conveniency of the Church and a remedy against Schism Sect. 4 Here indeed appears and is a vast difference even a diametrical opposition and maintained with so much eagerness That though I know none so high of the one side as to deny the Presbyter his Institution and Sacred Order and some interest in the Acts of Government in the Church yet I could name some and to this the World is no stranger of the other side who have been so violent as to deny the lawfulness of the being of any such Officer as a Bishop above a Presbyter and to plead a necessity of throwing him out of the Church as a Plant not of Gods planting but wholly Antichristian and abominable And if any abuses have crept in or corruptions prevailed in the Church the very existence of the Bishop as such must bear the blame and be esteemed the cause of all The popular fury thinking corruptions cannot be restrained nor the Church reformed until her Bishops and Govenrours yea the Government it self be ejected and abolished Sect. 5 3. But in the mean time many sober pious learned and peaceable men even of both perswasions weep in secret and mourn heavily for the bitter divisions and high animosities of some violent contenders Some not only submitting to but desiring and rejoycing in the establishment of Episcopacy and Prelacy as that Order which is not only best for the Church but hath also the clearest claims to and evidences of Antiquity yea the first and purest the Apostles themselves who yet for peace-sake though it would be their affliction would submit to a Presbytery without a Prelacy where that Government should be legally established and might be submitted to without Schism because they judge this way of Government though not the best nor so good as they could wish nor to have those evidences which Episcopacy hath yet not to be so manifestly repugnant to the Word of God but that it may be submitted to without sin On the other side there are also many peaceable spirits who indeed judge the Presbyterial way the most agreeable to the primitive pattern and therefore would choose such a Presbytery Yet for the peace of the Church will also quietly submit to the Episcopacy established because though in their judgments it be not so evidently founded in yet neither is it so contrary to the Scriptures but that without sin they may obey it Sect 6 Now for men of such sober spirits as these to agree and live in peace it is no difficult matter to effect The established Laws shall oblige their Conformity though in their judgments they may not be the best and they have learn't to submit themselves to be ruled by the publick establishments and to make their private judgments strike Sail and give place to peace and obedience Sect. 7 But is the distance so great between the others that there is no hope of an amicable composure or at least that they may live together in peace I think not altogether It is true indeed while men keep those judgments One for the absolute necessity of the one the other for the indispensible necessity of the other way and condemning the contrary as an unlawful Usurpation and Antichristian it is no more possible to make them agree than to reconcile both parts of a contradiction And I confess further while men bear those heats in their spirits and look upon Episcopacy as such an Usurpation that it is not lawful to own it or submit to it and think the Church can never be happy till it be cast out There is very little likelihood to prevail upon such men for a patient submission or a peaceable compliance But is there any thing in the nature of the Government in dispute which must needs be the cause of a perpetual Schism Or is there any thing of such a nature in Episcopacy which a pious Christian may not submit to or at east for peace-sake comply with without sin I think not and no such thing hath ever been proved that I have seen Sect. 8 That even in this there may be I say not a concurrence of judgment in the thing in controversie but an union of hearts in love and affection and much of peace and compliance even here I need not do more than consider how much learned and sober men even of the Presbyterian perswasion have declared themselves willing to submit to in the point of Episcopacy and how far their Judgments do concur and agree with their Episcopal Brethren And by this give a Judgment whether they may not without sin do somewhat more and whether they are not at least for peace-sake obliged to comply with and submit to the established Government as far as it is established Sect. 9 Here it will be needless to fill Pages with names and writings of several men when this one thing will give us light enough viz. Those learned Divines of the Presbyterial judgment joyned Commissioners with the Reverend Bishops and others for an amicable Conference about the things in dispute in their Petition for peace prefixed to their Form of prayer and in the Papers of Proposal to His Majesty have declared publickly 