Presbyters Nor may we understand this of a naked presence only but by the order for the Practick they are to assist in the act too they are (s) See Rubr. in Form of Order Priests with the Bishop to lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth Orders And this Ordination I never knew questioned by any that allowed any Ordination by Ecclesiastical persons at all And the (t) Jus Divin Minist Evang. Part 2. London Divines have justified even in their judgements the validity of it Sect 61 3. The great and only thing that I know which affrights men from this Episcopal Ordination is the subscription by the Canon required and the Promise which they are to make of obedience to the Bishop To this I shall only say 1. Sect. 62 To omit what was (v) Sect. 18 19. said before as to the Promise of obedience We are required no more than those Reverend Brethren of the Presbyterian perswasion have declared to be their avowed principles (x) Account to the King of the confer p. 4. We are remembred say they that in things no way against the Law of God The Commands of our Governours not only may but Must be obeyed but if they command which God forbids we must patiently submit to suffering and every soul must be subject to the higher powers for Conscience sake and not resist The publick judgement Civil or Ecclesiastical belongeth only to publick persons and not to any private man That no man must be causlesly and pragmatically inquisitive into the reasons of his Superiors commands nor by pride and self-conceitedness exalt his own understanding above its worth and office but all to be modestly and humbly self-suspicious That none must erroneously pretend to Gods Law against the just commands of his Superiors nor pretend the doing of his duty to be sin That he who suspects his Superiors commands to be against Gods Laws must use all means for full information before he setteth in a course of disobeying them And that he who discovers indeed any thing commanded to be a sin though he must not do it must manage his opinion with very great tenderness and care of the publick peace and the Honour of his Governours These are our principles Now then when their avowed principles yield so much as indeed all sober Christians do and must and The Bishops require no more nor are those who are to be ordained to promise any more why may there not be a full compliance here why may we not promise that which we acknowledge we are obliged to perform But 2. Sect 63 The Subscription (y) Can. 36. required is only to these three Articles 1. That the Kings Majesty under God is the only Supreme Governour of this Realm and of all other His Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things and causes as Temporal and that no Forrein Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within His Majesties said Realms Dominions or Countries 2. That the Book of Common Prayer and of ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God and that it may lawfully be used and that he himself will use the form in the said book prescribed in all Publick Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and none other 3. That He alloweth the Articles of Religion agreed upon by the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord God One thousand five hundred sixty and two and that he acknowledgeth all and every the Articles therein contained being in number 39. besides the Ratification to be agreeable to the Word of Grd. Now in reference to this Subscription required let me but propound these things to be seriously considered and duly weighed Viz. 1. Sect. 64 That this is not an Arbitrary imposition of the Bishops But they are obliged by the same Law to require it as others are to do it They may not ordain or give Licence to any which refuse to subscribe upon pain of their own suspension So that we can neither impute this to the Bishops nor deny it our selves without opposing the standing Laws which do equally oblige both them and us 2. Sect. 65 Nor are the Articles of such a nature as to startle a sober conscientious person as such as may not be subscribed without sin For the First The Kings Supremacy none denies but the Papists and some few Sectaries All conscientious Protestants make no doubt or scruple of it and can clearly prove it For the last The Doctrine of the Church of England in the 39. Articles even those Brethren who dissent from the Government never charged them with any material error The scruple only is about the second The Common Prayer-book c. Sect. 66 Here by the way let me but observe how far those Divines of the Presbyterian perswasion even there where they desire a liberty from this Subscription do yet acknowledge how far they can and do consent to the things to be subscribed Their words are (z) 2d Pap. of Propos to His Majesty p. 24. We Humbly acquaint Your Majesty that we do not dissent from the Doctrine of the Church of England expressed in the Articles and Homilies But it is the controverted passages about Government Liturgy and Ceremonies and some by-passages and phrases in the Doctrinal part which are scrupled by those whose liberty is desired Not that we are against subscribing the proper rule of our Religion or any meet Confession of Faith Nor do we scruple the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy Nor would we have the door left open for Papists and Hereticks to come in Now I humbly propose this to be considered Whether upon this grant there may not be a cheerful subscription as is required for I cannot see more required to be subscribed than