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
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
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
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
was referred to a Synod consisting of bishops and presbyters Other precepts given them were above the proper work of a bishop of a particular Church To erect and govern Churches in a hundred Cities and to govern such presbyters who according to Dr. Hammond were bishops belonged not to an ordinary bishop of a particular Church Wherefore this latter sort of duties belonged to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists or General Ministers who had a kind of Vice-Apostolick office of which sort were Barnabas Silas Apollos Titus Timothy and Epaphroditus and others Ambrose on Eph. 4. saith they are stiled Evangelists who did Evangelizare sine Cathedra It often happened that those unfixed Officers resided for a longer time in some places and then they managed the affairs of those Churches in chief during the time of their residence § 10. Concerning the Angels of the Seven Churches in ASIA IT is much insisted on that these Angels were bishops of a superior Order to that of presbyters Whereupon let it be considered 1. That the title of Stars and Angels are not proper but figurative and mystical names made use of in a mystical book and that the said names are common to all ministers Gregory the Great l. 34. Mor. on Joâ— c. 4. saith that these Angels are the preachers of the Churches 2. That the name Angel may be taken collectively not individually Austins Homily on the Apoc on these words I will remove thy Candlestick saith that John calls the Church the Angel As the Civil state of the Pagano-Christian Empire is called the Beast and the Ecclesiastical state the Whore so Angel may signifie the whole Presbytery but put in the singular number to hold proportion to the seven stars which signifie the same thing and the seven Candlesticks In these Epistles to the Churches there are indications that not a single person but a company is represented under this name Rev. 2.10 16 24 25. 3. Beza saith that this Angel was only praeses Indeed he to whom the title of bishop was appropriated by the ancient Fathers was the President of the presbytery Ambrose on 1 Tim. c. 3. saith He is the bishop who is first among the presbyters This priority or presidency is in History observed to have begun first at Alexandria the people whereof above other men were given to schism and sedition as Socrates saith of them l 7. c. 13. If this presidency began at Alexandria upon the death of Mark it must needs be long before the death of John the Apostle Howbeit Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians takes no notice of such a priority or presidency of one above the rest in that Church And Jerome having mentioned John as the last of the Apostles saith that afterwards one was set over the rest Now whereas Jerome called the imparity of bishops and presbyters an Apostolical tradition it is to be noted that with him an Apostolical tradition and Ecclesiastical custome are the same But the main thing still remains unproved for ought that is to be gathered from this title of Angel or from any thing contained in these Epistles to the Asian Churches namely that these Angels whatsoever they might be were bishops of a superior order than that of presbyters or that they had a superiority of jurisdiction over the presbyters or that they were bishops set over divers setled Churches or fixed Congregations with their Pastors or that they had the sole power of jurisdiction and ordination The main point in controversie is not Whether bishops but whether such as the present Diocesan bishops have continued from the Apostles times to this Age. The ancient bishop was the Officer of a particular Church not a general Officer of many Churches He was not a bishop of bishops that is he did not assume a power of ruling bishops who have their proper stated Churches Cypr. in Conc. Carth. saith None of us calls himself or makes himself to be a bishop of bishops or by tyrannical terror drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying The ancient bishop did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church He did not and might not ordain without the Counsel of his Clergy Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trall saith What is the presbytery but the sacred Assembly of the Councellors and Confessors of the bishops Cyprian in his epistle to Cornelius wisheth him to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy at Rome that did preside with him Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit From the beginning of my Episcopacy I resolved to do nothing without your counsel and without the consent of my people 4. Conc. Carthag 23. The sentence of a bishop shall be void without the presence of his Clericks Concil Caâ—thag c. 22. Let not a bishop ordain Clericks without a Council of his Clericks The Present Ecclesiastical Government compared with the Ancient EPISCOPACY IT is commonly objected against the Nonconformists That they are enemies to Episcopacy and that they renounce the Ancient Government received in all the Churches The truth of this Objection may easily be believed by those that hear of Episcopal Government and consider only the name thereof which hath continued the same till now but not the thing signified by that name which is so changed that it is of another nature and kind from what was in the first Ages There be Nonconformists who think they are more for the Ancient Episcopacy than the Assertors of the present Hierarchy are and who believe they are able to make it evident may they be permitted Something