulous yet read for real History Of the Tables and Rules for Holy dayes and times IN this Book is contained the appointment of divers Festivals and other solemn times Now tho I scruple not to join in the publick Worship of God performed in those days yet I hesitate about the expresâ— declaring of assent and consent to the use of Tables and Rules directing to the solemnizing thereof It is to me doubtful whether any humane power may lawfully institute such times and days as some of these are I confess there be arguments for the lawfulness of such institution which I cannot well answer and there be other arguments against it which also I cannot well answer and this later sort I crave leave to propound in this place The occasions of these days and times were existent in the Apostles times and if God would have had these days appointed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles and have left it recorded in Scripture as he did other like things If the institution of these days and times were necessary it is equally necessary in all ages and parts of the Catholick Church and is the matter of an universal Law and so belongs to the Universal Lawgiver If the Universal Lawgiver hath reserved any thing to his own power it can be no less than the making of such Laws and Ordinances as are universally and perpetually necessary To affirm such institution to be universally necessary when God hath made no Law concerning it in Scripture is to overthrow the sufficiency of Scripture as a Catholick Rule of divine faith and worship For men to institute Ordinances of Worship supposed to be universally and perpetually necessary to the Church supposeth a defect in the divine universal and perpetual Ordinances to be made up by adding other Ordinances by way of supplement The fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so high a nature that man may not presume to make the like The Table of all the Feasts to be observed begins All Sundays in the year so it calls the Lords day which it seems to put upon the same level with feasts of humane institution And there seems as great a sacredness if not greater conferred upon some of the high festivals as upon the Lords day which is of divine appointment The Lords day doth sufficiently answer the ends for which those festivals that relate to our Saviour are appointed for that being in memory of his Resurrection implies a memorial of all things done for mans redemption If such Institutions as these be not prohibited Deut. 4 2. Deut. 12.32 I enquire of what sort is the prohibited addition there spoken of The prohibition seems to me to be not meerly of adding to the Rule to wit the written law but of doing more than that Rule required as the precept is not of preserving the Rule but observing what is commanded in it I do not question the lawfulness of such humane institutions in divine Worship as are in meer subordination to divine institution and serve for the more convenient modifying and ordering thereof and which indeed are not properly additions thereunto because they are not of the same nature and use but are meerly accidentals of worship But I doubt of such humane Ordinances of divine worship as are coordinate with the divine Ordinances and express the same nature reason end and use with them and are additions properly so called The festival days appointed by the Church of England are in the Table of feasts set in coordination with the Lords day and they are not meerly the accidentals but very important integral parts of divine service in this Church In reason it must needs be that God hath sufficiently provided for his honour in the worship which he hath instituted as much as belongs to the reason and end of those things which he hath instituted Thereupon I enquire Whether it be not a presuming of our own against the divine wisdom to add to the divine Ordinances by way of supplement humane ordinances of the same reason and intent with the divine There is no question of the lawfulness of appointing some certain times besides the Lords day either fixed or variable to be spent in publick worship wherein God is to be glorified for Jesus Christ and the work of redemption wrought by him There is no question of the lawfulness of appointing days of humiliation and thanksgiving either for once or anniversarily upon special occasions and that besides the special occasions of those days things of universal and perpetual concernment ought to be minded in the religious exercises then performed In these cases the appointed days and times are only adjuncts of worship which as all other things must be performed in some certain time and they are for the worship but the worship is not for them and they are not intrinsecally holy but only by extrinsick denomination from the holy worship then solemnizâ—d But these concessions do not infer as I suppose the warrantableness of days appropriated to the same use and ends for which the Lords day is designed of God and made intrinsecally and permanently holy and sanctifying the worship as well as sanctified by it so that it were profaneness to alienate them to other uses Now as I assuredly believe that the Lords day is intrinsecally and
give thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our Brother out of the miseries of this sinful World Also that when we shall depart this Life we may rest in him as our Hope is this our Brother doth are to be used at the interment of all persons whatsoever but such as dye unbaptized or excommunicate or have laid violent hands on themselves But multitudes that are not here accepted dye in notorious sin and give no credible evidence of their repentance Tho we be not infallibly certain that such notorious sinners and in all appearance impenitent to the last are damned yet it may be questioned whether there be ground of hope for their being saved and whether they may be owned as Brethren that rest in Christ and whom God of his great mercy hath taken to himself and on whose behalf we ought to give thanks to God that he hath taken them out of the miseries of this life It may also be questioned Whether it be of safe or dangerous tendency for the Church in her publick Leturgy solemnly to declare all this at their interment Tho the words in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal Life be to be understood of the Resurrection in general and not of the Resurrection of the deceased party yet the very committing of his Body to the ground in sure and certain Hope of the Resurrection to eternal Life in general doth imply some degree of grounded hope of his part in that Resurrection or else the said words seem to be used impertinently Whereas it is said There is some degree of Hope where we cannot determine the contrary I answer that this which is called a degree of Hope is a meer negative or nothing and signifies no more than that we are not infallibly sure of mens final Impenitence and Damnation This is not properly any degree of Hope nor doth it include any Judgment made of the party it being a meer negative And here no Judgment of Charity is included because here is no ground thereof supposed It doth not satisfie to say That the Church supposeth all who dye in her Communion to be hopeful because this supposeth and requireth the due exercise of discipline in the Church Now we see that discipline is not so exercised but that multitudes in whom no credible or hopeful evidence of repentance doth appear dye in her Communion And this omission of discipline is constant general and uncontrolled It is granted that dying-impenitents do not go immediately into the power of the Devil but first into the hands of the great God to be disposed of by him according to the conditions of the Gospel-Covenant which flow from a grant of mercy Nevertheless we know that the Law of Grace and Mercy finally abused and violated doth contain a Denunciation of the greatest Wrath and Vengeance And it seems very improper to say of one whom God hath taken into his own hands to adjudg to everlasting punishment for the final violation and contempt of the Covenant of Grace That God hath taken him to his mercy or unto himself of his great Mercy because he judgeth and condemneth him for violating the Law of Mercy Besides what mortal man certainly knows whether the Judgment and Execution immediately after Death be not the same thing Some geneneral Observations upon the Book of Common-Prayer ACcording to the Tenor of this Book every person in the external Communion of the Church is set forth as godly or regenerate when multitudes in the said Communion are palpably unregenerate and ungodly This appears by several important passages already noted touching every person baptized confirmed interred c. and by these further Instances In the order of Matrimony for every Married couple this form is to be said O Lord save thy Servant and thy Handmaid who put their trust in thee and the like for every Sick person that is visited by the Priest and for every Woman that is Churched It is likewise recommended as convenient that the new married Persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage or at the first opportunity after their Marriage which seems to suppose that all persons who may lawfully be married are fit to receive the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood The Objection here made is not against the applying of the aforesaid or the like form of words or the vouchsafing of the aforesaid Priviledge of the Holy Sacrament to those that give any credible evidence of their faith and repentance but that it is done to all indifferently whatsoever their state towards God appears to be Indeed the Church may be called Holy as the Apostles writing to the Churches give them the stile of Saints and those that are sanctified and holy Brethren and the like But the query is Wherther they would or we may account every Parishioner who is not excommunicate in this present way of Church-Government to be penitent and believing and holy and wether we may use towards every particular Parishioner such forms of words as import their unfeigned faith notwithstanding a manifest appearance of impenitence and ungodliness If the omission of things most necessary in some main parts of the Liturgy be a just ground of not declaring an unfeigned assent and consent to the forms as there prescribed I may urge that in the general Confession there is no mention of Original sin As for those words the devices and desires of our own hearts they denote actual sins of the heart And that clause There is no health in us betokens there is no Salvation or Deliverance in our selves Or if it were designed in this place to fignify Original sin it is a very obscure expression thereof This Omission is the more liable to exception if it be upon these Principles and Suppositions that all who are in the external Communion of the Church are regenerate that all baptized Persons yea or all baptized in Infancy whether they be the Children of the promise or not are delivered from the guilt of Original sin Or that no reliques of Original sin which are truly and properly sin remain in the regenerate It may be likewise urged that in the said Confession there is no sufficient expressing of actual sins in particular and that the Morning and Evening-prayer mostly consists of meer generals without such particular Confession of sins and Petition for spiritual Graces as is requisite to be made on the behalf of the whole Congregation There may be indeed particular Confessions and Petitions proper for particular Persons which are not here intended But there are others of common concernment and necessity to all Christians And my query is Whether this sort may be statedly omitted in a publick Liturgy Of the form of ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons IN the Preface it is said That it is evident to all men diligently reading the holy Scriptures and ancient Authors That from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in
THE REMAINS OF THE REVEREND and LEARNED Mr John Corbet Late of Chichester Printed from his own Manuscripts LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercers Chappel 1684. AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER HERE thou hast the Remains of the Reverend and Learned Mr. Corbet late of Chichester Those that knew him say That he was a man endued with the wisdom that is from above that is first pure and then peaceable gentle meek moderate and easie to be intreated full of mercy and good fruits without partiality without hypocrisie Therefore it is conceived that any thing which he had designed for publick use may be well accepted of by all those that desire to follow after peace with all men so far as is consistent with purity Whether the design of these Remains of his be not to vindicate the truth and to promote purity first and then peace is left to thee to judg after thou hast impartially perused and considered them in the fear of God and if in any measure they conduce to so good an end it is hoped thou wilt be thankful to God for the benefit which the Church of Christ and therein thy self mayst receive by the use of them Thou hast them just as they were left under his own hand if himself had lived to publish them thou mightest possibly have had them better Polisht but it is not thought fit that any other person should take upon him to alter any thing in them There are printed of this Authors and sold by Thomas Parkhurst The Kingdom of God among men together with a Tract of Church Unity and Schism Self-employment in Secret containing Evidences upon Self-Examination Thoughts upon painful Afflictions Memorials for Practice OF THE CHURCH § 1. Of the Church and Ministry as related to each other WHETHER the Church or the Ministry be first in nature is to be considered that for the more orderly handling of both we may know which of them to begin with For that seems to require the precedency of handling that hath the priority of nature or the being whereof is presupposed to the being of the other Now some have thus resolved it As the question whether the Hen or the Egg be first is resolved by the Creation That God made the Hen first so is the Question Whether the Church or Ministry be first by the consideration of the first Institution of Christ And it appears that the Ministry was first Instituted or at least that it was first in existence In setting up the Christian Church Christ set up the Ministry first to convert men or make them Christians Moreover the Ministry as taken for the collective body of Ministers is a constitutive part of the Church considered not entitativè but organicè as some Phrase the distinction that is not as a meer company of Believers gathered to Christ but as a Political Society or Spiritual Commonwealth in this World And the Constitutive parts should be distinctly treated of before the Whole that is constituted of them On the other hand the Church is the end of the Ministry Eph. 4.11 and in design or intention before it and consequently the Ministry hath a respect of subserviency to the Church and is Adapted to the state thereof Likewise the Ministry is in the Church as the lesser in the greater as a part in the whole as a thing residing in the seat of its residence as Stewardship in a Family This indeed holds principally and perpetually of the Church Universal 1 Cor. 12.28 Moreover the Ministers power and vertue is theirs as they are the Churches which indeed hath the propriety of them and their Ministerial gifts as being all under God and Christ finally for its behoof Upon these considerations I shall discourse first of the Church and then of the Ministry § 2. Of the Church its Name and Nature THE word Ecclesia is noted to signifie 1. An Assembly called together by a Superior 2. Any multitude gathered into one place 3. According to the use of the holy Scripture a certain multitude that retain the Name as well when they are a part as when they are met together An Assembly at large is called Ecclesia but Appellativè but they that are now so called by special appropriation of the word are a Society standing in a special Relation to God as his devoted People and that both when they are assembled and when they are apart and whether they be the Universal Society of Gods People or the particular Societies that are the integral parts of the Universal The word Church is the English of Ecclesia in its appropriated signification and it is taken divers ways but all agreeing in the aforesaid Notion 1. For the whole Company of Gods Elect comprising the uncalled and the Militant and the Triumphant Eph. 5.25 26. 