as his judgement that the Scotch Ministers then to be Consecrated Bishops were not to be reordained because the Ordination of Presbyters was valid Sect. 5. These Novel Prelatical persons then that so far dissent frrom the whole stream of the Ancient Bishops and their adherents have little reason to expect that we should regard their judgement above the judgement of the English Clergy and the judgement of all the Reformed Churches If they can give us such Reasons as should conquer our modestie and perswade us to condemn the judgement of the Plelates and Clergy of England all other Churches of the Protestants and adhere to a few new men of yesterday that dare scarcely open the face of their own opinions we shall bow to their Reasons when we discern them But they must not expect that their Authority shall so far prevail Sect. 6. And indeed I think the most of this cause is carried on in the dark What Books have they written to prove our Ordination Null and by what Scripture Reasons do they prove it The task lieth on them to prove this Nullity if they would be Regarded in their reproaches of the Churches of Christ. And they are not of such excessive Modesty and backwardness to divulge their accusations but sure we might by this time have expected more then one volume from them to have proved us No Ministers and Churchess if they could have done it And till they do it their whsperings are not to be credited Sect. 7. Argument 2. If that sort of Prelacy that was exercised in England was not necessary it self yea if it were sinfull and tended to the subversion or exceeding hurt of the Churches then is there no Necessity of Ordination by such a Prelacy But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The Antecedent hath been proved at large in the foregoing Disputation Such a Prelacy as consisteth in the undertaking of an impossible task even for one man tâ— be the only Governour of all the souls in many hundred Parishes exercising it also by Lay men and in the needful parts not exercising it all all a Prelacy not chosen by the Presbyters whom they Govern yea suspending or degrading â—he Presbyters of all those Churches as to the governing part of theâ—â— office and guilty of the rest of the evils before mentioned is not only it self unnecessary but sinful and a disease of the Church which all good men should do the best they can to cure And therefore the effects of this disease can be no more Necessary to our Ministry then the burâ—ing of a feaver or swelling of a Tympany is necessary to the body Sect. 8. No Bishops are Necessary but such as were in Scriture times But there were none such as the late English Bishops in Scripture times Therefore the English Bishopâ— are not necessary He that denyeth the Major must go further in denying the sufficiency of Scripture then I find the Papists ordinarily to do For they will be loth to affirm that any office is of Necessity to the Being of the Church or of Presbyters that is not to be found in Scripture or that was not then in Being Therefore so far we are secure Sect. 9. And for the Minor I prove it thus If the English Bishops were â—either such as the unfixed General Ministers nor such as the fixed Bishops of particular Churches then were they not such as were in Scripture times But they were neither such as the unfixed General Ministers nor such as the fixed Bishops of particular Churches therefore c. Sect. 10. Besâ—des these two sorts of Ministers there are no more in the New Testament And these aâ—e diversified but by the exercise of their office so far as they were ordinary Ministers to continue The unfixed Ministers whether Apostles Evangelâ—sts or Prophets were â—uch as had no special charge of any one Church as their Diocess but were to do their best for the Church in general and follow the direction and call of the Holy Ghost for the exercising of their Ministry But it s known to all that our Engsish Bishops were not such They were no ambulatory itinerant Preachers they went not about to plant Churches and confirm and direct such as they had planted but were fixed to a City and had every one their Diocess which was their proper charge but Oh how they discharged their undertaking Sect. 11. Object The Apostles might agree among them selves to divide their Provinces and did accordingly James being Bishop of Jerusalem Peter of Rome c. Answ. No doubt but common reason would teach them when they were sent to preach the Gospel to all the world to disperse themselves and not be preaching all in a place to the disadvantage of their work But 1. It s one thing to travail several ways and so divide themselves as itinerants and another thing to divide the Churches among them as their several Diocesses to whâ—ch they should be fixed Which they never did for ought is proved 2. And its one thiâ—g prudently to disperse themselves for their labour anâ— another thing to claim a special power over a Circuit or Diocess as their charge excluding a like charge and power of others So far as any man Apostle or other was the Father of souls by their conversion they owned him a special honour and love which the Apostles themselves did sometimes claim But this was nothing to a peculiar Diocess or Province For in the same City a Ierusalem some might be converted by one Apostle and some by another And if a Presbyter convert them I think the adversaries will not therefore make them his Dâ—ocess not give him there an Episcopal Power much less above Apostles in that place Nor was this the Rule that Diocesses could be bounded by as now they are taken Sect. 12. Nor do we find in Scripture the least intimation that the Apostles were fixed Diocesan Bishops but much to the contrary 1. In that it was not consistent with the General charge and work that Christ had laid upon them to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature How would this stand with fixing in a peculiar Diocess Sect. 13. And 2. We find them answering their Commission in their practice going abroad and preaching and planting Churches and sometimes visiâ—ing them in their passage but not sâ—tling on them as their Diocesses but going further if they had opportunity to do the like for other places Yea they planted Bishops in the several Cities and Churches which they had gathered to Christ. Though Paul staid three years at Ephesus and other adjacent parts of Asia yet did not all that abode prove it his peculiar Diocess And yes its hard to find again so long an abode of Paul or any Apostle in one place Elders that were Bishops we find at Ephesus Acts 20. and some say Timothy was their Bishop and some say Iohn the Apostle was their Bishop but its clear that it was
Elders having no power of Ordination or Government And to say that by Elders in each Church is meant only one Elder in each Church is to forsake the letter of the text without any proved Necessity We suppose it therefore safer to believe according to the first sence of the words that it was Elders in every Church that is more then one in every Church that were ordained And what sort of Churches these were appears in the following verses where even of the famous Church of Antioch its said Verse 27. when they were come and had gathered the Church together they rehearsed all that God had done by them So that its plain that this Church was a Congregation to whom they might make such rehearsal And Chap. 15.3 It s said that they were brought on their way by the Church And if it be not meant of all but a part of the Church yet it intimateth what is aforesaid To conclude though many of these texts may be thought to speak doubtfully yet consider 1. That some do most certainly declare that it was particular stated Assemblies that were then called Churches even Governed Churches having their Officers present 2. That there is no certain proof of any one particular Political Church that consisted of many such stated Assemblies 3. That therefore the Texts that will bear an exposition either way must be expounded by the certain and not by the uncertain texts so that I may argue thus If in all the New Testament the word Church do often signifie stated worshipping single Assemblies and often is used so as may admit that interpretation and is never once used certainly to signifie many particular stated worshipping Assemblies ruled by one fixed Bishop then we have any just cause to suppose that the particular Political Churches in Scripture times consisted but of one such stated Congregation But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent As for the New Episcopal Divines that say There were no subject Presbyâ—ers in Scripture times I suppose according to their principles they wâ—ll grant me all this as is aforesaid And for others the Instances that they bring to the contrary should be briefly considered The great swaying Instance of all which did sometime prevail with me to be my self of another mind is the Numerous Church at Ierusalem Of which its said that three thousand were converted at once and five thousand at another time and the word mightily grew and prevailed and daily such were added to the Church as should be saved to whâ—ch some add the mention of the Miriades of believing Jews yet zealous of the Law which the brethren mentioned to Paul Acts 21.20 And the instance of Ephesus and Rome come next But I remember how largely this business is debated between the late Assembly at Westminster and the Dissenting Brethren that I think it unmeet to interpose in it any further then to annex these few considerations following 1. That all that is said on that side doth not prove certainly that that one Church at Ierusalem was the eighth part so big as Giles Cripple-gate Parish or the fifth part so big as Stepney or Sepulchres nor neer so big as Plimoth or some other Country Parishes 2. That it is past doubt that the magnitude of that Body of Believers then at Ierusalem was partly acccidental and the members cannot at all be proved settled cohabitants nor that Church as in its first unordered Mass be the proved to be the fittest pattern for imitation 3. That Christ hath not punctually determined how many members shall be in a particular Church 4. But the ends being personal holy communion are the Rule by which humane prudence must determine it 5. That its fitter one Church instance give way to many in point of our imitation then of many to that one caeteris paribus 6. That it s known among us that more then are proved to have been members of that Church may hear one man preach at the same time I have none of the loudest voices and yet when I have preached to a Congregation judged by judicious men to be at least ten thousand those farthest off said they could well hear as I was certainly informed 7. That its certain by many passages historicall in â—cripture that men did then speak to greater multitudes and were heard at far greater distance then now they can orderly be which I conjecture was because their voices were louder as in most dryer bodies which dryer Countreys have is commonly seen when moister bodies have ofâ—er hoarser voices and other reasons might concur 8. That it is confessed or yielded that the Church at Ierusalem might all hear at once though not all receive the Lords Supper together And if so then they were no more then might at once have personal communion in some holy Ordinances and that the Teachers might at once make known their minds to 9. And then the reason of receiving the Supper in several places seems to be but because they had not a room so fit to receive all in as to hear