to this purpose is here in a short Scheme tendered to consideration and proof is ready to be made of each particular here asserted touching the state and practice of the Ancient Church 1. IN the first ages a Political Church constituted as well for Government and Discipline as for Divine Worship was one particular Society of Christians having its proper and immediate bishop or bishops pastor or pastors In these times the lowest political Church is a Diocess usually consisting of many hundred parishes having according to the Hierarchical principle no bishop but the Diocesan Yet these parishes being stated ecclesiastical Societies having their proper pastors are really so many particular Churches 2. In the first Ages the bishops were bishops of one stated Ecclesiastical Society or particular Church But in the present age bishops that are of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle are bishops of many hundred churches which kind of bishop the ancient churches did not know and which differs as much from the ancient bishop as the General of an Army from the Captain of a single Company 3. The bishop of the first Ages was a bishop over his own Church but he was not a bishop of bishops that is he was not a Ruler of the Pastors of other Churchs But the present bishop even of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle is a bishop of bishops namely of the presbyters of
bishop to delegate his Episcopal power to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man if that Clergy-man be not as Christs commissioned Officer authorized to exert that power 18. The sentence of excommunication is denounced for any non observaâ—ce of the judgment of the Court tho in cases of doubtful right and in the smallest matters But no proof of such practice can be produced from the first ages And let the bishops themselves judg howsoever contempt may be pretended in the case Whether many who are usually so sentenced either upon doubtful or trivial matters do indeed deserve to be adjudged to such a state as that sentence duly administred doth import 19. The Parish Minister is bound to denounce in his Church the sentence of Excommunication decreed by the Court tho he have no cognizance of the cause and tho he know the sentence to be unjâ—st But no such practice was known in the ancient church 20. Ministers at their Ordination receive that Office which essentially includes an Authority and Obligation to teach their flocks yet they may not preach without a license from the bishop in their own proper charges or cures tho they perform other Offices of the Ministry But anciently it was not so 21. The present bishops require of their Clergy an Oath of Canonical obedience but let any proof be given that the ancient bishops did ever impose such an Oath or that the presbyters ever took it 22 The Parish minister hath not the liberty of examining whether the Infant brought to Baptism be a capable subject thereof that is Whether he be the child of a Christian or Infidel but he must baptize the child of every one that is presented by Godfathers and Godmothers who commonly have little or no interest in the Infant nor care of its education and who not seldome are but Boys and Girls 23. Confirmation is to be administred only by the bishop and yet it is in an ordinary way impossible for him to examine all persons to be confirmed by him within his Diocess Consequently it cannot be duly administred to multitudes of persons that are to be presented thereunto and they that are confirmed are few in comparison of those that are not But the ancient bishops being bishops of one particular Church were capable of taking the oversight of every particular person of their flocks and did personally perform the same 24. A great part of the adult members of Parish-churches are such as understand not what Christianity is but the ancient churches were careful that all their members might be competently knowing in the Religion which they professed as appears by their discipline towards the Catechumeni and the long time before they admitted them to baptism 25. The Parish ministers have no remedy but to give the Sacrament to ignorant and scandalous persons that offer themselves thereunto they can but accuse the openly wicked in the Chancellors Court and but for one time deny the Sacrament to some kind of notorious sinners but then they are bound to prosecute them in the Court and to procure a sentence against them there where not one notorious sinner of a multitude is or can be brought to a due tryal in regard of the way of proceeding in Ecclesiastical Courts and the multitude of souls in every Diocess The consequent hereof is the general intrusion of the grosly ignorant and profane who pollute the communion of the Church and eat and drink damnation to themselves 26. All parishioners that are of age are compelled to receive the Sacrament how unfit or unwilling soever they be by the terrors of penalties subsequent to excommunication and those that have been excommunicated for refusing to receive are absolved from that sentence if being driven thereunto they will receive the Sacrament rather than lye in Gaol And the Parish-ministers are compelled to give the Sacrament to such 27. Many Orthodox Learned and Pious men duly qualified for the Ministry are cast and kept out of it for not declaring an unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in the Liturgy and Book of Ordination Let any proof be given that ever any of the ancient Bishops or Churches thought all the points contained in those books so necessary to be assented and consented to or that any of them so severely required the like conformity to opinions forms and ceremonies of the like nature and reason 28. The present bishops debar all Christians from the Lords Supper who through unfeigned scruple of conscience refuse to kneel in the act of receiving the Sacramental bread and wine and they debar from baptism the children of those Parents who judg it unlawful for them to permit the signing of their children with the sign of the Cross But the ancient bishops did not so nor doth the practise of Antiquity warrant the same 29. The greatest severity of the present Church-discipline is directed against Ministers and people who observe not full conformity to the Rules Forms Rights and Ceremonies prescribed in the Liturgy and Canons But the ancient bishops exercised it against those who subverted the Christian faith by damnable Heresies or enormously transgressed the Rules of soberness righteousness and godliness prescribed of God in his word 30. The Oath imposed upon the Church-wardens to make their Presentments according to the Book of Articles framed by the bishop hath had this consequence which ought to be laid to heart that commonly they would rather overlook their Oath than become accusers of their honest neighbours not only those who withdraw from but those who hold communion with the Parish churches 31. The requiring of the reordination of those ministers who have been ordained by presbyters is contrary to the practise of the ancient Church it contradicts the judgments of many Eminent bishops and other Divines of the Church of England who have maintained the validity of Presbyterial ordination it nullifies the ministry of all the Foreign Reformed Churches and of most if not of all the Lutheran churches and it advances the Church of Rome above them for the priests of the Church of Rome upon their conversion are received without reordination whereas those that come from the Foreign Reformed churches must be reordained before they be admitted to the ministry in the church of England And all this is done when in Scripture the office of a bishop and presbyter is one and the same and the difference between them came in afterwards by Ecclesiastical custome It is commonly said That Churches and Bishops being now delivered from their ancient low and distressed state under the tyranny and persecution of the Heathen powers and enjoying the patronage and bounty of Christian Rulers should not be consined to their ancient meanness narrowness and weakness but be enlarged in opulency amplitude and potency answerable to the Civil State Ans It is freely granted that the state Ecclesiastical should in reasonable proportion partake of the prosperity of the Civil state But the question still remains 1. Whether
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
permanently or unalterably holy as well sanctifying the duties therein performed as sanctified by them so I suppose that the appointed feasts or at least some of them are set apart by the Church to a state of like holiness I confess that as touching the dedication of such days and times as some of those are which are appointed by the Church I have not a clearness of judgment to determine for or against the warrantableness thereof Nor would I break with the Church upon this account but would make those days an occasion of joining in the unquestionable divine worship then celebrated But I know not how to declare an unfeigned assent and consent to the sanctifying of those days because in so doing I should not speak the truth while I doubt of the warrantableness thereof Of the Order for Morning and Evening-prayer THE second Rubrick before Morning-prayer is taken to enjoin the use of the Surplice Supposing that the use thereof is not in it self unlawful nevertheless I question whether I may lawfully consent to a Rule enjoining the use of it to such Ministers and in such Congregations by which the use thereof is judged unlawful or to which it is odious or greatly offensive by invincible or inveterate prejudice I enquire Whether a consent to the use of this Rubrick doth not imply a consent to the enjoining of this Vestment for the enjoined retaining and using of it so that sacred Ministrations shall not be performed without it is the subject matter of the Rubrick I enquire also Whether I may lawfully declare my consent to the use of this Vestment supposing that tho I do not scruple the bare lawfulness of using it yet I wish in my heart the use thereof were not retained but laid aside in regard of the great offence taken at it it being a thing unnecessary and the worship of God being as decently and profitably performed without it as with it Moreover what were those Ornaments in the Church which were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the sixth I do not well know Some say this Rubrick seems to bring back the Cope and other Vestments forbidden in the common-prayer-Common-prayer-book 5 6. of Edw. 6. to the use whereof I do not see it fit for me to declare my consent The Responsals of the Clerk and people the multiplied repetitions of the Gloria Patri and the Lords Prayer the omission of the Doxology in the Lords Prayer the composure of many short Collects instead of one continued prayer I can submit unto and declare my consent to them as to things passable But if the declaration of consent imply not only the simple allowableness but also the laudableness and comparative usefulness or expediency of these things I am not clear therein Of the Creed of St. Athanasius I Heartily own the whole Doctrine of the Trinity and of the incarnation of the Son of God as set forth in this Creed yet I am not satisfied to declare my assent to these assertions Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled without doubt he shall perish everlastingly Also This is the Catholick faith