upon the point is here yielded and consented to for 1. Sect. 67 Here is professed No dissent from the Doctrine exprest in the 39. Articles and Homilies and That They are ready to subscribe any meet Confession of Faith or Rule of our Religion which those Articles are and must be esteemed to be in their judgements who profess they dissent not from them And this is the whole third Article to be subscribed For that which is objected concerning Some by-passages and phrases in the Doctrinal part This is nothing that should be of any force to hinder this Subscription which is not that we acknowledge the propriety of every phrase which is a thing below the consideration of serious men in matter of such weight Were such a thing as a Confession of Faith put under the curious censures of Criticks and Grammarians there would still be matter of dispute but the thing required is of an higher nature Be the By-Passages or Phrases what
the Government Apostolical and necessary or only Prudential brought in by the Church and not repugnant to the Holy rule or only as the Bishops are impowered and Commissioned under the King being here established I see not how we can without sin refuse a peaceable compliance with it Sect. 56 And I have reason to hope such a compliance in a good measure because those learned Brethren who though in their Proposals to His Majesty they desire that Chancellors Arch-deacons Commissaries c. as such may not pass any censures purely Spiritual yet when they say only as such it may intimate they would not deny them under another notion as Commissioned under His Majesty to do so These Brethren I say add this But for the exercise of Civil Government and this by their words there may seem to include the acts of Government in the Church and ecclesiastical Causes so far as the Censures are not purely Spiritual coercively by Mulcts or corporal penalties by power derived from Your Majesty as Supreme over persons and things ecclesiastical we presume not at all to interpose but shall submit to any that act by Your Majesties Commission Were indeed these Considerations well weighed they would do much to a peaceable obedience Sect. 57 Except Partic. 7 7. I know but one material exception more referring to this charge that The Bishops take too much upon them And that is The matter of Ordination and now the Re-ordination for thus it is excepted The Bishops some of them do assume sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction to themselves And now it is farther urged as unsufferable that upon their re-establishment they require a Re-ordination of all those who during the late Confusions were ordained only by a Presbytery Sect. 58 In answer to the business of a Superior ordo c. enough is already said But to the matter of Ordination and Re-ordination I say Answ 1 1. The Question is not what some challenge to themselves but how far we may yield in the thing that is challenged without sin If some challenge too much let them answer that but if we may without sin take from their hands that which we can legally have from no others I see not why we should in the least scruple to take it That Their hands are Necessary and that none can be regularly ordained without them is the Judgement of none of the least or lowest in the Church who think the Scripture speaks clearest on their side also For Though Timothy had the (h) 1 Tim. 4 14. Imposition of Hands of the Presbytery yet it is expressly said that he had (i) 2 Tim. 1.6 Pauls too and he not acting as one of them but under a distinct notion as the words if well weighed do more than intimate for whatsoever that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was which was given by that Laying on of Hands whether the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit usually in those dayes by the (k) Act. 8.17 18. Apostles hands or the Gift i. e. Authority of Ministery whether of a Bishop or Evangelist it matters not whatsoever I say the gift was it seems to be conferred (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chiefly by the hands of Paul and referred to the hands of the Presbytery (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but as assistants or associates with him But those texts seem to be more express where not only the Deacons were made by (n) Act 6.6 the sole hands of the Apostles but also in the ordaining of Presbyters we read that Barnabas and Paul those Apostles (o) Act. 14.23 did ordain Elders in every Church as they went we read not of any other hands with them St. Paul also layes this charge on Timothy (p) 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay thou hands suddenly on none intimating an act wherein he only was concerned for if there were other Presbyters or a Presbytery at Ephesus and they necessarily to joyn with him in every Ordination why is the charge only given to him why not the same caution urged on them And in that clause (q) T it 1. ◠For this cause left I thee in Creet that Thou shouldest ordain Elders in every City we see Titus infallibly left with authority to do this but we read not of any others appointed with him If any object He was an extraordinary Officer and Evangelist This signifies little for whatever he was he was an Apostolical person and for that time at least seated at that place for the particular Government of that church to perform not an extraordinary but a work of standing use in the Church the administration of an ordinary and perpetual Ordinance And why then in such a work he may not be conceived to act as a settled ordinary Officer I see not This we are sure of That Ordination was not given in those dayes without the hands of an Apostle or an Apostolical person We are not sure that it was not sometimes without the hands of the Presbytery Upon these grounds these learned and conscientious men judge a Necessity of the Episcopal or Apostolical hands though not excluding yet withal not necessarily requiring the hands of other Presbyters Sect. 59 On the other side that The Hands of Bishops are lawful in this work is granted so far by those who urge the greatest necessity of the Presbyterial Ordination yet excude not the Bishop See Jus Divin Minist Evang. 