in And so we have now in many Parishes Assemblies subordinate to the chief Assembly For divers families at once may meet at one house and divers at another for repetition prayer or other duties and some may be at Chappels of ease that cannot come to the full assembly 10 They that are for Presbyâ—erial Churches of many Congregations do not say that There must be many to make the first political Church but only that There may be many If then there be no Necessitâ— of it 1. Should it not be forborn when it appeareâ—h to prudence most inconvenient as frequently it will no doubt 2. And when it is Necessary for a peaceable Accommodation beâ—ause others think it a sin should not a May be give place to a Must not be in pacificatory consultations caeteris paribus 11. It is granted also by them that the Pastors of one Congregation have not a charge of Governing other neighbour Congregation in Consistory one rather then another which they gâ—vern not though perhaps as neer them but bâ— conâ—ent And therefore as there is but a licet not an oportet of such consent pleaded for so while no such consent is given we have no such châ—â—ge of Governing neighbour Congregations and none may force us to such consent 12. And Lastly that if a siâ—gle Congregation with it own Officer or Officers be not a true particular Political Church then our ordinary Parish assemblies are none and where the Presbyterian Government is not set up which is up but in few places of England it would then follow that we have no true Political Churches left among us perhaps never had which I meet yet with few so uncharitable as to affirm except the Papists and the Separatists and a few of the new sort of Episcopal Divines who think we have no Churches for want of â—ishops except where Bishops yet are retained and acknowleged For my part I
spoke of such Bishops only as we have in question or that he did not plainly speak of Presbyters as such For he speaks of the plenitude of Power and Grace in the Church and therefore intended more then what was proper to a Prelate 2. He mentioneth Elders Majores natu in general without distinction And 3. His praesident is plainly related to the Church as the ubi shews it being the People and not the Elders over whom these Elders are said to preside And 4. Baptizing is first instanced which was known to be commonly the work of Presbyters and never appropriated to the Prelate So that the same persons that did Baptize even the Elders of the Church according to Firmilian did then possess the power of laying on hands and of ordaining But these things are more fully discussed in what followeth And if any either adversary or friend would see the Reformed Churches Ministry and Ordination more fully vindicated I refer them to Voetius against Jasenius Desperata causa Papatus which if I had read before I had written this Disputation I think I should have spared my labour Reader if others are too busie to misled thee I may suppose thee unwilling to be misled especially in a matter of so great concernment For saith Blessed Agustine Multos invenimus qui mentiri velint qui autem falli â—eminem de Doctrin Christ. l. 1. cap. 36. And therefore as thou lovest Christ his Church and Gospel and the souls of others and thine own take heed how thou venturest in following a sect of angry men to unchurch so great and excellent a part of the Catholich Church and to vilifie and depose so great a number of able faithfull Ministers of Christ as those that had not Prelatical Ordination And if you are Gentlemen or unlearned men that for want of long and diligent studying of these matters are uncapable of judging of them and therefore take all on the Authority of those whose Learning and parts you most esteem I beseech you before you venture your souls on it any further procure a satisfactory answer to these Questions 1. Whether the Reformed Churches that have no Prelates have not abounded with as learned men as any one of those that you admire of a contrary judgement 2. If you are tempted to suspect men of partiality whether they that plead for Lorship honour and preferment or they that plead against it and put it from them are more to be suspected caâ—teris paribus 3. If you will needs suspect the Protestant Ministers of partiality what ground of suspicion have you of them that were no Ministers such as the two Scaligers whose learning made them the admiration of the Christian world even to Papists as well as Protestants and yet were cordial friends to those Reformed Churches which these men deny and draw men to disown Such also as Salmasius that hath purposely wrote about the subject with abundance more 4. If these are not to be trusted why should not Bishops themselves be trusted were not Bishop Usher Andrews Davenant Hall and others of their mind as learned pious men as any whose Authority you can urge against them 5. If all this be nothing I beseech you get a modest resolution of this doubt at least whether the concurrent judgement of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom even of the English Bishops with the rest should not be of more authority with any sober Protestant then the Contrary judgement of those few that are of late risen up for the cause that you are by them solicited to own It is a known Truth that the generality of the Bishops themselves and all the Protestant Churches in the world have owned them as true Ministers that were ordained by Presbyteries without Prelates and have owned them as true Churches that were guided by these Ministers and have taken them for valid administrations that were performed by them And are your few Recusants that would draw you to separation of greater Learning authorty and regard then all the Protestants in the world besides I beseech you if you will