2. For the whole Company of the faithful both Militant and Triumphant Col. 1.18 Heb. 12.23 3. For all professors of the Faith of Christ or visible Christians Acts 5.11 Acts 8.3 Acts 12.1 4. For the Catholick Visible Church as a political Society 1 Cor. 12.28 5. For the particular Churches parts of the Catholick as comprising the Church Officers and the people or Community of the faithful as the Church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1.2 The Churches of Galatia Gal. 1.2 and in many other places 6. For the members of the Church or Community of the faithful as distinct from their spiritual Rulers Acts 15.4 22. 7. For the Governours of the Church as distinct from the governed Mat. 18.17 18 19. 8. For a Church-Assembly come together for Divine Worship 1 Cor. 14.19 34. 9. For the faithful in some one family Rom. 16.5 Philem. 2. if it do not signifie a Church meeting in those houses These several acceptions of the word agree in the said common Notion of a number of People associated in a peculiar and Spiritual Relation to God yet the said Notion is more noble and compleat in some of them than in others Besides all these there is the vulgar use of the Word for the House set a part for the Church to meet in for Gods Publick Worship And no doubt but the Word may be lawfully so used it being a trope in ordinary use to put the name of the persons contained upon the place containing as also the name of the place containing upon the persons contained But that there is any such use of the word in Holy Scripture to me is not evident As for the Text 1 Cor. 11.22 Have ye not houses to eat and drink in or despise ye the Church of God it seems not to me to be inferred from it For the Church of God there said to be despised may be understood rather of Gods People assembled § 3. The Church is a Society distinct from the Commonwealth IT hath been well noted That there can be no greater Evidence of real distinction than actual separation And the Church and Commonwealth are separate wheresoever there
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
work and duty belonging to a Presbyter who is no bishop Not one place of Scripture doth set forth any Presbyter as less than a bishop Phil. 1 1. Paul makes mention of Bishops and Deacons in the Church at Philippi in the inscription of his Epistle but no mention of Presbyters that were not bishops And it seems by that Text that in the Apostles times there were more bishops than one placed in one city and 't is to be noted that Philippi was but a little City under the Metropolis of Thessalonica Thus bishop and elder in the places aforecited are names of the same office whatsoever it be and the Hierarchical Divines grant as much but are not agreed what office is there set forth by those names One part of them think that those Texts speak of or at least comprehend such Presbyters as are now so called The other part of them think they speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters Now they that hold that the said Texts speak of or include such presbyters as are now so called must needs hold that such presbyters are pastors and bishops in the Scripture sence of those names and so an identity of the bishop and presbyter is confessed and it rests upon them to prove the divine institution of bishops of a higher order over such presbyters and they that hold that the said Texts speak of such bishops as are now distinct from presbyters must needs grant the qualification ordination and work of presbyters inferior to bishops is not set forth in Scripture If it be said that the order of inferior and subject presbyters is of divine institution and yet not defined or expressed in Scripture let a satisfactory proof be brought from some other authority of its divine institution and what its nature is If it be said that at first the function of a bishop and presbyter was one but afterwards it was divided into two and that the division was made by divine warrant the asserters are bound to prove it by sufficient authority To have the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name as his commissioned Officer is to have Episcopal power and this power belongs to a Presbyter The Asserters of Prelacy answer this by distinguishing the power of the keys in foro interiore or the Court of Conscience within and foro exteriore in the exterior Court to wit that of the Church and say that the former belongs to the Bishop and Presbyter both and the latter to the Bishop only To which I reply 1. The Scripture makes no such distinction and where the Law distinguisheth not we may not distinguish 2. The distinction is vain for all power that belongs to the Pastors of the Church purely respects the conscience by applying to it the commands promises and threatnings of God and it respects the conscience as having the conduct of the outward man and that in reference to Church communion as well as other matters 3. If Presbyters may in the name of Christ bind the impenitent and loose the penitent as to the conscience in the sight of God which is the greater and primary binding and loosing then by parity of reason and that with advantage they may bind and loose as to Church-communion which is the lesser secondary and subsequent binding and loosing That Officer is a Bishop that hath power of authoritative declaring in Christs name that this or that wicked person in particular is unworthy of fellowship with Christ and his Church and a power of charging the Congregation in Christs name not to keep company with him as being no fit member of a Christian Society and also a power of Authoritative declaring and judging in Christs name that the same person repenting of his wickedness and giving evidence thereof is meet for fellowship with Christ and his church and a power of requiring the Congregation in Christs name again to receive him into their Christian fellowship For these are the powers of Excommunication and Ecclesiastical Absolution and a Presbyter hath apparently the said powers As he can undoubtedly declare and charge and judg as aforesaid touching persons in general so by parity of reason touching this or that person in particular all particulars being included in the general He hath undoubtedly a power of applying the word in Christs name as well personally as generally That a Presbyter hath the said powers is granted by the Church of England in the common usage of the Ecclesiastical Courts wherein a Presbyter is appointed to denounce the sentence of Excommunication tho the Chancellor doth decree it And the Excommunication is not compleat till a Presbyter hath denounced it in the congregation That the Apostles have no successors in the whole of their Office is confessed on all hands but if they have successors in part of their Office viz. in the Pastoral Authority in this respect the Presbyters if any are their successors Peter exhorting the Presbyters stiles himself their fellow-Presbyter which is to be understood in respect of the power of Teaching and Ruling The Pastoral Authority of Presbyters is further cleared in many passages in the publick forms of the Church of England touching that Order The form of Ordaining Presbyters in this Church lately was Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou remittest they are remitted and whose sins thou retainest 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 Amen Now the former part hereof is intirely the words used by our Saviour John 20.21 22. towards the Apostles expressing their Pastoral Authority And the latter part is no derogation or diminution from the power granted in the former part If Presbyters are not partakers with the Apostles in the Pastoral Authority how could they have Right to that Form of Ordination Likewise this Church did in solemn form of words require the presbyters when they were ordained to exercise the discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and this Realm hath received the same according to the commandment of God And that they might the better understand what the Lord hath commanded therein this Church did appoint also That at the ordering of Priests there be read for the Epistle that portion of Acts 20. which relates St. Paul's sending to Ephesus and calling for the Elders of the Congregation with his exhortation to them To take heed to themselves and to all the flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers to rule the congregation of God Or else 1 Tim. 3. which sets forth the Office and due Qualifications of a Bishop These portions of Scripture this Church appointed to be read to the Presbyters as belonging to their Office and to instruct them in the nature of it And afterwards the Bishop speaks to them that are to receive the Office of Priesthood in this form of words
You have heard brethren as well in your private examination as in the exhortation and holy lessons taken out of the Gospel and the writings of the Apostles of what dignity and how great importance this Office is whereto ye are called that is to say The Messengers the Watchmen the pastors and stewards of the Lord to teach to premonish to feed to provide for the Lords Family I acknowledg the passages here alledged are taken out of the old Book of Ordinanion that was established in this Church till the late alteration made Anno 1662. If those Alterations signifie another meaning about the several Holy Orders than what was signified in the Old Book then the sense of the Church of England in these times differs from the sense of the same Church in all times preceding the said Alterations But if they signifie no other meaning than what was signified in the old Book my Citations are of force to shew what is the sense of this Church as well of the present as of the former times about this matter And let this be further considered That the form of ordaining a Bishop according to the Church of England imports not the conferring of a higher power or an authorizing to any special work more than to what the Presbyter is authorized The old form was Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee by imposition of hands for God hath not given us the spirit of fea◠but of power and of love and of soberness What is there in this form of words that might not be used to a Presbyter at his ordination Or what is there in it expressive of more power than what belongs to a Presbyter The new form since the late alteration is Receive the Holy Ghost for the work and office of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed to thee by imposition of our hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen And remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is given thee by this imposition of our hands f r God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power and of love and of soberness And what is there in this form that is expressive of any office power that the Presbyter hath not unless these words for the work and office of a bishop Now both the name and work and office of a bishop belongs to the Scripture-presbyter who is of divine institution and the presbyter to whom it doth not belong is but a humane creature or an ordinance of man § 7. Of the present Diocesan Bishop A Diocesan Bishop according to the hierarchical state is a Bishop of the lowest degree having under him Parish-Ministers that are Presbyters or Priests but not accounted Bishops and by divine right claiming to himself alone the Episcopal Authority over all the Parish Churches and Ministers within his Diocess which may contain a hundred two hundred five hundred or a thousand parishes For an Episcopacy of this kind I discern no Scripture-Warrant nor Divine Right Every particular Church should have its proper pastor or Bishop and particular Churches with their proper pastors are so evidently of divine right that some eminently learned men in the Church of England have declared their judgment that no form of Church-Government besides the mere pastoral office and Church-Assemblies is prescribed in the Word of God but may be various according to the various condition and occasion of several Churches But if it be said that parochial Congregations are not Churches but only parts of the Diocess which is the lowest political Church I desire proof from Scripture that such Congregations as our parishes having their proper presbyter or presbyters invested with the power of the keys are not Churches properly so called The reason of demanding this proof is because the Scripture is a perfect rule for the essential constitution of Churches though the accidents thereto belonging may be regulated by humane prudence And it is most evident in Scripture that a particular congregation of Christians having their proper pastor or pastors presbyter or presbyters are Churches properly so called and a parochial Minister I conceive to be a pastor presbyter or elder according to the Scripture Moreover if a Diocess containing many hundred or perhaps a thousand parishes as it doth in England do constitute but one particular Church and the parishes be not properly to be accounted Churches but only so many parts of that one diocesan Church why may not ten thousand yea ten times ten thousand parishes be likewise accounted but one particular church and brought under one man as the sole bishop or pastor thereof Nor do I discern how it is possible for one man to do the work of a bishop towards so many parishes which is to oversee all the flock to preach to them all to baptize and confirm all that are to be baptized and confirmed to administer the Lords Supper to all to bless the congregation publickly and privately to admonish all as their need requires to excommunicate the impenitent to absolve the penitent and that upon knowledg of their particular estate for all these are pastoral or episcopal acts And let it here be noted that I speak of the work of a bishop infimi gradus or under whom there are no subordinate bishops If such a Diocesan bishop saith it sufficeth that he perform all this to the flock by others namely by the parish ministers as his Curates and by other officers his substitutes It is answered 1. The pastoral Authority is a personal trust 2. He is to shew his commission from Christ the prince of pastors to do his work by others for I am now enquiring what is of divine and not of humane Right 3. None but a bishop can do the proper work of a bishop and consequently the presbyters by whom the Diocesan doth his work either are bishops or their act is an usurpation and a nullity It is matter of divine Right only that is here considered As for the humane Rights of a Diocesan bishop to wit his dignity and his jurisdiction under the King as Supreme and to which he is intituled by the Law of the Land I intermeddle not therewith § 8. Of a Bishop or Bishops THE Divine Right of a bishop infimi gradus Ruling over many churches as their sole hishop or pastor hath been considered and now it is to be considered Whether there be of divine institution such a spiritual officer as hath the oversight of Bishops or is a Bishop of Bishops The Diocesan Bishop is really of this kind tho he will not own it for he is a bishop of Presbyters who are really bishops if they be that kind of Presbyters that the Scripture mentions But if the Presbyters which in the hierarchical state are subject to the Diocesan Bishop be of another kind they are not of Christs institution What hath been already said