1. That they are for Episcopacy 2. That they desired the establishment of Episcopacy according to the Primate of Ireland B. Ushers Reduction Yea 3. A thankful acceptation of His Majesties Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs And though they are not fully satisfied with that establishment of Episcopacy Yet they seem to rest in that expression of His Majesty That the essence and foundation of Episcopacy may be preserved though the extent of the Jurisdiction may be altered Desiring an alteration only in such alterable points as the extending or straitning the limits of their Jurisdiction preserving still the essence and foundation of the Government from all which concessions and professions it appears that their judgments concur with their Episcopal Brethren in these things 1. That there is or at least may be an imparity among the Ministers of the Gospel and that lawfully and 2. In the lawfulness of a Superiority and Jurisdiction in the Bishop over other Presbyters both as to Ordination and Censures for both these as well in the Primates Reduction as in His Majesties Declaration are evidently reserved to the Bishop Sect. 10 And besides these I could name many learned and sober men who will acknowledge the Bishop to be though not in their judgment superior ordo a superiour order from or over other Presbyters yet superior gradus in eodem ordine an higher degree and so a superiour in the same order they conceiving this to be also the publick sense of our Church which advancing a person to a Bishoprick calleth him not by a new Ordination as into another Order of Ministry but only gives him a solemn Consecration as to an higher Office Employment or Degree And these acknowledge such an imparity and superiority in the Bishop distinct from the Presbyter in Ignatius his time and
Answ 1 I answer 1. Those things which are really innovations and imposed and not required by Law surely we are not bound to obey nor do I know any that affirms we should sin if we submit not to them nor will it be charged upon those that deny them but upon such as impose them if the peace of the Church be violated Yet let it be considered also Sect. 38 Answ 2 2. Though such and such particular Rites may not be specially ordained by a positive Law for them yet if there be a general Law impowring the Bishops to order appoint and require what shall be for the peace of the Church and order in it what shall be for the conveniencies solemnity and decency of Administration and of all this leave them to be the judges what they now do so require they cannot be said to require without or against Law And if these particulars which they require be not manifestly against the Word of God I cannot see how we can be excused from sin if we disobey considering that establishment which by Law they have among us Sect. 39 Answ 3 3. But may we do nothing but what we are bound to do yea are we not bound for peace sake to do all that we lawfully may do Suppose our Governours should lay the peace of the Church upon such slight matters as are of no consideration in comparison with it and this be indeed their imprudence and possibly their sin Yet when this is done if we submit not supposing the things to be lawful in themselves I see not but that the violation of the Churches peace will be laid upon us as well as upon them nor will their imprudence excuse our sin There may perhaps be some kind of sin in them requiring but I am sure when the things required are not materially evil there can be no sin in us in obeying Let us not therefore so much consider what they must or may require but what we may and should do when it is required and we shall have peace Sect. 40 Except Partic. 5 5. The next great Exception is The Bishops claim to be Spiritual Lords contrary to the Royal Prerogative of Jesus Christ the only Lord and King of the Church The same which Johnson the Separatist made against our Churches See Unreason of Separat p. 47 48. and expressly contrary to that rule of the (b) 1 Pet. 5.2 3. Apostle where they if those Elders be supposed to be Bishops are only to oversee the Flock and not as Lords over Gods heritage but as ensamples to the Flock Yea contrary to the Royal dignity of the King and temporal Magistrate both in civil and ecclesiastical causes For they have their voices and authority in Parliament for enacting Laws for the Common-wealth They are Rulers of Provinces and Diocesses in ecclesiastical causes in civil State and dignity some of them above all all of them above some of the Nobles Justices and other Magistrates of the Land They and their Courts handle and determine civil causes and affairs that appertain to the Magistracy they inflict civil mulcts and penalties give Licences in several cases all the Priests and Deacons are exempt from the Magistrates Jurisdiction in divers things and answerable only or chiefly to the Prelates and their Officers Sect. 41 For Answer Here is a great charge indeed but