needs take things upon trust consider this and trust accordingly Though I must say it is pitty that any truely Catholick Christian should not have better grounds than these and be able himself in so palpable a case to perceive his duty For my own part my conscience witnesseth that I have not written the following Disputation out of a desire to quarrel with any man but am drawn to it to my great displeasure by the present danger and necessity of the Churches and by compassion to the souls that are turned from the publick Ordinances and engaged in the separation and also of the Churches that are divided and troubled by these means The sad complaints of many of my Brethren from several parts have moved my heart to this undertaking Through Gods Mercy I have peace at home but I may not therefore be insensible of the divisions and calamities abroad I shall adjoin here one of the Letters that invited me and no more because in that one you may see the scope and tenour of the rest and that I rush not on this displeasing work without a Call nor before there is a cause The passages that intimate an ever-valuing of my self you may charitably impute to the Authors juniority and humility with some mistake through distance and disacquaintance One of the Letters that invited me to this task Reverend Sir UNderstanding by the Preface to the Reader before your Gildaâ— Salvianus that you intend a second part wherein you promise to speak of the way how to discern the true Church and Ministry I make bold to present you with the desire of some Godly Ministers viz. that if you see it convenient you would do some thing towards the vindication of the present Churches and Ministers from the aspersions of the new Prelatical party in England It is a principle much made of by many of the Gentry and others that we are but Schismatical branches broken off from the true body and this by faithfull tradition is spread amongst them the learning of some rigid Prelatical Schollars is very prevalent with them to make them thus account of us With these men we must be all unchurched for casting off Diocesan Episcopacy though we be found in the faith and would spend our selves to save souls and the main substance of our Ordination at least cannot be found fault with yet because we had not a Bishop to lay his hands on us we are not sent from God Of what consequence this opinion may prove if it spread without being checked an ordinary apprehension may perceive I can guess something from what I observe from those of this leaven already that our most serious pains will be little regarded if our people take this infection when we would awaken them we cannot because they take it that we have no power to teach them It must not be men of mean parts that must
Presbyters and then the Government of the Church will be such as you blame Ans. It is the thing I plead for that every Church may have such Bishops as they had in the Apostles days and not meer new devised Presbyters that are of another Office and Order Sect. 23. Object Bishops had Deacons to attend them in the Scripture times though not Presbyters therefore it follows not that Bishops had then but One Congregation Answ. Yes beyond doubt For Deacons could not and did not perform the Pastoral part in the whole publick worship of any stated Churches They did not preach as Deacons and pray and praise God in the publick Assemblies and administer the Sacraments It 's not affirmed by them that are against us therefore there were no more Churches then Bishops Sect. 24. Object But what doth your Arguing make against the other Episcopal Divines that are not of the opinion that there were no meer Presbyters in Scripture times Answ. 1. Other Arguments here are as much against them though this be not if they maintain that sort of Episcopacy which I oppose 2. They also confess the smalness of Churches in Scripture times as I have shewed out of Bishop Downam and that is it that I plead for Sect. 25. Object But if you would have all reduced to the state that de facto the Church Government was in in Scripture times you would have as but one Church to a Bishop so but One Bishop to a Church as Dr. H. Dissert 4 c. 19 20 21 22. hath proved copiously that is that Scripture mentioneth no assistant Presbyters with the Bishop and would that please you that think a single Congregation should have a Presbyterie You should rather as he teacheth you c. 21. p. 237. be thankful to Ignatius and acknowledge the dignity of your Office ab â—o primario defensore astrui propugnari Answ. As we make no doubt from plain Scripture to prove and have proved it that single Churches had then many Presbyters some of them at least So having the greatest part of Fathers and Episcopal Divines of our mind herein even Epiphanius himself we need not be very solicitous about the point of Testimony oâ— Authority 2. We had rather of the two have but one Pastor to a Congregation then one to a hundred or two hundred Congregations having a Presbyter under him in each authorized only to a part of the work 3. Either the distinct Office of the Presbyters is of Divine Institution to be continued in the Church or not If not Bishops or some body it seems may put down the Office If it be then it seems all Gods Vniversal standing Laws even for the species of Church Officers are not contained in Scripture And if not in Scripture where then If in the Fathers 1. How shall we know which are they and worthy of that name and honor 2. And what shall we do to reconcile their contradictions 3. And what number of them must go to be the true witnesses of a Divine Law 4. And by what note may we know what points so to receive from them and what not But if it be from Councils that we must have the rest of the Laws of God not contained in the