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
it doth not hence follow that Peter was a fixed Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles no more were any of the Apostles fixed Bishops in those places where they were more especially imployed and we know that they made frequent removes §. 10. Of the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus THE Name of Bishop is not given either to Timothy or Titus except in the Postscripts of the Epistles But those Postscripts are taken for no part of Canonical Scripture For if they were free from the objected Errors about the places from which the Epistles were written they cannot in reason be supposed to be Pauls own words and written by him when the Epistles were written Moreover the travels of Timothy and Titus do evidently shew that they were not diocesan bishops nor the setled Overseers of particular churches And those passages 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus and Tit. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete shew an occasional and temporary employment And whatsoever stress may be laid upon these texts to prove they were bishops of those places yet they do not sound like the fixing of them each in their proper diocess The name of an Evangelist is expresly given to one of them 2 Tim. 4.5 and the work enjoined both of them and accordingly performed by them being throughout of the same kind there is all reason to believe that they had the same kind of office Now by several texts of Scripture compared together we find the work of Evangelists to be partly such as belonged to the Apostles whose Agents or Adjuncts they were and partly such as was common to Pastors and Teachers whose office was included in theirs Their work in common with the Apostles was the planting and setling of churches by travelling from place to place and in this regard they have been well called Apostles of the Apostles And in doing this Vice-apostolick service they did also that which was common to pastors and teachers in teaching and ruling but with this difference that the ordinary pastors did it statedly in those churches where they were fixed but these transiently in several churches which they were sent to erect or establish or to set things in order therein as the Apostles saw need Or if Timothy and Titus were not in an office essentially divers from the ordinary pastors and teachers yet they were in extraordinary service as being the Apostles Agents and being in that capacity might have their intrinsick spiritual power enlarged to a greater extent and higher pitch of exercise than the ordinary Ministers Howbeit I rather judg that they had an office specifically different from that of the ordinary pastors because in the enumeration of the several sacred offices Paul mentions the office of an Evangelist as a distinct kind from the rest But if it can be proved that the Superiority of Timothy and Titus over bishops or elders of particular churches was not as they were the Apostles assistants or as extraordinary and temporary officers but as ordinary superiors it will indeed follow that Archbishops or bishops of bishops are of divine Right Nevertheless the Episcopal authority of bishops or presbyters of particular churches such as the Scripture-bishops were remains unshaken § 11. Of the Angels of the Churches ANother allegation for the divine right of bishops of an higher order than presbyters is from the Angels of the seven Churches Apoc. 1. and 2. To which many things are said by those of the other persuasion As that those Angels are not called Bishops nor any where implied to be bishops in the present Vulgar sense of the word That the denomination of Angels and Stars in the judgment of ancient and modern Writers do belong to the Ministers of the Word in general That in mysterious or prophetick Writings and Visional Representations a number of things or persons is usually expressed by singulars and that it is very probable that the term Angel is explained under that plurality you distinguished from the rest Apoc. 2.24 but to you and the rest in Thyatira c. and to be a collective name expressing all the Elders of that church Also some observe that it might be expressed in the same manner as Gods providence in the administration of the World by Angels is expressed wherein one being set as chief over such a countrey the things which are done by many are attributed to one Angel president It is further to be considered that in the church of Ephesus one of the seven the Scripture makes mention of many bishops who were no other than presbyters Acts 20.28 Against this some say That the Elders there mentioned were not the presbyters of the church of Ephesus but the bishops of Asia then gathered together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul to Miletum But 1. This is affirmed altogether without proof 2. The text saith Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus to call the elders of the church which in rational interpretation must be the Elders of the church to which he sent 3. If the bishops of all Asia had been meant it would have been said the Elders of the churches For in Scripture tho we find the Christians of one city called a church yet the Christians of a Region did ever make a plurality of churches as the churches of Judea the churches of Galatia and the churches of Asia 4. There is not the least hint given of the meeting of the bishops of Asia at Ephesus when Paul sent for the elders of the Church 5. The asserters of prelacy hold that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus now Paul did not send for him for he was already present with him and accompanied him in his travels Nor did he commit the charge of the church to him but to the Elders that were sent for 6. It could not be the sence of the church of England that those Elders who are declared to be bishops were bishops in the Vulgar meaning of the word when she appointed that portion of Scripture to be read at the ordination of Presbyters to instruct them in the nature and work of their Office Some say That by the Angel of the church is meant the Moderator or President of the Presbytery who might be either for a time or always the same person and the Epistle might be directed to him in the same manner as when the King sends a Message to the Parliament he directs it to the Speaker Now such a Moderator or President makes nothing for bishops of a higher order than Presbyters § 12. A further Consideration of the Office of an EVANGELIST and of a general Minister COncerning the Office of Evangelists such as Timothy and Titus the query is Whether it was temporary or perpetual An eminent Hierarchical Divine saith That Evangelists were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs wherâ—ver they saw need Now this description doth not make them of a specifically
different Order from the ordinary presbyters and it seems to confine their Ministry to the Apostles times Grotius saith they were presbyters tyed to no place and that many such Evangelists were ordained long after and thereupon concludes that not to ordain without a title to some particular place is not of divine right Indeed if the office of an Evangelist be no other than that of a general Minister or a presbyter tyed to no place it seems not only to have been requisite in the Apostles times but to be of standing conveniency if not of necessity in the church And his not being limited to one church is but the extending of the common office of a presbyter or bishop and not the making of a new office For this more extensive power of a general Minister is only the having of that in ordinary exercise which every Minister hath in actu primo by vertue of his relation to the Catholick church in which Teachers and Pastors are set 1 Cor. 12.28 and into which his ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing have influence yea which he hath by vertue of his relation to Christ as a steward to an housholder in his Family and as a delegate to the chief pastor for the calling of the unconverted as well as for the confirming of Converts Now the more or less extensive exercise of an Office is a matter of humane prudence and variable according to time and place But that a general Minister be of a higher order than fixed bishops or presbyters is not of standing or perpetual necessity Nor is it always necessary that he be in a state of superintendency over them Nevertheless if a superintendency be granted to him by the consent of the churches and pastors for the common good or by the Magistrate as to his delegate in his authority in Ecclesiastical affairs I cannot condemn it but rather judg that it may be sometimes not only expedient but necessary Yet it is not of divine right but of prudential determination § 13. A further Consideration of the Angels of the Churches and of a President bishop AS touching the Angel of a Church it being a mystical expression in a mystical book it may be rationally questioned Whether it be meant of one person or of a number of Colleagues as may appear by what hath been already noted But if it be meant of one person it is not necessarily to be understood of one that is the sole pastor and bishop of a Church Nay by what hath been already noted it may with as great if not greater probability be understood of a Prefident bishop who is not of a superior order to the rest of the bishops but the first or chief in degree of the same order and like the Moderator of an Assembly a Chair-man in a Committee and Mayor in a Court of Aldermen And for such a presidency there needs no divine institution it being not a holy order or office of a different species from that of the rest of the Pastors but a priority in the same office for orders sake For it is orderly and convenient that where there are many Presbyters or elders of a particular Church that for concords sake they consent that one that is ablest among them should statedly have a guiding power among them in the ordering of Church-affairs § 14. Of the Office of Ruling Elders THESE have been commonly called Lay-Elders but some have disliked that name alledging that they are sacred officers but they own the name of Ruling Elders Now it is to be noted that the asserters of the divine right of this office make it not an office of total dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister but allow such as bear it to have secular imployments not only occasionally but as their stated particular calling also that they make it not an office of final dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister is but grant that such as bear it may cease from it and again become no Elders Also they make not these Elders to have office power in all Churches as Ministers have actu primo but only in their own particular Churches and in Classical and Synodical assemblies nor do they ascribe unto these Elders the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins which belong to Ministers nor do they solemnly ordain these Elders by prayer and imposition of hands as Ministers are ordained Now the Query is whether Christ hath instituted in his Church such a spiritual officer as this ruling Elder who is not totally nor finally dedicated to sacred imployment but statedly left to secular callings and hath no office power no not in actu primo in the church at large but only in his own church or in such an assembly as that Church helps to make up nor hath the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins nor is ordained by prayer and imposition of hands I say whether Christ hath instituted such an officer and authorized him in his name as his steward to admit into or cast out of his Family the Church I find nothing in Holy Scripture to warrant his divine right nor can I see in reason how one destitute of the above nanamed capacities can put forth acts of spiritual Discipline or of binding and loosing in Christ Name In the New Testament there be three significations of Presbyter the first belonging to age the second to Magistracy in the greater or lesser Sanhedrim the third to ministers of the Gospel The only place that hath a shew of mentioning the ruling Elder in the Church that is not a Minister of the Gospel is 1 Tim. 5.17 The Elders that rule well c. But this hath nothing cogently to evince two different kinds of officers but that of those in the same office some may be imployed more especially in one part of the work thereof and others in another part and that the being more abundantly imployed in the Word and Doctrine hath the preeminence The Emphasis lies in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that some did more especially or abundantly labour therein but not implying that others did not meddle therewith And learned men observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is maintenance which is not used to be given to this kind of officer we are now inquiring of For they are such as have secular imployment to live by The Enumerations of divers gifts Rom. 12.6 doth not infer the institution of divers offices For as he that giveth and he that sheweth Mercy may be the same man so he that teacheth and he that exhorteth and he that ruleth may be the same For they are all proper acts of the pastoral office Likewise in 1 Cor. 12.28 those two expressions Helps and Governments do necessarily infer the institution of two Functions no more than Miracles and Gifts of healing there also mentioned do infer the same § 15. That a single Presbyter
