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
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 57th Canon of the Laodicean Councel do shew that bishops with their Churches had been constituted in villages tho in some dependance on the City-bishop Mr. Beverege in his Annotations on Council Anchyram c. 13. shews that the the Chorepiscopi were truly bishops tho the exercise of some Episcopal functions were denied them by the Canons and by the Canon last mentioned they were not absolutely forbidden to ordain presbyters and deacons but that they should not do it without the permission of the City-bishop under whom they were § 3. Of divers Cities having two Bishops at once THERE are many instances in the antiquity of two bishops allowed at once in the same City Narcissus and Alexander were bishops of Jerusalem at the same time Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 9 10. Ignatius and Euodius were both bishops of Antioch at the same time Clemens const l. 7.46 At Rome Linus and Clâ—tus were fellow bishops in Peters days Platina in the life of St. Peter Epiphanius heresy 68 concerning Meletius saith Alexandria had not anciently two Bishops as other Cities had Austin was made Bishop of Hippo in the days of Valerius and joined with him as his colleague in the Episcopal function Aug. Epist 34. to Paulinus And some learned men of the hierarchical way conceive that Peter and Paul were bishops of Rome at the same time the one of the Circumcision and the other of the Uncircumcision The Nicene Council was the first that decreed that universally there should be but one bishop in a City Can. 8. If any that come from the Novations to the Catholick Church be a bishop let him have the dignity of Priesthood unless it please the Catholick bishop to give him also the honour of the Episcopal Name If it doth not please him let him find a place for him that he may be a Chorepiscopus in the parish or a presbyter in the Clergy that there may not seem to be two bishops in one City As concerning the Catalogues of the ancient bishops in great Cities wherein the succession is by one single person after another It may be considered That Historians being of later ages had respect to the custom of their own times wherein the Episcopacy resided in one And when anciently there were two or more equal in the name and authority of a Bishop the survivor was reckoned the successor whenas he was indeed but the surviving colleague Some do thus labour to remove the contradictions of Historians touching the order of the succession of the first bishops of Rome Linus Cletus Anacletus c. by supposing that these or some of them were presbyters or bishops at the same time ruling that Church in common and that the following writers fancying to themselves such bishops as were set up in the Church in their times fell into those diversities of tradition § 4. Of the more late Erection of many Parishes under one bishop IT is acknowedged by all parties that Christians in great Cities were not divided into divers fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles days And tho when they were multiplied they had divers meeting-places yet those places were promiscuously frequented and the people were taught and governed by all the Presbyters in common and were called but one Church It is observed by Epiphanius Heres 68. n. 6. That it was the Custom only at Alexandria to have one president in the whole City and to distribute the presbyters to teach severally vid. Grot. Annot. on 1 Tim. 5.17 Seldens Comment on Eutych Origin Alexand. p. 85. And most agree that it was two hundred and sixty years after Christ before parishes were distinguished And there must be a distinction of parishes before there could be a union of them into Diocesses § 5. That Bishops and Presbyters are of the same order The Testimony of later times concerning it THat this is not the opinion only of those who are now called Presbyterians let the testimonies both of ancient and later times touching this point be considered I begin with those of later times The French and Belgick Confessions assert the parity of order of all Ministers of the Gospel Reynold Peacock bishop of Chichester wrote a book de Ministrorum aqualitate which the Papists caused to be burnt Vid. Erasmus his Annotations on 1 Tim. 4. Cassanders consult Article 14. saith It is agreed among all that of old in the Apostles days there was no difference between bishops and presbyters but for orders sake and avoiding of schism a bishop was put before a presbyter This his opinion he delivered to the Emperor of Germany being sent for by him to inform his conscience about such questions In the time of King Henry the Eighth there was published a book by Cranmer and others called the bishops book wherein is affirmed that the difference of bishops was a device of the ancient fathers not mentioned in Scripture An. 1537. In the book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the Clergy in a provincial synod and set forth by the Kings Authority and approved by the Parliament it is asserted That the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferior degrees of Ministry yet in the New Testament no mention is made of any degrees or distinctions in orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of presbyters or bishops The Parliament Divines at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight in their Answer to the King say This doctrine of the sameness of the order of a bishop and presbyter was published by King Henry the Eighth An. 1543. to be received by all the subjects and was seen and approved by the Lords both spiritual and temporal and by the lower house of Parliament The words of the book are The Scripture mentions these two orders only to wit Presbyters and Deacons and the Apostles confirming them by prayer and imposition of hands Mr. Mede discourse 5. on 1 Cor. 4 1. saith there are properly but two orders Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Deacons the rest are but divers degrees of these two Dr. Hammonds opinion concerning bishops and presbyters is thus declared in his Annotations on Acts 11. Altho the Title of Elders hath extended to a second order in the Church and now is in use only for them yet in the Scripture-times it belonged principally if not alone to the bishops there being no evidence that any of that second order were then instituted in the Churches Now if in Scripture-times presbyters of an inferior order to bishops were not instituted as this learned man supposeth it is evident that all those Church-officers called presbyters mentioned in Scripture were bishops and if this inferior order of presbyters be not to be found in Scripture I desire to know what proof can be made of its divine institution Many if not most Papists acknowledg that presbytery is the highest order in the ministry and that Episcopacy is but a different degree of the same order And it is