Scripture 1. Is it from all or some only If from all what a case are we in as obliged to receive Contradictions and Heresies If from some only which are they and how known and why they rather then the rest Why not the second of Ephesus as well as the first at Constantinople But this I shall not now further prosecute unless I were dealing with the Papists to whom have said more of it in another writing 4. Ignatius his Presbyters were not men of another Office nor yet set over many Churches that had all but one Bishop But they were all in the same Churches with the Bishop and of the same Office only subject to his moderation or presidency for Vnity and Order sake and this we strive not against if limited by the general Rules of Scripture Sect. 26. Object Those that you have to deal with say not that There were no Presbyters in the Apostles days but only that in the Apostles writings the word Bishops always signifies Bishops and the word Elders either never or but rarely Presbyters But it is possible for them to be in the time of those writings that are not mentioned in those writings and the Apostles times were larger then their writings as you are told Vind. against the Lond. Minist p. 106. Ans. 1. The words I cited from Annot. in Act. 11. faithfully which you may peruse which say that there is no evidence that in Scripture times any of the second Order were instituted So that it is not Scripture writings only but Scripture times that 's spoken of And 2. If there be no evidence of it the Church cannot believe it or affirm it for it judgeth not of unrevealed things and therefore to us it is no Institution that hath no evidence 3. The Apostles were all dead save John before the end of Scripture times So that they must be instituted by John only And John dyed the next year after Scripture times as the chief Chronologers judge For as he wrote his Apocalypse about the 14 th year of Domitian so his Gospel the year before Trajan and dyed the next year being after the commoner reckoning An. D. 98. and some think more And what likelihood or proof at least that John did institute them the year that he dyed when the same men tell us of his excursion into Asia to plant Elders bâ—fore that year it 's like 4. And if they were not instituted in Scripture time then no testimony from Antiquity câ—n prove them then instituted But indeed if we had such testimony and nothing of it in the Scripture it self we should take it as little to our purpose For 5. doth Antâ—quity say that the Institution was Divine of Universal obligation to the Church or only that it was but a prudential limitation of the exercise of the same Office the like I demand of other like Testimonies in case of Diocesses Metropolitans c. If only the later it binds us not but proveth only the licet and not the oportet at least as to all the Church And then every Countrey that finds cause may set up another kind of government â—ut if it be the former that is asserted as from antiquity then the Scripture containeth not all Gods Vniversal Laws Which who ever affirmeth must go to Fathers or Councils instead of Scripture to day and to the infallibility of the Pope or a Prophetical Inspiration to morrow and next Sect. 27. Once more to them that yet will maintain that the Apostles modelled the Ecclesiastical form to the Civil and that as a Law to the whole Church we take it as their Concession that then we ow no more obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury then to the Civil Magistrate of Canterbury and especially
Churches must remain polluted and ungoverned through the unavoidable absence of those twelve or thirteen men The Apostles therefore did admonish Pastors to do their duties and when themselves were present had power to do the like and to censure Pastors or people that offended but they did not take on them the full Government of any Church nor keep a Negative vote in the Government Prop. 15. It seems utterly untrue that Christ did deliver the Keyes only to the twelve Apostles as such and so only to their Successors and not the seventy Disciples or any Presbyters For 1. The seventy also were General unfixed Officers and not like fixed Presbyters or Bishops and therefore having a larger Commission must have equal power 2. The Apostles were not single Bishops as now they are differenced from others but they were such as had more extensive Commissions then those now called Arch Bishops or Patriarchs If therefore the Keyes were given them as Apostles or General Officers then they were never given to Bishops For Bishops as fixed Bishops of this or that Diocess are not Successors of the Apostles who were Geneâ—al unfixed Officers 3. It is granted commonly by Papists and Protestants that Presbyters have the power of the Keyes though many of them think that they are limited to exercise them under the Bishops and by their Direction and Consent of which many School-men have wrote at large 4. The Key of Excommunication is but a Ministerial Authoritative Declaration that such or such a known Offendor is to be avoided and to charge the Church to avoid Communion with him and him to avoid or keep away from the Priviledges of the Church and this a meer Presbyter may do he may authoritatively Declare such a man to be one that is to be avoided and charge the Church and him to do accordingly The like I may say of Absolution if they belong to every authorized Pastor Preacher and Church guide as such then not to a Bishop only but to a Presbyter also And that these Keyes belong to more then the Apostles and their Successors is plain in that these are insufficient Naturally to use them to their Ends. An Apostle in Antioch cannot look to the censuring of all persons that are to be Censured at Athens Paris London c. so that the most of