may put forth acts of Discipline in his own Church without the concurrence of Ruling Elders that are not Ministers THERE is no necessity of adding the above-named Ruling Elder to the Ministers of the Gospel in the Government of the Church For Christ hath committed to his Ministers the keys or stewardship of his house and he hath committed the same to them not only as to a Presbytery constituted of many but also to each of them as single Presbyters And where there is but one Presbyter in a Church his acts of Discipline are as lawful and valid in his own Church as those that are done by many in a Church where there are many Presbyters And the contrary opinion is precarious and not founded in Scripture As for that passage 2 Cor. 2.6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment that was inflicted by many from thence to infer that a Church-censure may not be administred by one Minister is to draw a general conclusion from one instance or because a censure was inflicted by many in the Church of Corinth where there were many Ministers therefore it ought to be so in all Churches even where there is but one Minister Moreover if the true nature of a Church-censure were considered there would be no reason to doubt of its being lawfully or validly administred by one person For it is no more than authoritative declaring and judging in Christs Name that such a one is unmeet for fellowship with Christ and his Church and a charging of the Congregation in Christs Name to avoid him Indeed those words of our Saviour Mat. 16. Tell the Church are to be considered and cleared For it is from hence argued that the Church being a collective name betokens a number and therefore not one but many are to hear and censure matters of scandal To which argument it may be first replyed That a Presbytery or company of Presbyters is in Scripture no more called the Church than one Minister But the answer is that by the rule of interpretation words and names must be limited with respect to the matter treated of and so the word Church in the said text is to be understood of the Church as governing and therefore respects not the governed but the governing-part thereof which is but one person in a Church that hath but one Bishop or Presbyter The Apostle wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians to the whole Church and saith chap. 5. v. 4 5. When ye are gathered together to deliver such a one to Satan v. 13. Put away from yourselves that wicked person Now in these places he doth not explicitely direct his speech to the Elders but in all reason it must be expounded with respect to the governing-part of that Church the company of Presbyter Tho there be no necessity of a Ruling Elder distinct from a Minister of the Gospel to the acts of Church-Discipline yet in point of expedience and prudence such as are no spiritual rulers or have no power formally spiritual may either by the appointment of the Magistrate or by the consent of Pastor and People be joyned with the Pastor for counsel and assistance and more satisfactory management of Church-affairs Act. 15. The Church of Antioch sent some from among themselves with Paul and Barnabas to be present at the deliberation of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem and the said Apostles and Elders joyned some of the brethren with them to consider of the matter that was brought before them from the Church of Antioch And Christian Emperors appointed some secular persons as Assessors with the Bishops in Councils But nothing is to be attributed to these Lay-persons so adjoined that belongs to the power of the keys committed by Christ to the Pastors only § 16. Of the Office of a Deacon THE Scripture makes mention of two Holy Orders 1. Presbyters who are also Bishops 2. Deacons as Phil. 1.1 To the bishops and deacons and the third chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy having set forth the Office of a bishop passeth immediately to the deacon without taking notice of a presbyter of a middle order between a bishop and deacon And the mention of a middle order is no where found in Scripture Clemens Romanus in his Epistle mentions but two orders bishops and deacons And Dr. Hammond grants That it cannot be proved that in scripture-Scripture-times there were any subject-presbyters and concludes that the churches were then governed by bishops assisted with deacons and without presbyters vid. his Annot. on Acts 11.30 and his Dissertation p 208 c. They that are agreed that there is such an office as a Deacon by divine right are not agreed what it is yet all are agreed that it is an inferior order of ministry assistant to the bishop or elder in the affairs of the church but in what kind of assistance there is diversity of opinion Some hold that this office is to take care of the poor in receiving and distributing among them the churches Alms. Others hold that a deacon may preach and baptize and assist the bishop or elder in administring the Sacrament tho he may not consecrate the Sacramental bread and wine nor lay on hands or ordain In the 6. chap. of the Acts if the institution of this office be there related we find no other ministry there expresly mentioned but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 2 3. and in Phil. 1. the name only is mentioned without any specification of the office In 1 Tim. 3.8 c. the due qualification of this officer is more set forth than the nature and work of the office yet something thereof may be signified v. 13. They that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree Let it be considered whether by degree is not meant a degree in the Sacred ministry and a step to a higher order therein Acts 8.5 we find that Philip one of the seven preached the Gospel in Samaria and his acts there are related as if he also baptized the converts v. 38. he baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch and v. 40. he passed through and preached in all the cities till he came to Cesarea Now whether Philip did not these things not meerly by the common duty of a Christian but by determinate ordination thereunto it may be considered Some make two sorts of Deacons the deacon of tables and the deacon of the word But this distinction seems not to be allowed by the Church of England because it appoints to be read at the ordaining of Deacons both that part of Acts 6. that relates the ordaining of the seven for ministring unto tables and also that part of 1 Tim. 3. that speaks of the office of a Deacon as a degree in the Holy ministry immediately after the bishop Concerning this office I assent to Grotius That the deacons did serve the Presbyters as the Levites the Priests but the most laborious part of the deacons office is the care of the poor and
Christ indeed hath instituted a ministry for the compleating of his church unto the consummation of all things he hath also promised his Apostles and his ministers successively in them that he will be with them alway to the end of the world But I find no promise of an uninterrupted succession of regularly ordained ministers That which is delivered by ordination is the sacred ministerial office at large as respecting the universal Church to be exercised here or there according to particular calls and opportunities § 21. Of Prayer and Fasting and Imposition of Hands in Ordination PRAYER is such a duty as is requisite to the sanctifying of all other duties as the preaching of the Word administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper and therefore is necessary to this sacred action of ordaining ministers Fasting is a service expressive of solemn humiliation and a necessary adjunct of extra ordinary prayer for the obtaining of more special mercy and therefore a necessary preparative and concomitant in this solemnity And we have Scripture Examples for prayer and fasting in the mission of persons to the work of the ministry Luke 6.12 13. Act. 13.2 Act. 14 23. What imposition of hands imports and the moment of it is to be considered from the use of it both in the Old and New Testament In the Old Testament 't was used 1. In solemn benediction the person blessing laid his hand on the person blessed Gen. 48.14 2. In offering Sacrifice as a sign of devoting it to the Lord by him that offered it Lev. 1.4 3. In ordaining to an office as a sign of setting apart therunto Numb 27.18 20. In the New Testament it is used 1. in blessing Mark 10.16 2. In curing bodily diseases Mark 16.18 Luke 13.13 Acts 19.11 3. In conveying the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 8.17 Acts 19.6 4. In ordaining ministers Acts 6.6 1 Tim 4.14 The meaning of imposition of hands spoken of Heb. 6.2 is diversly taken some take it as used for the remitting of sins as they also do 1 Tim. 5.22 and say that Baptism refers to the making of proselytes and laying on of hands to the absolving of penitents Others take it for confirmation Others conceive that the whole ministry is by a synecdoche therein comprehended From the various uses of this Rite we collect that it was a sign of conveying a benefit or of designing to an office or of devoting one to the Lord and particularly of authoritative benediction and designation to the office of the ministry and of devoting to the Lord in that kind There is no sufficient reason to make it but a temporary Rite and to limit the use of it in ordination only to the times of miraeles there being no circumstance in any Text to shew that it was done only for the present occasion And we read not that miraculous gifts were given by imposition of hands in ordination § 22. The power of Ordaining belongs to the Pastors of the Church SOme give this reason why the power of Ordination is not in the people but in the Pastors because the act of ordaining is a potestative or authoritative mission which power of mission is first seated in Christ and from him committed to the Apostles and from them to the Bishops or Elders But this Reason must be taken with a grain of salt or in a sound sense because Bishops or Elders have spiritual power formalier but not efficienter and they do not properly make or give the ministerial power but are only instruments of designation or application of that power to the person to whom Christ immediately gives it by the standing-act of his Law That the power of ordaining belongs not to the people but to the Church officers first appears by Scripture-authority for that in all the New Testament there is no example of ordination by any of the Laity but contrariwise it is therein expresly committed to spiritual officers 2. By Reason for that the Pastors of the Churches are better qualified for the designation of a person to the Holy ministry and for performing the action of solemn investiture as also for that ordination includes an authoritative benediction and that is to come from a Superior as the Scripture saith The less is blessed of the greater and not the greater of the less as it would be if the Pastor were to be ordained by the people that are governed by him Some argue for a popular ordination because election which is the greater belongs to the people But 1. Election is not greater than Ordination in the ministerial Call For in ordination investiture in the Function it self is given but in the peoples election no more is given than the stated exercise of the ministry in that Congregation 2. In case Election were greater than Ordination yet the consequence holds not Several parties may have each their own part divided to them and he that may do the greater may not always do the lesser unless the lesser be essentially included in the greater which is not in this case It is likewise urged for popular ordination That in the consecration of the Levites the children of Israel laid their hands upon them Numb 8.11 To this it is answered That the Levites were taken by God instead of the first born of all the children of Israel which the Lord claimed as his own upon the destroying of the first-born of the Egyptians and so the imposition of hands by the first-born upon the Levites was not strictly an ordaining of them to their office but an offering of them as a sacrifice in their own stead to make an atonement for them as he that brought a sacrifice laid his hand on the head of it Tho in Timothy's ordination the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery be mentioned and where many Presbyters were they joined in this action yet I see not any thing in Scripture or Reason to gainsay the validity of ordination by a single Bishop or Presbyter Nevertheless ordination by the imposition of many hands is more unquestionable and the use thereof most laudabl◠and in no case to be omitted where it may be had according to the custom of the Church in all ages § 23. The Validity of Presbyterian Ordination IF a Bishop and Presbyter of divine institution be the same as hath been before proved the controversie about ordination by Presbyters is at an end And if the Bishop that now is be another kind of officer than the Scripture Presbyter there is no proof of his divine institution That the Presbyter that now is hath the Pastoral or Episcopal office hath been already proved by the form of their ordination and by the nature of that power of the keys that is granted to reside in them If the Prelates have invested them with an office that is truly Episcopal it matters not whether in express terms they gave them the power of ordaining or no or whether they expresly excluded the power of ordaining for not
certain that the Sun that is set will rise again in our Horizon after such a space of time it is naturally certain that there will be a vicissitude of Summer and Winter in our Climate for that it should be otherwise according to particular nature or in a natural way it is impossible These are in Scripture called the Ordinances of Heaven by the sureness whereof God sets forth the stability of his Covenant of Grace But that Certainty is greater that is founded in the Universal and Unchangeable Reason of things or in the Eternal Law which is founded in the unchangeable nature and perfections of God for this can never fail There is not only an impossibility in the ordinary course of nature but an absolute and utter impossibility that an apprehension or assent founded herein should be falseâ—â—ho in the course of partirular nature it be impossible but that the Sun should go down at the stated time yet it is not utterly impossible that it should not but it may stand still or go back in the firmament as in holy Scripture we read it hath done and consequently we cannot have an absolute certainty thereof But we are absolutely certain of whatsoever truth rests upon the unchangeable Reason of things for the contrary thereof is a contradiction § 4. Of Supernatural Certainty SUpernatural Certainty is an assent upon indubitable Superna-natural evidence viz. Divine Revelation supernatural A Divine Evidence is the highest kind of proof and causeth Certainty if any thing can cause it For there is nothing more sure in the nature of things than Gods Veracity And nothing more is requisite to the certainty of that which brings a divine supernatural evidence or discovery than to know that it is divine or of God Wherefore supernatural Certainty presupposeth two things 1. The natural Certainty of this Principle That God is immutably true 2. A natural Certainty that the supernatural discovery or revelation that is to be the ground of our assent is from God Here by Natural certainty I mean that which ariseth from the very nature of the thing in which there is a full objective evidence Nevertheless the Certainty that is natural in the said respect may in another respect be supernatural namely in respect of the supernatural assistance of the mind unto that certainty or firmness of assent it is natural in respect of the objective evidence of the thing and supernatural in respect of the assistance of the faculty to apprehend it § 5. The distinction of Certainty into evident and obscure considered CERTAINTY hath been distinguished into evident and obscure Evident Certainty is said to be of those things that are some way clearly perceived namely either the first principles or conclusions evidently drawn from them or objects of sence Oâ—â—cure Certainty is only of those things which we hold by belief or opinion namely things believed upon divine authority or humane authority or inferred from signs and conjectures But I conceive that to distinguish Certainty into evident and obscure is all one as to distinguish it into Certain and Uncertain For evidence is the ground of Certainty and so far as we have certain knowledg of any thing so far we have evidence thereof and no farther than we have evidence can we have any Certainty And it rises or falls in the degrees of it according as the degrees of evidence are more or less I take Certainty and Obscurity to be opposite in nature All Certainty connotes knowledg Obscurity belongs not to knowledg as such but to ignorance and obscure knowledg is but knowledg mixed with ignorance Especially I judg it much amiss to place the certainty of divine faith under the head of obscure certainty for that I judg we have as good and sure evidence for the truth of matters of divine faith as for any conclusion of Science as shall be shewn Howbeit I grant that things which are most firmly and rightly assented unto may be in themselves obscure and unseen as the matters of the Christian Faith and the Mysteries of the Gospel that are known only by supernatural revelation Yet in the certainty or firm assent of the mind about these things there is not obscurity but evidence for it rests upon such grounds as are of clear and evident truth as is abundantly proved by divers