which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved Also he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity This Creed doth contain deep mysteries as that the Son is not made nor created but begotten That the Holy Ghost is neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding The difference between eternal generation and eternal procession being a mystery wherein the greatest Divines see but darkly we may be justly afraid to condemn all persons as uncapable of salvation who do not understand and explicitely believe these mysteries Likewise the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son being here delivered as a part of the faith concerning which it is asserted That except every one do keep whole without doubt he shall perish everlastingly the undoubted damnation of those Churches and Christians who hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only seems to be thence inferred The best answer to these objections that I have seen I here transcribe out of a book lately written It is to be considered That in this Creed there be some things contained and expressed as necessary points of Faith and other things for the more clear and useful explication of the truth tho they be not of equal necessity to be understood and believed even by the meanest capacity Thus if we first consider the contexture of this Creed the Faith declared necessary concerning the Trinity is thus expressed in the beginning thereof The Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance After this follows an explication useful to set forth the true Christian Doctrine which begins For there is one person of the Father c. After which explication the same necessary doctrine to be known and believed is thus again expressed and distinguished from that explication in these words So that in all things as aforesaid the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity is to be worshipped he therefore who will be saved must thus think of the Trinity What is contained in this consideration is the more clear by the following observation That our Church doth both here and in her Articles evidently receive the Athanasian Creed and yet from the manner of using the Apostles Creed in the form of Baptism as containing the profession of that Faith into which we are baptized in the Catechism as containing all the Articles of the Christian Faith and in the Visitation of the sick as being the Rule to try whether he believe as a Christian man should or not it is manifest that no more is esteemed in our Church of necessity to salvation for all men to believe than that only which is contained and expressed in the Apostles Creed Hereunto I make this Reply In this point the question is not What the Church of England but what the Athanasian Creed appointed by this Church to be read on certain solemn days instead of the Apostles Creed declares to be of necessity to salvation Now the thing that is manifestly asserted in this Creed to be of necessity to salvation is the intire belief of the Catholick Faith as it is there expressed For it is said Which Faith except every one keep whole c. Wherefore to distinguish the summary of the doctrine of the Trinity set down in the beginning and the conclusion from the whole intermediate explication thereof as if the belief of the one but not of the other were affirmed to be necessary to salvation is a very forc'd and unwarrantable narrowing of the intendment of the Words The explication as well as the said Summary is set forth as that Catholick Faith which except every one keep whole and undefiled he shall without doubt perish everlastingly Yea it is expresly said in
is not properly a punishment to the Infant but meerly a non-deliverance or a being left in the state of sin and wrath wherein he is by nature I still query Whether the aforecited assertion That it is certain by Gods word that Children which are baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved be not contained under the Declaration It being the matter of a directing Rubrick and for use as I suppose Moreover this Rubrick seems evidently included in the injoyned Subscription and to be justified thereby as not contrary to the word of God Now the same things that are objected about the saving Regeration of all baptized Children may be objected in reference to this also Besides to affirm the certainty of this position by the word of God is much harder than to admit it as a probable truth only Whereas it is said that this position may be acknowledged as certainly true of children indefinitely without denying it to be true universally I answer That to understand it but of children indefinitely is to make it an insignificant and useless Assertion unworthy to be matter of a Rubrick as shewing no more but that it is certainly true that all baptized children are not damaned but some saved This is not rationally apprehended to be the meaning thereof According to the order prescribed in the Liturgy Children are devoted to God and brought into the Covenant of Grace and the Baptismal Vow by Godfathe s and Godmothers who have no propriety in them nor right of dedicating them to God or bringing them into his Covenant and the Parents who have right and by whom the Infants have title to this priviledg are excluded It is not mans Law that can authorize any to bring children into the bond of the Covenant with God And there is no Law of God that authorizeth any besides Parents Proparents or Proprietors so to do Tho the taking in of Sureties in conjunction with the Parents for a greater assurance of the Infants Christian Education may be commendable and useful if those Sureties did indeed concern themselves therein and not make it a matter of meer formality as