the work would be totally neglected if only they and their supposed Successors had the doing of it I conclude therefore that the Keyes belong not only to Apostles and their Successors in that General Office no nor only to Diocesan Bishops for then Presbyters could not so much as exercise them with the Bishops in Consistory which themselves of late allow Prop. 16. The Apostles were fallible in many matters of fact and consequently in the Decisions that depended thereupon as also in the Prudential determination of the time and season and other Cirumstances of known duties And thence it was that Paul and Barnabas so disagreed even to a parting where one of them was certainly in the wrong And hence Peter withdrew from the uncircumcision and misled Barnabas and others into the same dissimulation so far that he was to be blamed and withstood Gal. 2. Prop. 17. In such Cases of misleading an Apostle was not to be follownd no more is any Church-Governor now but it is lawful and needful to dissent and withstand them to the face and to blame them when they are to be blamed for the Churches safety as Paul did by Peter Galatians 2.1 Prop. 18. In this Case the Apostles that by Office were of equal Authority yet were unequal when the Reasons and Evidence of Gods mind which they produced was unequal so that a Presbyter or Bishop that produceth better Reasons is to be obeyed before another that produceth less Reason or that Erreth And the Bishop of another Church that produceth better Evidence of Gods mind is to be obeyed before the proper Bishop of that same Church that produceth weaker and worse Evidence Yea a private man that produceth Gods Word is to be obeyed before Bishops and Councils that go against it or without it in that case where the word bindeth us so that in all cases where Scripture is to determine he that bringeth the best Scripture proof is the chief Ruler that is ought chiefly to prevail Though in the determination of meer Circumstances of duty which Scripture determineth not but hath left to Church-Guides to determine pro re natâ it may be otherwise so that the Apostles power in determining matters of faith was not as Church-Governors but as men that could produce the surest Evidence Prop. 19. It is not easie to manifest whether every Presbyter in prima instantia be not an Officer to the Church Universal before he be affixed to a particular Church and whether he may not go up and down over the world to exercise that office where ever he hath admittance And if so what then could an Apostle have done by vertue of his meer office without the advantage of his extraordinary abilities and priviledges which the Presbyter may not do May an Apostle charge the people where he comes to avoid this or that seducer or heretick so may any Preacher that shall come among them and that by authority May an Apostle Excommunicate the very Pastor of the place and deprive him why what is that but to perswade the people and Authoritatively require them to avoid and withdraw from such a Pastor if the Cause be manifest And so may any Pastor or Preacher that comes among them For if as Cyprian saith it chiefly belong to the people even of themselves to reject and withdraw from such a Pastor then a Preacher may by Authority perswade and require them to do their own duty Yet I shall acknowledge that though both may do the same duty and both by Authority yet possibly not both by equal Authority but an Apostle Majore authoritate and so may lay a stronger obligation on men to the same duty but the rest I determine not but leave to enquiry Prop. 20. In making Laws or Canons to bind the Church which are now laid down in Scripture the Apostles acted as Apostles that is as men extraordinarily Commissioned illuminated and enabled infallibly to deliver Gods will to the world And therefore herein they have no Successors In Conclusion therefore seeing that matters of meer Order and Decency depending on Circumstances sometime rationally mutable sometime yearly daily hourly mutable are not to be determined Vniversally alike to all the Church nor to all a Nation nor by those that are at too great a distance but by the present Pastor who is to manage the work and being intrusted therewith is the fittest Judge of such variable Circumstances and seeing for standing Ordinances that equally belong to all ages and places Gods word is perfect and sufficient without the Bishops Canons and seeing that Scripture is a perfect Law of God and Rule of Christian faith and seeing that
no Transgression but here is no Law of God commanding Christmas day or the other Holy daies therefore there is no transgression in not keeping them And then 9. it is not so sure that there is no transgression in keeping them therefore the surer side is to be taken 10. And it seems strange that we find not so much as any ancient general Council making any mention of Christmas or such daies though of the Martyrs daies some do All these reasons which I run over hastily and many more which for brevity I pretermit do seem to make it a very hard question whether the keeping of this sort of Holy daies be lawfull § 47. And it is not to be much stuck at that a Day to Christ doth seem more necessary and pious then a Day in commemoration of a Martyr or a particular Mercy For in the highest parts of Gods worship God hath left man least to do as to Legislation and Decisions and usurpations here are far most dangerous A weekly Day is somewhat more then an Annâ—versary And yet I think there is few of the contrary minded but would doubt whether man might impose on the Church the observation of another weekly Holy day in commemoration of Christs Nativity The worship of God is a more excellent and necessary thing then the veneration due to a worthy person And yet we