it signifies nothing as to the business before us viz. our submission for Peace sake For Answ 1 1. Should they claim to be what they are not for there is a vast difference between to be and to claim to be may we yet not lawfully obey them in things honest though we own not their claim I judge we may The claim may be unjust in them and yet the things which they require of us may be fit to be done by us Sect. 42 Answ 2 2. Though they should claim more than belongs to them yet this makes not a nullity of that authority which is their due What they may justly require as Bishops and Governours of the Church they may require had they not those Titles of Spiritual Lords and then the addition of that Title destroyes not their power of Bishops Sect. 43 Answ 3 3. But They neither are nor claim to be such Spiritual Lords as the Objection implyeth as even the (c) Bradsh unreas of Separ p. 65. learned Non-conformists have acknowledged and which their Canons and practice shew For those things which are antecedently necessary by the Law of God they do command and press not as their own but as the Laws of Christ. And for things which are of another nature the practice whereof is made necessary pro Hic Nunc by their constitutions they prescribe them not so as to bind the conscience of any to the acknowledgement and approbation thereof as necessary things but only to obey them in practice and for external order and as things indifferent in themselves which we are no longer obliged to than they are commanded And therefore they cannot be said to arrogate such an Office of Spiritual Lords as the Apostle condemns nor in that sense wherein Christ alone is Lord of his Church They never attempting to introduce a new worship of God or enjoyning subscription to new Articles of Faith But requiring only the same Articles to be believed which Christ hath revealed and ordering only the external mode and circumstances of worship the substance of which is only from Christ as to decency order and edification of which they as the Governours of the Church here must be in a very great measure acknowledged the Judges and which are by Christ left free to the Church to order according to the condition of Time and Place and other Circumstances Sect. 44 Answ 4 4. And as they encroach not upon the Prerogative Royal of Jesus Christ so neither do they infringe the Authority of the King and Civil Magistrate And to evidence this I need say no more than that which the forecited (d) Unreas of Separ p. 47. Mr. Bradshaw though no friend to the Bishop hath said in answer to this very objection 1. That the Prelates claim their voyces in Parliament not as Divine Ordinances appertaining to their Prelateships but as an honour annexed to the same by the Civil Magistrate 2. Their Authority in causes ecclesiastical over Provinvinces c. is either such as the Magistrate himself may execute and administer in his own person if he please or such as is not for Him as a Magistrate to execute The first sort The Bishops administer only by vertue of the Magistrates own Commission and therein they impair not either his dignity or supremacy much less in the other part of their authority which belongeth not to the Magistrate himself to execute especially when they use not this neither without his consent licence and approbation 3. That all are above some some above all the Nobles Justices c. is a free and voluntary honour
of abolishing the use of the Crosse with us who so abuse it not but condemne such abuses is a most illogicall way of arguing whereas were there abuses yet wise Reformers will consider first whether they can remove them and not destroy the subject to which they cleave To cure alwayes by Abscission doth seldom commend the Chirurgeon or is pleasing to the patient He cureth best that can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so restore the part ill affected that it still shall continue an Ornament or Grace to the body as it was before To use a thing ill and not to use it at all are both extremities and to be avoided he rightly makes a redresse who stripping off the abuse preserveth the good use of a thing There is an error both on the Right and on the Left and ſ Prov. 4.27 both to be shunned It is a madnesse for the avoiding of a few drops to plunge over head and eares in water to t Incidit in Scyllam cupiens vitare Charybdin shun a gulfe and strike upon a Rock to u Dum vitant stulli vitia in contrariia currunnt avoid one vice and embrace another Blessed are those pious holy humble and peaceable spirits that know how and take care to do so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make streight steps and turne aside neither to the Right hand nor to the Left Neither sinning against charity by giving occasion of offence when they can avoide it nor against duty and Justice by disobeying a Law under which they live when the matter commanded is lawfull to be done such as is this Rite the Signe of the Crosse which being enjoyned by a Law is cleared also to be no just occasion of this kind of Scandall nor matter of just Reproach to us or the Church Object 3. §. 