Authors who have asserted the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures § 6. Whether Certainty admits of degrees CErtainty strictly so called doth admit of degrees A firm assent without wavering or doubting may be more firm My assent to this truth That there is a God is firm without wavering and yet I may have a greater degree of assurance thereof And doubtless the Angels that behold the face of God have a greater Certainty or firmness of assent to the aforesaid truth than mortals upon earth The degree of firmness of knowledg or right assent rises according to the degree of evidence I say not this of the firmness of all assent but of right assent which is knowledg and in which is true certainty There may be firmness of assent which hath no foundation in the thing it self and the highest confidence in the greatest mistake but no certainty which always supposes the true perception of its object That that which is now evident or clearly perceived may become more evident is a truth which I suppose cannot be denied And I think common experience confirms it to every observing man that things sufficiently or indubitably evident are commonly made more and more evident By sufficient evidence I mean that which gives us assurance that the thing cannot be otherwise than we apprehend There are many divine truths that are now evident which no true Christian doubts shall be made more evident in the life to come What we know here we know but in part and not perfectly The Apostle saith that that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect by reason of the glory that excels that is that which positively is glorious comparatively is inglorious So we may say that which positively is evident comparatively is obscure All our present evidence of divine truths is but obscurity in respect of the glorious clearness that shall be hereafter In like manner the firm assent of divine faith may be called weak assent in comparison of the assent of intuitive knowledg in the state of glory The lower degrees of true knowledg are ignorance in respect of the higher and the lower degrees of strength and firmness sufficient in its own place is but weakness in respect of the higher especially those transcendent degrees in heaven And where there is not a privative there may be a negative imperfection § 7. Of the Certainty of Sense CErtainty may be either of Sense or of Reason or of Belief There is a Certainty of sense or sensitive knowledg And this cannot be denied without denial of all Certainty 1. Because almost all knowledg comes in first by the senses 2. All knowledg which
are not immediately inspired of God have sufficiently certain evidence in reason to the discerning and chusing of infallible guides that are immediately inspired § 15. Whether Infallibility admit of degrees and in what respect EVery truth is equally impossible to be false for all things that imply a contradiction are equally because utterly impossible All are alike infallible in that wherein they are infallible and therein they cannot be more infallible because therein it is utterly impossible that they should be deceived and so it cannot be more impossible than it is already Nevertheless there are different degrees of evidence for being infallible in such or such a matter Likewise there are different degrees of clear apprehension of being infallible and so the sure knowledg of being infallible admits of degrees That knowledg that is sufficiently certain may be advanced to be abundantly certain and that which is abundant may be advanced to yet more abundant Whereupon I conclude that though infallibility in its formal reason admits of no degrees yet there are different degrees of the evidence and the clear apprehension thereof Moreover infallibility is in a more noble and perfect state in one subject than in another And so the infallibility of a superior intellect as that of Angels is in a more perfect and excellent than the hypothetical and the unlimited than the limited In the same subject infallibility may be in a more perfect state at one time than another according to the rising or falling of the evidence thereof § 16. Of the Infallibility of Sense THAT which is agreeable to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be false and that which is repugnant to sence rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true For that the one should be false and that the other should be true implies a contradiction supposing the sensitive faculty to be true And if the sensitive faculties be not true it infers that impious and absurd opinion that God cannot or will not govern the material world but by falshood The Popish opinion of Transubstantiation is no deception of the sense but of the understanding for they that have persuaded themselves to believe it do not say they see or tast or feel Christs body and blood but acknowledg what they see feel and tast to be the accidents of the bread and wine which they say remains after Transubstantion Wherefore the imposing is not upon the senses but upon the understanding which ought to judg by sense of matters that are the proper objects of sense § 17. Of Infallibility of Reason IF Sense may be the subject of Infallibility why may not the Understanding be so which is a more excellent Faculty in the kind of perception or knowledg If the Understanding be the subject of Certainty why not also of infallibility in that limited sense as hath been before explained The proper object of Certainty is not that which may or may not be but that which must be or which is known to be such An indubitable Certainty is acknowledged and from an indubitable Certainty properly so called I think a good inference is made unto an infallible Certainty To be indubitable in a matter is to be sure that I am not therein deceived And I cannot rationally be sure that I am not deceived unless I am sure that it cannot be that the thing be otherwise than I apprehend And if I am sure that it cannot be otherwise than I apprehend I am as to that particular infallible Because men in their most confident persuasions are commonly deceived by prejudice from passion interest education and the like it follows not that none can be secure from deception that is to know that it cannot be that they should be deceived in such or such a matter Certainly an impartial and unbiassed judgment may be found § 18. Logical Physical Moral and Theological Conclusisions as well as Mathematical admit of demonstrative Evidence UPON the foregoing enquiries I judg it very disadvantageous to the cause of Religion to speak as some do of a lower evidence for it than demonstration and such as the matter is capable of whereas I suppose there is not surer and clearer Evidence for any thing than for true Religion Not only Mathematical but Logical Physical Moral and Theological Conclusions admit of demonstrative evidence Whereas some say the existence of God is not Mathematically demonstrable because only Mathematical matter admits such kind of evidence if it be meant of that special evidence that is in the Mathematicks it is nothing to the purpose but if it be meant of evidence in general as demonstrative as Mathematical evidence it is false for this Truth admits the clearest and strictest demonstration This Proposition That God is is demonstrative in the strictest sense by a demonstration a posteriori viz of the necessary cause from the effect it being evident that the existence of God is absolutely necessary to the existence of the World for that we cannot attribute the being of the Phanomena or visible things in the world to any other cause than such a Being as we conceive God to be but we must offer violence to our own faculties This Proposition That every word of God shall be fulfilled according to the true and full intent of it is demonstrative in the strictest sense a priori from the veracity of God it being as evident that God is true as that he is As the Existence so the Attributes of God have demonstrative Evidence unless you had rather call them indemonstrable principles as having the greatest self-evidence From the Essence and Attributes of God and mans dependance on him and relation to him Moral and Theological Truths of demonstrative evidence are inferred as touching Gods moral law the good of conformity and the evil of inconformity thereunto and a just retribution to men according to that difference § 19. Of the infallible knowledg of the truth of the Christian Religion and Divine Authority of the Scripture UPON the grounds here laid as the Existence and Attributes of God and mans dependance on him and relation to him and his obligations thence arising may be demonstrated so also that the Christian Religion and the Holy Scriptures are of God as the Author and that the contrary would involve a contradiction And I take this to have been demonstrated by learned men and need not here be largely insisted on Only I shall set down a little of that much that hath been written by Mr. Baxter We may infallibly know the Christian Doctrine to be of God by his unimitable image or impression which is upon it supposing the truth of the historical part Likewise the truth of the historical part namely that this doctrine was delivered by Christ and his Apostles and that those things were done by him and them which the Scriptures mention we may know infallibly The Apostles and other first witnesses knew it infallibly themselves by their present sense and reason with the concomitance of
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
for the encrease of the wealth power and splendor of bishops and other chief Clergy-men or for any political considerations the essential form of a bishops church constituted by the Apostles who were immediately commissioned from Christ should be changed from a single Congregation or Society of which the bishop took the personal oversight to a diocess consisting of many yea commonly of many hundred stared congregations having each of them their proper presbyter and all of them but one bishop to whom it is impossible to take the personal oversight of the souls therein and to perform towards them all the duties which were the ordinary work of the ancient bishop 2. Whether the office of a bishop or elder of one single church instituted by the Holy Ghost should be changed into mother essentially different office viz. of a bishop of many yea many hundred single churches each whereof have their proper pastors or presbyters who according to the Scripture are the same with bishops 3. Whether the office of presbyter or elder of divine institution who according to the Scripture is truly and properly a bishop should be changed into an office essentially different viz. of a presbyter who is no bishop but only the bishops subject substitute or Curate And whether the said office should be statedly bereaved of the power of discipline which is essential to it 4. Whether the office of a bishop which is a trust given by Christ to be personally discharged by him that receives it should be executed by delegation to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man who is held to be no bishop 5. Whether the ancient government of the Church by a bishop in conjunction with his presbyters should be changed into a government by the bishop alone and by his Chancellor and Officials whose authority is derived from him Concessions concerning Episcopacy I Hold it lawful and expedient that the elders or pastors of a particular Church should statedly defer to one that is ablest among them a guiding power over them in ordination and discipline and other church affairs I hold it not unfit that this person should for distinctions sake have the title of bishop given him tho he be not of an essentially different order from the rest of the pastors but only of a superior degree in the same holy Order Some Nonconformists think upon probable grounds that tâ—â—â—e should be a general sort of bishops who should take care of â—â—he common government of particular churches and the bisâ—â—ps thereof and that they should have a chief hand in the ordaining and placing and displacing of the pastors or bishops of particular churches And from this I dissent not A Consideration of the present state of Conformity in the Church of England IN considering the terms of Conformity now injoined I am not forgetsul of the reverence due to Rulers I do not herein presume to judg their publick acts but I only exercise a judgment of discretion about my own act in reference to their injunctions which surely they will not disallow To consider the lawfulness of those things of which an unfeigned approbation is required is an unquestionable duty If I should profess what I believe not or practice what I allow not my sin were heinous and inexcusable The Reasons of my dissent are here expressed as inoffensively as can be done by me who am to shew that it is not nothing for which I have quitted the station which I formerly held in the Church I have no reason nor will to lay a heavier yoke upon my self than the Law doth or to set such bars in my own way as the Law doth not I therefore admit that more restrained sense of the Declaration which is thought by many to make the enjoined terms more easie I am concerned to take notice of smaller as well as greater matters because as well the one as the other are alike to be owned Tho I would not differ with the Church about little things yet I may not profess an allowance of any little thing which I believe is not allowable I desire to proceed in this enquiry with good judgment and to do nothing weakly but however it be I had rather be thought to be injudicious and overscrupulous in making objections than want a sufficient clearness in a business of this nature I take no pleasure in making objections against the book of Common prayer but I do it by constraint that I may give an account of that Nonconformity to which by an irresistible force of Conscience I am necessitated If all things contained and prescribed in the said book be right and good I heartily wish that I and all men were convinced of it I joyn with the Congregation in the use of the Liturgy and I acknowledg that by joyning in it I declare my consent to the use of it as in the main an allowable form of Worship But this doth not as I suppose signifie my allowing of all things therein contained Of the Declaration of unfeigned Assent and Consent required by the Act of Vniformity THE true intent of this Declaration is to be considered By the form of words wherein it is expressed it seems to signifie no less than assent to and approbation of the whole and of every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. so that no man can make this Declaration that is not satisfied of the truth of every thing contained and the lawfulness and allowableness of every thing prescribed in the said book Nothing is more evident to me than that I ought not to dissemble or lye in matters of Religion but so I do if I declare my unfeigned assent and consent to those things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy from which I really dissent But this meaning thereof is not acknowledged by many and very judicious persons among the Conformists They grant indeed that the words will not only bear this sense but would seem to incline to it if the meaning of them were not evidently limited by the Law it self and that in the very clause wherein it doth impose it That the Law doth expresly determine this assent to the use of the Liturgy they say is evident from these words He shall declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I A. B. do here declare c. Now by all rules of interpreting laws we are directed say they to understand what is said more generally in any law according to the limitation which the law it self gives especially if it be in express words I admit this later and more restrained sense of the Declaration as probable and in this disquisition I proceed accordingly taking the declared assent and consent as limited to the use of things Nevertheless it must necessarily extend to the use of all things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy And thereupon I judg that not only all