generally it is made yet there can be no reason for such a rigid insisting upon Sureties the use of whom at the most is but expedient for greater caution about the Childs future education and in the mean time to overlook yea to exclude the Parents open and solemn dedication of the infant which is necessary That form of speaking to the Infant by the Sureties Dost thou renounce c. dost thou believe c. wilt thou be baptized c. wilt thou obediently keep c. and the taking of several answers as from him by the Sureties is not a form of words expressing ones being devoted or brought into Gods Covenant by another but of ones own professed present actual believing desiring and vowing If it be said This is spoken to the Sureties in the Childs name and 't is a declaring of what the child undertakes by his baptism I answer The child is not capable of doing any thing in the case and the child doth not and cannot undertake any thing by another as in his name To say the Infant doth these things passively and that he doth passively accept the Covenant is that which I do not understand I grant that baptized infants are under a vow of dedication to God but not a vow made by themselves but by those whom God hath authorized to dedicate them and by which they are bound as much as by a vow actually made by themselves when they are capable Of the CATECHISM EVery baptized person is taught thus to answer in my baptism wherein I was made a member of Christ the child of God and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven By the very receiving of baptism neither infants nor the adult are first put into a state of grace but those who by their own faith or by the faith of their Parents were before in the Covenant of Grace are by Baptism solemnly invested in that Grace Ones being in the Covenant of Grace is a prerequisite condition to the saving use of this Sacrament which is the soleâ—n dedication to God of one so qualified and his solemn investiture in the Grace of the Covenant But whether the said words be understood of the first consering of those benefits or of the solemn investiture therein nevertheless be it considered Whether it be fit to teach every Catechised person to believe That by his baptism he was made a pertaker of or solemnly invested in those high priviledges which only the children of true believers do receive by their Infant-baptism Be it also considered whether it tends not to cause many who are yet in the state of sin to believe that they are in the state of grace Of the Order of Confirmation ANY such baptized persons as are come to a competent age and can say in their Mother-tongue the Creed the Lords Prayer and the Ten Commandments and also can answer to other questions of the Catechism and to the Bishops interrogatory touching the renewing of the Vow made in their name at their Baptism and their consenting thee unto shall answer I do are according to the Rule of this Book sufficiently qualified for confirmation Be it considered Whether all this may not be said by a person in whom appears no credibility of a sincere yea or of an intelligent profession If it be said it is left to the Bishops discretion by these words of the Rubrick and if the bishop approve of them he shall confirm them nevertheless the Rule here set down doth express and require no more The Query is Whether I may consent to the use of a Rule insufficient for its end Confirmation is reserved to the Bishop alone yet it is ordinarily impossible for him to take due notice of all persons to be confirmed within his Diocess and consequently it cannot be duly administred to a multitude of persons that are to be brought to it Whereas it is alledged That this reservation was the usage of the ancient Church let it be considered that the primitive or more ancient bishops were bishops but of one particular Church and were capable of taking the oversight of every particular person of their flock and did personally perform the same But the present bishops being bishops of many hundred Churches have commonly more souls in their several Diocesses than an hundred bishops can personally watch over In the prayer immediately before the act of Confirmation it is said of all persons admitted to it That God hath vouchsafed to regenerate them by water and the Holy Ghost and hath given them the forgiveness of all their sins I enquire Whether this be warrantable and according to truth considering what is the corruption of human nature and what the inclinations and behaviour of most young ones are and what regeneration by the Holy Ghost doth import and how such as are far from any credible
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-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 Nature These things are neither the essential nor integral parts of Divine Worship but if any of them be called parts thereof as being direct expressions of honour to God they are but accidental parts as the putting off the Hat in Divine Worship is a Worshipping of God so far as it is an expression of honour to God And as to such matters the term of accidental Worship may be allowed not as if they had nothing of the Nature of Worship in them in any degree for Divine Worship is a genus not Univocal but Analogical being predicated of all that comes under it in some common notion or nature but not in the same degree and these partake of the nature of Worship but in the lowest degree but because they are not essential parts of Religion nor integral being contradistinct to the substantial and more important parts thereof And as being circumstantial expressions of giving honour to God they may be called circumstantial Worship As for example putting off the Hat is a Worship-gesture and Worship only so