have not so much liberty to make new waies of worshiping God as of veneration to men So is it here though even the Daies that are for the memorial of the Saints are ultimately for the honour of God yet those that are set apart directly and immediately to commemorate the work of Redemption are Relatively much higher and therefore seem to be more exempted from the Determination of humane laws § 48. By this and much more I am fully satisfied 1. That the keeping of these daies is a thing of it self unnecessary 2. And that there being none on earth that can justly pretend to a power of universal Government over the whole Catholick Church it is certain that none on earth can bind the Catholick Church to such observances The Canons of Pastors are Authoritative Directions to their own flocks that are bound to obey them so it be in lawful things but to other Churches or to their fellow Pastors they are but Agreements and how far they bind I shall shew anon 3. And even in a single Church or a Province or Nation I am satisfied that it is a great sin for Magistrates or Pastors to force all that scruple it to the observation of these daies and to lay the unity or Peace of their Churches on it and to cast out censure reproach or punish them that dare not obey such impositions for fear of sining against God And it is a most dsingenuous thing to insinuate and put into the minds of men accusations of the Impiety of the dissenters and to perswade the world that it is irreligiousness or humorous singularity when it is so known a thing to all that know them that the persons that scruple or disown these daies do ordinarily walk in uprightness and the fear of God in other matters and profess that it is only a fear of breaking the Laws of God that keeps them from conformity to the will of others and that they are reproached by the multitude of the observers of these daies for their spending the Lords Day in Holy exercises which the reproachers spend too much in idleness sensuality or prophaness and it is not long since many of them were cast out of the Ministerial service or suspended for not reading a Book authorizing Dancing and other recreations on the Lords day In a word to reproach them as Precisians and Puritans for the strictness of their lives and yet at the same time to perswade men that they are ungodly for not keeping Holy daies or not kneeling at the Sacrament is not ingenuous dealing and draws too neer the Manners of the Pagans who called the Christians ungodly because they durst not offer their sacrifices and when they dragd them to the judgement-seats they cryd Tollite impios as iâ— themselves were the Godly men I compare not the matter of the causes here but only the temper of the persons and manner and justice of proceedings § 49. And yet for all this I am resolved if I live where such Holy daies as these are observed to censure no man for observing them nor would I deny them liberty to follow their judgements if I had the power of their Liberties provided they use not reproach and violence to others and seek not to deprive them of their Liberties Paul hath so long agoe decided these cases Rom. 14. 15. that if men would be Ruled by the word of God the controversie were as to the troublesome part of it at an end They that through weakness observe a Day to the Lord that is not commanded them of God should not judge their brethren that observe it not and they that observe it not should not despise or set at naught their weaker though censorious brethren that observe it but every one should be fully perswaded in his own mind The Holy Ghost hath decided the case that we should here bear with one another § 50. Yea more I would not only give men their Liberty in this but if I lived under a Government that peremptorily commanded it I would observe the outward rest of such a Holy day and I would preach on it and joyn with the Assemblies in Gods worship on it Yea I would thus observe the Day rather then offend a weak brother or hinder any mans salvation much more rather then I would make any division in the Church I think in as great matters as this did Paul condescend when he circumcised Timothy and resolved to eat no flesh while he lived rather then offend his brother and to become all things to all men for their good Where a thing is evil but by accident the greatest Accidents must weigh down the less I may lawfully obey and use the day when another doth unlawfully command it And I think this is the true case § 51. 7. And for the next ceremony the Name and form of an Altar no doubt it is a thing indifferent whether the Table stand this way or that way and the Primitive Churches used commonly the names of Sacrifice and Altar and Priest and I think lawfully for my part I will not be he that shall condemn them But they used them but metaphorically as Scripture it self doth Heb. 13.10 15 16. Rom. 12.1 Ephes. 5.2 Phil. 2.17 4.18 All believers are called Priests and their service Sacrifices 1 Pet. 2.5 9. Rev. 1.6 5.10 20.6 I conceive that the dislike of these things in England the form and name of an Altar and the Rails about it was not as if they were simply evil But 1. because they were illegal innovations forced on the Churches without Law or any just authority