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
the close So that in all things as aforesaid the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity is to be worshipped He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity What less than the whole doctrine aforegoing can the said words in all things as aforesaid refer to For ought doth appear no one part of the doctrine or explication is made more necessary to be believed than another Besides in the Nicene Creed in the doctrine of the Person of Christ why may not the summary thereof expressed in these words and in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God be distinguished in like manner from the following explicatory words begotten of the Father before all worlds God of God light of light c. as if the one but not the other were thereby intended as necessary to be believed Moreover if the sense of this Creed in the said Assertions be not to exclude from salvation all such as do not so distinctly know nor so explicitely believe concerning the doctrine of the Trinity as its sets forth in the explication thereof yet certainly it can be taken for no less than the excluding of such as apprehend and believe in any point contrary thereto which is the case of the Greek Church in denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son Admit the said Assertions are to be restrained to those that believe not as is expressed only in the summary of the doctrine I then make this query Whether none of those who being of very low capacities do not distinctly apprehend and explicitely believe one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity so as in their apprehensions neither to confound the persons nor divide the substance can truly and savingly fear God and believe in Christ Here let it be no offence to make the following Queries 1. Whether it be certain by the word of God that all those of the Christian profession whose apprehensions of the Trinity were not fully conformable to the Faith of the Homousians as the Orthodox were called in those times did perish everlastingly 2. Whether it be certain by the Word of God that all those who so apprehended of the union of the natures in Christ as was exprest either by the Nestorians or Eutychians did perish everlastingly Furthermore I enquire Whether it be certain by the Word of God That all Pagans who have lived since the times of Christianity and to whom the Gospel was never published are damned In the aforesaid Assertions the form of words being unlimited and universal seems to import so much Now the case of such who live in meer negative infidelity being without the revelation of the Gospel is different from theirs who by wilful perverseness overthrow the Faith against the evidence of that Divine testimony in the Holy Scripture which they profess to believe Without doubt none of the whole stock of Mankind can be saved but through the Redeemer Jesus Christ But it is not so certain that all are damned who live and dye without the knowledg of Redemption by him I certainly know That without holiness no man shall see the Lord and that no man can be holy without the sanctifying operation of the Holy Spirit But that none of them are sanctified who are without the knowledg of Christ and his Gospel is not so evidently and certainly known to me either from Scripture or Reason The sum of the matter is That I am afraid in the solemn rehearsal of a Creed in the midst of Divine Service to adjudg those to eternal damnation that are not so adjudged by the word of God yet I heartily and entirely assent to the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation of Christ according to the explication thereof as set forth in this Creed and I would not give my suffrage that any should be allowed in the publick Ministry who holds in any point contrary to the said doctrine Of the LITANY THE manner of the composure of the Litany and more especially that the formally petitioning words are in great part uttered by the people only I judg not so inconvenient but that I may comply therewith yet I had much rather and do heartily wish that it were otherwise framed Now I enquire Whether being thus minded I may justly declare my unfeigned consent to the use thereof Of the COLLECTS c. IN the Collect for Christmas-day these words And as at this time to be born are to be considered That our Saviour was born on or about the 25th of December is a matter of great uncertainty and little probability and contrary to the most rational Chronology It is therefore questioned whether the said words may be statedly used in a solemn prayer of the Church Tho this be a small matter yet the question is VVhether one may declare an assent and consent to the use of it while he doth not believe it to be true Of the Order for the Ministration of the Holy Communion IT is liable to exception That a great part of the Communion Service as it is called which makes a great part of the Morning-prayer for the Lords day is appointed to be read at the Communion-Table when there is no administration of the Sacrament If the declared consent hereunto import no more than that it may be complyed with in submission to authority I shall not refuse it In the Fourth Commandment it is appointed to be read The Lord blessed the Seventh day instead of the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day It may well be questioned whether one may consent to the changing of God own Words in this Commandment into other words of mans chusing But if the declared consent respect not the changing of one word for another but only the simple using of that word which stands in the Liturgy I shall not utterly refuse it seeing it hath nothing that is false or evil nor any so considerable inconvenience that I discern as to necessitate to a non-compliance Yet I dislike the retaining of it In the Exhortation preparatory to the Sacrament it is declared That it is requisite that no man should come to the Holy Communion but with a full trust in Gods Mercy and quiet conscience Here it is said not only that it is a duty to be so qualified in coming but that it is requisite that no man should come but so qualified This seems to mean that the said qualification is so necessary that none may lawfully come without it It is hereupon to be considered whether a godly Christian under doubts and fears touching his own estate towards God and apprehensive of Gods displeasure towards him may not have that Grace which may enable him to come acceptably to this Sacrament Tho I do not scruple the lawfulness of kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacramental Bread and Wine yet it is hard to consent to a Rule that debars from the Lords Supper all Christians who through unfeigned scruple of conscience refuse this gesture especially considering
appearance of Regeneration may be qualified for Confirmation according to the terms prescribed in this book and besides all this that children of ungodly Parents to whom the promise of salvation doth not belong cannot be supposed to be really regenerate and pardoned by Baptism Let the tendency of the said assertion as also of that touching the saving regeneration and undoubted salvation of all baptized infants be well considered whether it be to bring men to a sight of their misery in the unregenerate state and an endeavour of their recovery by real regeneration or to keep them from it The Rubrick after Confirmation There shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion until such time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confirmed This Rubrick is not only in the nature of a Directory shewing that Confirmation according to due order is requisite to be received by persons before they come to the Communion but a rigid exclusion of all from the Communion who are not confirmed or are not ready and desirous to be confirmed according to the prescribed manner It is granted That a credible approved profession of Faith and Repentance may be made necessary to admission because they who do not make such profession are justly excluded from Communion in the Sacrament But there are many that are fit for this Communion that are not willing to submit to this order of Confirmation And if their refusal of it be culpable yet it may not deserve so great punishment as exclusion from the Sacrament Of the Form of Matrimony TOuching this form of words Who hast consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery that in it is signified and represented the spiritual Marriage and unity betwixt Christ and his Church be it considered that this Doctrine is not found in Scripture that Marriage was consecrated to represent the said mystery It is indeed a similitude used to express that mistical union But every similitude used in Scripture to express a holy Mystery as that of the Vine and the Branches to express the Union betwixt Christ and the faithful is not consecrated to a representation thereof Upon this very ground the Papists hold Matrimony to be a Sacrament because God hath put in it the signification of so excellent a thing as the indissoluble conjunction of Christ with the Church The Apostle Eph. 5.30 31. speaking of a great mystery doth not in any respect intend the Marriage-Institution and Union but only the Union of Christ and his Church Now tho this be a small matter for which a peaceable man would not break with a Church yet such a one may question Whether he may declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of it while he doth not believe it to be true The Rubrick at the end of Matrimony It is convenient that the new Married persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage or at the first opportunity after their Marriage I question whether it be convenient that the new Married Persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage In case married Persons could at the time of their Marriage be composed to such a holy and spiritual and heavenly frame and so sequester their thoughts from the concernments of the body as requisite for the solemn duty of receiving the Sacrament and withal should abstain from those heightned sensitive injoyments which are used at that time this Rubrick were allowable and commendable But it is not so with one of a thousand if with any one nor do I know that it is requisite it should be so at least ordinarily The rule of Scripture is That Persons should abstain from conjugal embraces in time of most selemn Religious exercises 1 Cor. 7.5 This also is but a small matter for which no breach should be made But a sober peaceable man may question whether he may assent and consent to the use of such a Rubrick as to that part of it Yet questionless it may be convenient that the new-married Persons if duly qualified should receive the Holy Communion at the first opportunity after their Marriage Of the Order for Visitation of the Sick RUbrick The Sick person shall be moved to make a special confession of his sins if he shall feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter After which confession the Priest shall absolve him if he humbly and heartily desire it Here the Priest is desired and required to absolve every Sick person after special confession of sin in case he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter if he humbly and heartily desire it And the Absolution is to be given absolutely unto every such person and not conditionally if he truly repent In defence of Absolution given upon the only terms prescribed in this Book it doth not satisfie to say that if the Sick person shew himself truly penitent his Absolution ought not to be left to the Ministers discretion For every Minister ought to exercise a judgment of discretion about his own Act especially an Act of such importance as the absolving of a sinner from all his sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And the question still remains whether every Sick person that can verbally express as much as is here required be truly penitent yea or make a credible profession thereof To presume every one is truly penitent who is desirous to receive Absolution is a charity larger than of Gods allowing That the Absolution should be pronounced absolutely and never conditionally it doth not satisfie to say that the condition is understood For it is not reasonably supposed that all the Sick who can say so much as is here required of them do understand or consider that it is spoken to them conditionally Too many be stupidly sensless and grosly ignorant of their own spiritual estate and of the true conditions of reconciliation with God In the Rubrick of the Communion of the Sick the Curate is required to administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to every Sick person that is desirous to receive it but he is not allowed to consider whether he be fit to receive it To presume that every one is fit to receive that is desirous to receive is a Charity larger than of Gods allowing It is known by sad experience that many very bad men are desirous to receive the Sacrament when they are Sick It may be considered whether this manner of giving Absolution and administring the Sacrament to every Sick person that is desirous to receive the same tend to bring men to repentance or to harden them in impenitency Of the Order for Burial of the Dead THese ensuing forms Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the Soul of our dear Brother here departed we commit his Body to the ground c. in sure and certain Hope of the Resurrection to eternal Life Also we
Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Between the Orders of bishops and deacons there is unquestionably an essential difference But if by the orders of bishops and priests be meant several Orders or Offices specifically or essentially different and not several degrees of superiority and inferiority in the same office the essential nature whereof is in both I cannot by subscription declare that the said assertion is not contrary to the word of God Upon diligent reading of the Holy Scripture I cannot find therein the office or order of a presbyter that is no bishop Nor can I consent to this passage in the said Preface No man shall be accounted or taken for a lawful Priest or be suffered to execute the function except he be called according to this form or hath had formerly Episcopal Ordination I am no way satisfied in the disabling or degrading of so many Ministers as are ordained only by Presbyters Of the promissory part of the second Article of Subscription in these words That he himself will use the form in the said book prescribed in publick prayer and administration of Sacraments d n one other Can. 36. THE last words and none other taken in their most obvivious sense seem to exclude all other form of prayer used by the Minister before or after Sermon whether conceived at the present or precomposed For prayer before and after Sermon is publick prayer Now it is expresly promised by the Subscriber that he will use no other form in publick prayer than what is prescribed in the said book I know many Conformists do practise otherwise than is here expressed But I know also that some do urge this and another Canon against their practise and I now enquire into the plain force of the words which ought to be regarded by a considerate Subscriber I suppose it will be granted by all That the Church intends hereby to engage against using any other form whatsoever in the administration of Sacraments and thereupon one would think that she intended hereby to engage also against using any other form whatsoever in publick prayer seeing in the words of the promise the engagement against the use of any other form both in publick prayer and administration of Sacraments is alike expressed If any sufficient reason or good warrant can be produced for restraining the words to the excluding only of the use of any other publick Liturgy as for example the Mass-book or of any other publick Directory of Worship instead of the Common-prayer nevertheless it were to be wished that men might not be enjoined to make a promise in those words which in their plain sense do express an engagement which is not thereby intended I have considered many particulars which come within the compass of the Declaration of unfeigned assent and consent injoined by the Act of Uniformity and the Subscription required by the Thirty sixth Canon In all which my desire and design is not to disaffect any persons to the Book of Common prayer but to receive satisfaction if it may be had concerning the things wherein I am dissatisfied For I own the said form of worship to be in the main sound and good for the matter of it and I sincerely join with the Congregation in the same tho I take it to be less perfect than is to be desired It is not therefore the use of a Liturgy in the publick Worship of God nor the reading of the Common-prayer in the ordinary daily service that makes me a Nonconformist But the high strain of the Declaration and Subscription and the strict observation of all things prescribed are difficulties which I cannot overcome This consideration of the present state of Conformity hath proceeded according to the limited sense of the Declaration as restrained to the use of things which being a probable limitation I have willingly admitted for peace sake But there be those who will not allow it saying that the true intendment of the said Declaration is to be taken from the plain signification of the form of words wherein it is expressed which is no less than a full justification of all things whatsoever contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. as right and good I confess I am not able with a judgment of certainty to determine which of these two explications doth truly and rightly expound the full intendment of this Declaration And tho I have admitted the more restrained meaning thereof as probable yet the truth is I have not found that it doth any great matter to make the way of Conformity easie or passable as appears by the foregoing examination of many things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy But if the other opinion of the more comprehensive meaning be true the way is yet more difficult for then the Declaration doth imply an acknowledgment of the truth of all assertions any where contained in this Book also of the truth lawfulness and goodness of all expressions not only in the divine Service it self but in all the directing-Rules viz. Rubricks Calendar and Tables also of the lawfulness and fitness not only of the use of things injoined but of the very injunction or imposition the said directing Rules being so many injunctions strictly requiring us to observe the things prescribed in them But as I have before observed if the sense of the Declaration be restrained to the use of things it doth not appear that the injoined Subscription is to be so restrained As I have said I consent to the use of the Common-prayer as a tolerable Form of Worship but that doth not imply my allowing of all and every thing therein contained Upon the review of the whole matter let it be impartially considered whether a Declaration of so high a strain about a book of meer humane and fallible composition containing in it many hundreds of propositions and consequences should be so rigorously exacted If some recognition in this kind be thought necessary it were to be desired that it might be contrived in a form of words less p rplexing and ensnaring yet sufficiently engaging Of the Renouncing of the Obligation of the COVENANT Required by the Act of Vniformity THis Covenant was not meerly a League between men confirmed by an Oath but a Vow to God of several things directly respecting him And tho its intent were to engage men one to another yet that was not the whole nor chief intent thereof but its chief intendment was to engage all the Covenanters jointly to God Howsoever it be called an Oath yet so far as it is an Oath of things which directly and immediately respect God or that are to be performed towards him it hath the nature of a Vow To invalidate the Obligation of an Oath or Vow made to God is a thing of a high nature and had need to be done with a clear judgment One point of this Oath or Vow was to endeavour Church-Reformation according to our Places and Callings And no Reformation
of his name in our abject and forlorn state and posture And the Scripture expresly takes notice of a kind of Will-Worship in a certain voluntary abasement and neglect of the body Col. 2.23 § 14. The nature of Monastick Vows of Obedience Poverty and Chastity considered THat the formale of these Vows as of all others is Divine Worship is not doubted the inquiry therefore is of the subject matter thereof By the matter of these Vows the asserters thereof intend a special religious state over and above the general religious state which is Christianity it self which special state contains an obligation to certain offices and works to be done intended for the direct and immediate honouring and serving of God and that in a more sublime and perfect way than Christianity in general and so they are made direct matter of devotion or Worship But the matter of those Vows may be so intended and managed as to be religious only reductively as being for the advancement of Religion namely for vacancy to holy exercises for more Freedom in the Christian warfare upon which account Caelibate or single life was commended by St. Paul not that he commended the Vow thereof but a constant purpose thereof for those ends in case of the gift or power to continue therein Now whether they be fit matter of Vows in this later sense is afterwards to be considered The like may be said of abstinence as of Caelibate § 15. Of Decency and Order adjuncts of Divine Worship THE Apostles rule Let all things be done decently and in order is of the law of nature and would have obliged the Churches of Christ tho it had not been written in the Holy Scripture Decency as such is no part of Worship but an adjunct it is the convenient setting it off or a mode thereof agreeable to its dignity And it is not proper to it alone but common to all Civil matters and Humane actions of a grave nature viz. that it be performed in a meet habit and posture of Body and Furniture and other like significations of due respect to a holy action Order likewise is an adjunct of Worship and is not to be extended to the making of new Worship for that it is no other than the due disposing of what is already made and the convenient setting and ranking of the several parts thereof for Method Measure Time Place and other circumstances And it belongs to Divine Worship not on a peculiar but common reason as to all humane actions wherein order is both beautiful and advantageous and disorder is deformed and prejudicial The Apostles said Rule intends that necessary Decency and Order the want whereof is undecency and disorder but not Gaudy dresses Theatrical ornaments Pompous formalities Imagery and Various flourishes affected by the sensual fancy Such Decency is injoyned as is suitable to things of a holy and reverend Nature We may know what is injoyned in a Law by what is therein forbidden Now in this Law nothing is forbidden but undecency and disorder and therefore nothing is injoyned but the necessary Decency and Order opposite thereunto And in plain reason whatsoever is not undecent is decent and whatsoever is not disorderly is orderly I mean in a capable subject of these adjuncts Most Matters of Decency and Order are simply necessary only in genere but not in specie any further but that some species or other under the genus is to be made use of according to prudence Some particular species of Decency are in themselves necessary when they are possible and they are those whose opposites are undecent from the nature of the things Some are necessary from extrinsecal circumstances as from custome of the Time and Place the Quality and Condition of persons c. The former kind may be called Natural the later Civil or Customary And the later sort are necessary even by the Law of Nature yet not immediately but mediately such circumstances being supposed But this sort admits of much variety and alteration Less decent hath the nature of undecent when it it chosen in opposition to more decent as less good hath the nature of evil when it is chosen in opposition to greater good But here it is not fit nor safe to contend about magis and minus nor to strain to the uttermost pitch in things that are matter of Controrvesie or Scruple or Jealousie but it is best to take up with that which is most passable among all provided there be no simple undecency For then in that case no necessary Decency is neglected § 16. Of Time and Place considered as Adjuncts or as matter of Worship TIME and Place in general are necessary Adjuncts or Circumstances of Divine Worship For no action Natural or Moral can be performed without them And they are meer Adjuncts when they attend Divine Worship in a way and reason common to it with other humane Actions and are appointed and used about it according to convenience for the due performance of it And then they are only for the Worship performed therein but the Worship is not from them But Time and Place in Gods Worship sometimes have a higher state and become the matter thereof as the old Sabbath and the Lords day and the Tabernacle and Temple under the Mosaical dispensation For as God by his Institution did make those Times and Places not occasionally but statedly holy and a means of sanctifying his people so his people in their submission to his appointment and their very Dedication and Observation or Sanctifying of those Times and Places did perform special Acts of Worship being an Oblation to God and an immediate giving of honour to him And those Times and Places were not only sanctified by the duties therein performed but the duties were partly sanctified and made acceptable by those Times and Places Howbeit those sacred Times and Places that have been advanced to be matter of Worship are also in that state of advancement Adjuncts to that Worship to which they appertain and are appropriated For there is that inferiority and superiority in several parts of Worship that some may be rightly accounted adjuncts to others As God by his Institution can make Times and Places that of themselves are but meer Adjuncts to be matter of his Worship and hath done it in the forementioned instances so men also may by their Institutions make Times and Places statedly or permanently Holy and matter of Worship and an Oblation to God How lawfully they may do so is afterwards to be considered but however the dedicating and observing thereof hath the Nature of Worship in it For the efficient cause Whether it be God or Man is extrinsecal to the formal nature of Worship which lies in the formal Reason and direct and proper end and use of the action by whomsoever instituted Here it may be considered Whether every Adjucnt of Worship instituted of God doth by that Institution become a matter or part of Worship which otherwise it
to the Protestants Doctrine is the giving of Divine Honour to a morsel of Bread and therefore a most stupid and stupendious kind of Idolatry Some of the Protestant Profession have gone about to Extenuate the same saying That it is material but not formal Idolatry in the Papists For that the Consecrated Bread is taken to be very Christ who is very God and therefore though the thing Worshipped be not God yet it is Believed to be the True God by those Worshippers and Worshipped as such Nevertheless it hath been granted by some of the Popish Writers That if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be an Error they are guilty of the most abominable Idolatry in the Adoration of the Host and they could not find out the aforesaid extenuation of it in case of such Error by distinguishing between Material and Formal Idolatry And some Romanists do say That these words This is my body may bear a Figurative sence as those Words That Christ was a Rock and that if there were no other Evidence for Transubstantiation but what the Scripture gives there were no reason to make it an Article of Faith Bellarmine saith These words necessarily infer either a real Mutation in the Bread as the Catholicks hold or a Metaphorical as the Calvinists hold but by no means admit the Lutheran sence And he concludes That though there be some obscurity and ambiguity in the Words yet it is taken away by Councils and Fathers The Persians in old Gentilism Worshipped the Sun for the Supreme God and their Idolatry was not the less abominable for their Error about that Object of Worship And surely it was Formal Idolatry that is There was in it the formalis ratio or true nature and reason of that Sin Nay I think it more Sacrilegious and Blasphemous against the True God to take any Creature to be he and to worship it accordingly than to give Divine Worship to a Creature not imagined to be the Supreme God but some inferior deity St. Austin speaks in his Preface to his Sermon on Psal 93. of certain Hereticks that honoured the Sun and said That it was Jesus Christ Now divine honour given to the Sun under such a mistake is horrid Idolatry and why not also divine honour given to a morsel of Bread by the same mistake The Lutherans Doctrine of Consubstantiation doth not infer that the Eucharist is to be adored They believe indeed That Jesus Christ is really present in the Sacrament but they do not believe That the Sacrament is really Jesus Christ nor adore it as such But that the Papists condition in respect of this sottish Superstition of Bread-worship being so bad may not be made worse than it is it may be considered That they do not take the Bread to be the Deity nor to be he that is God save onely according to his Human Body into which they believe the Bread is changed and so worship it as our Lords Body or to express it in the most favourable sence they worship him as there present in his proper Body and withal worship the bread supposed to be that Body §. 