35. The Crosse no Scandall as justly Grieving a Brother There remaines but one notion of Scandall more and that is as it doth interrupt the peace and joy of our Brother being matter of Trouble or Griefe to him Here I think no sober dissenter will be so uncharitable as to charge it so high as a Crime or Abomination equall to the Lies of those Prophetesses in Ezekiel x Ezek 13.22 which made the heart of the Righteous sad which God would have not made sad But it is indeed charged with such a Scandall as was given by eating of some meats among the Romans and it is thus argued If when a weake Brother was grieved with that use of their liberty in eating such meats as the Law made uncleane they y Rom. 14.15 might not eat them then if our Brother be grieved by the Signe of the Crosse we may not use it c. But howsoever it be urged §. 36. Answ the same answer will serve both And the answer which I shall make I shall take from those hints which I have seen in a transcript of a private letter written long ago and was in many hands said to be that most judicious Doctor now Bishop Saundersons in reference to the use or forbearance of the publick Liturgy during the late troubles and the violent extrusion of it out of the Church about the nature of Scandall and the vilidity of the Argument drawn from thence which will be very applicable to our present case Now then § 37 1. I must premise this That the use of the Crosse is expressely required of us by a Law which for any thing in the matter of it hath been proved may lawfully be complied with But yet some out of weaknesse or misprission judge otherwise of it and are offended or grieved by such an use The only question is now what are we to do in this case Are we to obey the Law though some be offended Or are we so far to condescend to the weaknesse of these as for their sakes to disobey the Law Is this Argument of Scandall sufficient to oblige us to or justifie us in forsaking the Publick constitutions § 38 2. This premised I give these particular answers 1. It seemes a very unreasonable thing in such cases as these when we are not left to our owne acts or discretions but bound up by a positive Law that the fear of Scandalizing our weak brother which is only Debitum Charitatis should lay upon us such a peremptory necessity of complying with their weaknesse as that for their sakes we must disobey the Law whatsoever inconveniences or mischiefs may ensue thereupon whereas the duty of obedience to our known and legally established Governours which is Debitum Justitiae and therefore obligeth more imposeth upon us a necessity of doing that which if we should not do we should sinne against God who hath commanded us to be subject and to obey z Rom. 13.5 for Conscience-sake Besides § 39 2. Arguments drawn from Seandal in things neither in themselves unlawfull nor setting onely this matter of Scandal aside inexpedient such as our use of the Crosse is presumed to be as they are subject to many frailties otherwise so are they manifestly of no weight at all when they are counterpoysed with an apparent danger of evill consequents and equal yea greater Scandal on the other side for in such cases there is commonly equal if not more danger of Scandal to be taken the quite contrary way We may see it clear in the case in hand It is alledged on the one side if we use the Crosse many weak scrupulous Christians will be offended and grieved at us and judge ill of us and our worship But on the other side it is apparent if we do not use this Sign as the Law requireth then 1. Our Governours are offended the Church scandalized because her publick constitutions are violated And 2. Men that are not over-scrupulous will when they see us take liberty of disobeying in one thing be encouraged to take a greater liberty in dispensing with the Laws in other things to the despising both of the Laws and Governours yea and Government it self And 3. By our denying or disputing against this use of an Innocent Rite men that have tender Consciences or scrupulous Spirits will be induced to entertain scruples where they need not nor is there cause of them sometimes possibly to their own undoing and to the damage of the people under their charge and Ministery And really these Scandals are so much the greater as they are too manifestly given and are more than probable occasions of those sinnes and stumblings whereas the former sort though taken by others is not given by us § 40 3. But what cometh home to the matter and taketh off the Objection fully is this That in judging cases of Scandal we are not to look so much at the event what it is or may be as at the cause whence it comes For sometimes there is just cause of Scandal and yet no Scandal followeth because it is not taken Sometimes Scandal is taken and yet no just cause given