much as gesture comes to These accidental parts ordinarily go not alone but in attendance on other more important parts even of external Worship Yet it may be here considered whether putting off the Hat or Bowing or Kneeling and the like may not be Acts of external Worship per se or going alone and not meerly in concomitance with other external Acts therof As whether Moses his putting off his Shooes in the place where the Bush burned were an Act of Worship per se and not only as a circumstance or attendance on other Worship and so for the same or like Act in any other symbolical presence of God If it be so these Acts are even then but of the lower nature of accidental parts or modes of Worship I conceive the Lords commanding Moses to put off his Shooes was not a new precept of Worship but only a directing him to or minding him of that which already in that case was required by telling him the occasion which he was not aware of Whatsoever Nature or Custom hath so made decent or reverent that the negation of it is undecent or irreverent is doubtless commanded of God in his Worship tho not by any particular yet by general Laws And the Institution and Observation of such things is no Addition to Gods Law but meerly an Application of the general Law in particular Cases as the Law it self doth warrant All these are such mutable things as are not fit to be in particular the matter of an universal Law because they are fit in one place and at one time and not another Note that things not determined of God and left to the determination of men must be such as are necessary in genere and not things idle and superfluous A Superior may not institute a superfluous thing that is not simply evil tho sometimes the inferior may lawfully obey therein or to speak more properly lawfully do the thing to avoid inconvenience or to testifie respect to the Superior tho in that particular he hath no lawful power to command Note also that of things necessary in genere the Superior may not lawfully determine for such species as tho not simply evil may have a tendency to evil or be evil in the consequence when he may determine that which will not be evil in the consequence Yet the inferior may obey or rather observe the thing commanded when the evil consequence of non-observance will be greater than the evil consequence of observance § 6. Of the lawfulness of significant Ceremonies in Divine Worship BY a Ceremony I understand an external rite in or about the Worship of God By significant Ceremonies I understand rites in Divine Worship signifying some material point of Religion There is no controversie about those outward actions that by nature or general custome signifie the reverence of the mind as kneeling and lifting up our Eyes and Hands to Heaven in token of Devotion to the God of Heaven and being uncovered in Prayer c. But the question is of those that signifie meerly by the force of authoritative institution or private arbitrary intention Such significant things tho they may have some natural aptitude to signifie such and such points of Religion yet they do not actually signifie but as arbitrarily designed thereunto It is generally received that significant Ceremonies in taking an Oath may lawfully be used and that not only such as naturally signifie as lifting up the hand towards Heaven but such also as signifie by Institution as laying the hand on a Book or kissing the Book Now tho the end of an Oath may be a Civil thing as the ending of a controversie yet the formale of it is Divine Worship And the aforesaid ceremonies are expressive of the very external part of it and they actually signifie by force of Institution Words signifie by general custom and have the same sense out of the Worship of God as in it and therefore the arguing from their lawfulness as signs of Worship unto the lawfulness of instituted signs seems liable to exception Nevertheless it may be said that inisttuted signs soon become customary and as well understood as words The Christians heretofore being among Infidels might lawfully have the figure of the Cross somewhere visible about them to shew that they were Christians For the meaning was no more than if they had said We are Christians But it may be replied this was no Act of Divine Worship but an indicant or speaking sign towards men With acknowledgment of my own weakness I express my appâ—ehesions of this matter God hath allowed words for signs expressive of Divine Worship but I find not that he hath allowed words only and forbidden Gestures and Actions for such an end The dumb must express their internal Worship by gestures and actions or they cannot externally Worship God at all If signs of Devotion that are of customary signification be lawful I see not why such as are of instituted signifition should be unlawful and especially when they become as customary as those that have been without institution And if instituted signs of devotion in general be lawful I see not why signs of some special part of devotion or mystery in Religion should be unlawful I am more confident of the warrantableness of Rites and Ceremonies of Worship that are used only instead of so many words pronounced than of those that are added to words for their more solemn ratification as seals are to a writing or foederal signs to a verbal Contract Nevertheless the forementioned Ceremonies of Swearing seem added to the words of the Oath for more solemn ratification and it alters not the case whether the words be read by him that administers or pronounced by him that takes the oath for either way they are his words that takes the oath Likewise I have more confidence of the warrantableness of those significant Ceremonies that are of private arbitrary intention