And 2. because the way of those times did cause men to suspect that somewhat worse was intended to be brought in by such preparatives especially when the Ministers were cast out § 52. 8. But of all our Ceremonies there is none that I have more suspected to be simply unlawfull then the Cross in Baptism The rest as I have said I should have submitted to rather then hinder the Service or Peace of the Church had I been put to it For living in those daies in a Priviledged place I had my liberty in all save Daies and the Gesture But this I durst never meddle with And yet I know that many think it as reasonable and more venerable then any of the rest Yet dare I not peremptorily say that it is unlawfull nor will I condemn either Antients or Moderns that use it nor will I make any disturbance in the Church about it more then my own forbearance will make only my own practice I was forced to suspend and must do if it were again imposed on me till I were better satisfied The Reasons that most move me I shall give you in the end but some of them take at the present § 53. 1. This is not the meer circumstance of a Duty but a substantial humane ordinance of worship nor is it necessary in genere that man ordain any such symbolical Mystical signs for Gods worship And therefore it is a matter totally exempt from humane Power There must be some Time some place some gesture some vesture some utensils c. But you cannot say that There must be some teaching symbols or mystical signs stated by humane institution in Gods worship There is no command to man in Scripture de genere to institute any such thing And therefore in the case of Circumstantials I shall usually of which more anon obey the Magistrate even where he doth mistake because it is his own work though he misdoe it But here his action is like that of a judge in alieno foro in another court where he hath no power and therefore his judgement is null It is not an act of Authority to make and state new mystical signs that are such in their primary use in Gods worship For there is no Power but of God And God hath given no such power They that say he hath let them prove it if they can Natural and Artificial helps we disallow not But Instituted signs that have what they have by Institution and that as a solemn stated ordinance I know not that ever God required or accepted from the invention of man I doubt this will prove a meer usurpation and nullity and worse § 54. 2. Yea I suspect it will prove a humane Sacrament either fully a Sacrament or so neer a kin to Sacraments as that man hath nothing to do to institute it The common prayer saith that a Sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace given to us ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof in the Catech. Let us try by this definition whether the Cross in Baptism as used in England be a Sacrament § 55. And 1. I may take it for granted that the want of the Name makes it not to be no Sacrament And 2. whereas in the definition it is said that it is ordained by Christ himself that belongs to a Divine Sacrament only and not to a humane Sacrament devised by usurpers Otherwise you must say that there is no such thing possible as a humane Sacrament imposed by usurpers on the Church what if all the essentials of a Sacrament such as are found in Baptism and the Lords supper be invented by man and forced on the Church is it therefore no Sacrament or only no Divine Sacrament However let us not differ about bare names and words It is the same thing that you call a Sacrament when God is the ordainer and sure it will not prove it lawfull because man is the ordainer that 's it that makes it unlawfull because he wants authority and acts as an usurper The Papists affirm that man hath not power to make new Sacraments no not the Pope himself Let not us go further § 56. And 1. the outward visible sign here is the Cross made in the fore-head 2. The inward and Spiritual grace is a holy Resolution to fight manfully under the banner of Christ and to persevere therein The Cross signifieth the Instrument of the sufferings of Christ aad that we do own this Crucified Saviour and are not ashamed of him and will manfully fight under him So that here is 1. a signification of Grace to be wrought on the Soul and given us by God 2. an engagement to perform the duties of the Covenant our selves On Gods part we are to receive by this sign both Qualitative or actual Grace and Relative Grace 1. The Cross is to teach our understandings and help our memories and quicken up our dull affections by minding us of a Crucified Christ and the benefits of his Cross. § 57. That it is ordained for this use appeareth from the words anon to be recited in the use of it and by those words prefixed before the the Common prayer-book of Ceremonies why some are abolished and some retained where they say that they be not darke and dumb Ceremonies but are so set forth that every man may understand what they do mean and to what use they do serve and that they are such as are apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edified So that this and such other if there be more such are appointed by their signification to teach the Understanding and stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God Which are good works but to be done only by good means § 58. And that this is a way of working Grace in the same kind as Gods word and Sacraments do is undeniable For the word and Sacraments do work Grace but Morally by propounding the object and so objectively Teaching Remembring and Exciting and thus working on the Understanding Memory and Will and Affections However the spirit may work within its certain that the ordinances work no otherwise And not only Protestants are agreed on this but one would think that the Jesuits and all of their mind should be most of all for it For faculties they that will not confess any Physical determination of the but make all operations both of Word Sacraments and Spirit it self to be but suasory or Moral one would think should hold more tenaciously then others that Sacraments work Grace but Morally And if no Sacraments do more then objectively Teach and excite and the Cross is appointed to do as much in this then there is no difference between them to be found § 59. And then for Relative Grace it is plain that by