6. Of the Popish Invocation of Angels and Saints departed THis Invocation is without Precept or Precedent in Holy Scripture Invocation on God alone is according to Scripture Christ teacheth to pray Our Father in his great Rule and Standard of Prayer We are taught to Invocate him on whom we believe Rom. 10.14 which is God alone As Incense the Type so Prayer the thing typified is to be offered to God alone Prayer is an Act of such Worship as Papists call latria It supposeth the Being to whom it is directed to be the Author and Fountain of the good we pray for And so they that are prayed to are invocated in Gods stead And whereas some say That the Saints are to be invocated not as Authors of Divine benefits it is apparent that Papists invocate them as Authors directly and without ambages praying to them for health and deliverance from danger yea for the highest benefits as to St. Peter to open Heaven Gates to them They direct their prayers to them as to those that can dispence the Grace of God to men at their pleasure Also prayer implies a prostration of the whole Soul and Spirit and Body to the person that is invocated by Acts of Subjection Devotion Dependence Reverence and all higest Observance Experience shews the fond ravishments of Soul in the superstitions towards those to whom more especially they are devoted ordinarily making no inferior Expressions of their Devotion towards them than toward God and Christ Yea they are so intercepted and taken up by this Dotage as to forget God If Saints are invocated as Mediators they are invocated in Christs stead Christ is our Intercessor in Heaven as our Redeemer 1 John 2.1 And therefore they that are not our Redeemers cannot be our intercessors in Heaven Moreover we cannot rationally commend our prayers to any but such as we know both can and will represent them to God The Popish Invocation of Saints and Angels is an ascribing to them the incommunicable Excellencies of God as to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 searchers of hearts and perceptive of all the cases and concernments of those that invocate them and an Omniscience and Omnipresence if not absolute yet at least reâ—â—â—ctive to this lower World the Habitation of us Mortals is ascribed to them thereby To excuse this Sacriledg and Idolatry that incredible conceit of the Saints beholding all things in speculo Trinitatis is but a sorry shift Such Omniscience the Manhood of Christ hypostatically united to the Godhead did not pretend unto And the devising of it is a transcendent presumption of mans wit for the invading of Gods right The truth is the Worship of Saints and Angels maintained in the Roman Church in parity of reason answers the Pagans Worshipping of Daemons being either Souls of Men departed or other Invisible Powers whom they imagined to be Inferior Deities subordinate and ministring to the Supreme God And after the manner of the Heathens the Papists have appointed among the Saints certain particular Patrons of Provinces Cities Artificers living Creatures c. When we desire holy persons on Earth to pray for us we feek not to them as Patrons or Intercessors in the vertue of their Merits but as Brethren at the same distance from God with us And the help is mutual according to the Communion of Saints and for which we have Promise Precept and Example § 7. Of Erecting Altars and bringing Oblations to any besides God THose external Acts that by Nature or Custome or Divine Institution are or were appropriated Expressions of that internal honour or observance that is due to God alone are Divine Worship And such are the Acts of Erecting Altars and bringing Oblations and burning Incense and making Vows and dedicating Temples and ordaining Festivals The Erecting of Altars either for Sacrifice or other Oblations to any being imports either an
terminating object thereof and consequently a meer material image cannot be rationally intended for such an object of worship But if the image be taken for an animate body or an incorporated Deity then it is an absolutely terminating object of the worship performed to it Worshipping towards a Symbolical presence is not a worshipping of the symbol as the bowing to the throne of a Prince is not a worshipping of the throne And so the bowing towards the Mercy-seat in the most holy place was not a worshipping thereof It was medium cultus but not medium cultum The idolatry of image-worship is most frequently spoken of in Scripture because it was most ordinary and it is the concomitant of almost all other kinds of idolatry For both the true and false gods are by idolaters commonly worshipped in images I shall consider this kind of idolatry first as it is used in the worship of false gods and then as it is used in the worship of the true God § 15. Of the worshipping of false Gods in Images AMong the Heathens the images of their gods were called gods not properly but tropically as the Picture of a man is called a Man for humane understanding cannot take a meer statue or a picture for a god Therefore as to this point the heathens were as justifiable as the Papists The Heathens thought that the special residences of their gods were in the images and that their power was exerted by them So do the Papists take their Sacred images for the special residences as of God and of Christ so of the Saints and Angels which they also worship with the worship due to God only and so make them idols The Devil by Gods permission was wont to dwell and operate in certain images by which means they came to be famous and more adored than others So the Papists think a divine or supernatural efficacy to be tyed to one image more than to another The Vulgar Heathens being infatuated by Satanical illusions might without much difficulty be brought in part to terminate their worship in the images themselves being set forth and adorned as they were to astonish the beholders and raise fear in them that they might apprehend them the very gods which they worshipped but not the whole of them but only as it were the bodies where with the invisible Deities did incorporate And multitudes of ignorant vulgar Papists mâ—y be supposed to be under the same gross inâ—atuation Upon the Reasons aforegoing it might be that the Prophets laboured so much to prove that images were not gods As the more intelligent Papists look upon the images no otherwise than as Symbols and Representations of those beings to which they give divine worship so the more intelligent Heathens did no otherwise As the wiser Heathens extremely differed in their opinions about the gods from the Vulgar yet concurred with them in all external rites of worship so do the more learned Papists concur with the ignorant vulgar among them in all external practises of their idolatry To worship a false God in an image is double idolatry because here two things that are not God are worshipped with divine worship viz. the ultimate object absolutely and the Medium or mediate object to wit the image relatively §. 16. Of making images of the true God AN image to represent the true God is an idol as the golden Calf in the Wilderness and the Calves of Dan and Bethel To make an image of God is to blaspheme him An infinite Nature cannot be represented but it must be an infinite disparagement to it It may be asked May not God be represented by such corporeal forms as sometimes he appeared in Ans In the burning bush and in the glory on Mount Sinai God appeared not as in an image or representation of himself but as in symboâ—s of his presence Whether it were God or Angels only that appeared to Abraham and Jacob in humane shape is controvertible or it might be God the Son as a preludium to his incarnation Besides God did not take those humane shapes as images or representations of himself but as signs of his presence The soul of man is Gods image but in an equivocal improper metaphorical sense And such an image of God as it is it cannot be pictured and an image of mans body is not so much as the image of Gods image No made image can be the image of that Excellency in respect whereof God differs from the creature The virtues of the mind are more capable of being pictured than God is God forbad the Israelites to make an image of him and adds this reason That in Mount Sinai they saw no similitude Exod. 20.4 Deut. 4.5 It is folly to say Only such images are forbidden as are intended to express the perfect likeness of God and that he hath allowed an image for analogical resemblance of him For none is so mad as to think any image doth express the perfect likeness of God The Heathens that acknowledged the Eternal God did not think that any of their images did express the perfect likeness thereof And did God make a Law to forbid that which is impossible in the nature of the thing and allow all possible Representations of him The Cherubims were no Representation of God they were only Hieroglyphical signs of Gods own appointment To make an image of Fire or Light to signifie the inaccessible light which God dwells in or to picture rays of light with the Name of God is not to make an image or representation of him it is no other than Hieroglyphical writing Moses saw that which the Scripture calls Gods back parts to wit a created glory There is a great deal of difference between imperfect conceptions of God in our minds and unworthy representations of him to our senses And I know no other conception of God than of a Being infinitely perfect and this is an intellectual apprehension and not a material imagination of him § 17. Of worshipping the True God in Images TO worship God in images is not to glorifie him as God but to extenuate his glory by a false Representation of him To worship God in an image is in the sense of image-worshippers to worship the Image it self with divine honour relative And so to worship an image is to make it false God or idol and to communicate Gods worship to the creature The golden Calf is in Scripture called an idol To worship God as animating an image is idolatry To make an image to be medium cultum or the thing which we worship mediately on pretence of its representing God and that we worship him in it ultimately is the thing directly forbidden in the Second Commandment I think it is also thereby forbidden to make an image or representation of God to be medium cultus tho it should not be medium cultum because it seems to me that God in the Second Commandment forbids such resemblances and representations of himself not only to
of the Cross in Baptism are these 1. That it is not a meer circumstance but an Ordinance of Worship as important as an external rite can be 2. That being a solemn and stated Symbolical sign of a Divine Mystery and devised of men it is of that classis or rank of things which are not necessary in genere and so not allowed to be determined and imposed by men as things necessary in genere are allowed 3. That either the whole nature of a Sacrament or at least a part thereof is in it That it is a Sacrament is thus proved It is an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual Grace The outward sign is the representation of the Cross the instrument of Christs sufferings and the inward spiritual Grace is fortitude in the Christian warfare according to the words of the Liturgy Here is a signification of Grace to be given us of God and of our duty according to that Grace Likewise this sign hath assigned unto it the moral efficacy of a Sacrament for working Grace by teaching and exciting us to the spiritual warfare and minding us of Christ crucified Also it signifies and seals our Relation to Christ or the Grace of being a Christian And the Liturgy so speaks We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs Flock and sign him c. in token c. The pretence that no rite can be a Sacrament but what God hath instituted is answered before Sect. 4. And tho the imposers thereof say it is not a Sacrament yet if they so declare its meaning as to be of the formal nature and reason of a Sacrament they make it to be one indeed tho in word they deny it If it were granted that it hath not the compleat or intire nature of a Sacrament yet there is one essential part of a Sâ—crament most apparently in it that is to be an ingaging sign on our part in the Covenant For we use it as a token of ingaging our selves to Christ crucified as our Captain and Saviour by his Cross and to perform the duties of his Soldiers and Servants to our lives ends And as Baptism dedicates to Christ so doth the sign of the Cross according to the express words of the Canon viz. It is an honourable badg whereby the party Baptized is dedicated to the Service of him that dyed on the Cross So it hath that in it which is essential to a Sacrament and part of the nature thereof at least Besides it seems to be an Ordinance of that nature and kind which Christ our Lawgiver hath reserved to himself from the reason in Sections 3 4 5. § 12. Of Holy-days THAT some time of every day is to be spent in Religious exercises and that whole days of Humiliation and Thanksgiving are to be kept upon special occasions and that there may be an Anniversary commemoration of great Mercies or Judgments is little doubted I see no reason why it is not lawful for a Nation or People to institute an Anniversary Commemoration of some eminent person sent of God as a great light among them as the first propagator of the Gospel or great Restorer of true Religion among them as of Luther among the Germans and Calvin among the French Protestants For scarce a greater blessing doth arise to a Nation Mr. R B. saith That an Apostolical Ministry being so eminent a mercy he can see no reason why the Churches of all succeeding Ages may not keep an Anniversary day for Peter or Paul c. but he saith also that whether it be lawful to separate an Anniversary for the commemoration of Christs Nativity Circumcision and such like things c. which were equally existent in the Apostles days and the reasons for observing them then equal with the following times is hard for him to determine being not able to prove it lawful and yet not seeing a plain prohibition of it Yet he gives these reasons of doubting their lawfulness First the occasions of these days were existent in the Apostles times and if God would have had these days observed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles in the Scripture as he did other like things 2. If it were necessary it would be equally necessary in all Ages and parts of the Catholick church and therefore must be the matter of an universal Law and God hath made no such Law in Scripture and therefore to say it is necessary is to overthrow the sufficiency of Scripture as the Catholick Rule of Faith and Universal Divine obedience 3. God himself hath appointed a day for the same purposes as these are pretended for the Resurrection implies all the rest of the Works of the Redeemer 4. The Fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so high a nature that man is not to presume to make the like He accounts it plainly unlawful for any Earthly Power to appoint a Weekly day in commemoration of any part of our Redemption and so make another stated Weekly Holy-day because it is the doing of the same thing for one day which God hath done by another and so seems an usurpation of power not given and an accusation of Christ and the Holy Ghost as if he had not done his Work sufficiently I think it also an usurpation of Power not given for any Human Authority to make any day or time permanently and unmovably holy as a perpetual oblation to God and not only sanctified by the duties therein performed but also sanctifying the duties and making them the more acceptable But as to the observation much more to the imposing of the observation of Holy-days of human institution regard is to be had not only to what is lawful but also to what is expedient And it is as easie to offend by excess as by defect in the instituting of set-times and days appropriated to Divine Worship § 13. Of a LITVRGY ANY particular form whether stinted or free is not of the essence of prayer but only its accidental shape or mode and pertains to it not as to a holy action but as to an action in general And for that no action can be performed but in some particular mode or other this holy action cannot otherwise be performed Now neither Scripture nor the nature of the thing hath made either a stated and stinted or a free and extemporal form in it self necessary and therefore either the one or the other may be used as expedience requires according to due choice and judgment As on the one hand they are too weak and ill advised that reject all set-forms so they on the other hand are too opinionative that reject all immediately conceived yea or preconceived forms that are not prescribed And both of them shew that they are too much addicted to their Parties § 14. Of Religious Austerities as acts or matter of Divine Worship THere are Austerities inconvenient in their kind such as the self cutting and lancing of Baals Priests and