2. part who on their judgements ceaseth not to be at least a Presbyter and the Name of a Bishop doth not with them take away his interest of a Presbyter in Ordination nor nullifie the Orders because his Hands were in them Now then if we may but lawfully take it at the Bishops hands if it be required to be had from them alone though it should be supposed somewhat irregular and we can have it no other way without the violation of the Laws in being suppose they should sin in assuming that only to themselves which should be done joyntly with others yet we should not sin in taking it of them because they unquestionably have a power though possibly not the sole power Sect. 60 2. It is objected only Some Bishops challenge to themselves c. Now the matter is not what some particular men challenge but what the established constitution is It concerns not us to be of the same judgement with every particular Bishop but to obey them in that place where the Laws have set them and in that authority wherein the Constitutions of this Church have invested them Now the Laws of our Church give no such power of sole ordination nor doth any Bishop that I know or have heard practice it The Dean and Prebends were of old I doubt not accounted a standing Presbytery to the Bishop and the (r) Can. 31. Presence of four of these are expressly required to every Ordination viz. The Dean Arch-Deacon and two Prebendaries at least or in the necessary absence of them four other
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
severally At once together three times then each severally apart once then again once and thrice and afterwards thrice and once with a Crossing of himself between all this first with his hand then with the Host he Crosseth the Chalice three times then two odd times more to make up the five wounds of Christ then with the Patin he Crosseth himself once and the Chalice three times with a piece of the Host and once himself again with the Host over the Patin and lastly once himself again with the Chalice All which vanities stand not with the simplicity of Christs holy institution but take their beginning from Sorcerers and Magicians who do glory in one three and five and the like g Necte tribus nodis ternos Amarilli colores Virg. Eccl. 8. See more in Vierg de praestig daem l. 5. chap 4. Corn. Agr. de vanit scien c. 47 48. de occult Philos l. 2. c. 4 6 8. odde numbers § 30 2. But in Baptisme we still allow the Signe of the Crosse because Antiently generally received and simply applied and though abused by the Papist yet we could separate and have done so the corruption that is among them from the lawfull use that is retained with us Though they and we both us do use the Signe of the Crosse and that in the Sacrament Baptisme yet to a man of understanding the difference is great For indeed the Popish corruptions are all purged out of it as we see in the particulars sc For 1. They hold that with it they h Greâ—z de crnce l. 4. c. 36. 59. Consecrate Baptisme it self we only use it on the child Baptized 2. They make it a part of Divine worship we do not 3. They in an unknown tongue not giving a reason why nor to what end we in an known language giving all to understand that we are far from Popery or superstition 4. They hold the Sacrament of no force or very small many of them denying a child without the Crosse can have his Christendome as they call it we disclaime that Doctrine 5. They make it a matter of merit to deserve by we neither know nor preach any but the merits of our Lord and Saviour 6. They judge the Signe of the Crosse i De consecrat dist 5. c. nuuquid a matter of necessity unto salvation we only a thing indifferent in its own nature that may be left or retained as Authority seeth good 7. They as of the k Gretz de cruce l. 4. c. 13. essence that without sin may not be omitted we as an accident that upon lawfull cause may be separated 8. They l Bellar. de sanct Imag. l. 2. c. 30. worship it we do not 9. They use it m Gretz de cruce l. 4. c. 36. to drive away Devills we ascribe no such virtue to it 10. They use it daily hourly every moment upon every occasion we but once in Baptisme 11. They in every Part of the body we only in the Childs Forehead and but once only in token he is not to be ashamed c. 12. They write it satisfies for sin and n Per crucis hoe signum depellitur omne malignum preserveth from evill we prove the contrary 13. They teach it an infallible marke to distinguish a true professor from an Hereticke 14. They teach that nothing can be consecrated without it we disavow that Doctrine 15. They say it can and doth o Gretz l. 4. c. 49. cure bodily diseases we find no such thing 16. They teach it hath a virtue against all Inchantments we rather doubt it as they use it an Inchantment it selfe 17. Some among them p Gersom serm de B. Virg. part 3. consideratione 2. Cajetan in Thom. c. hold it may stead children in place of Baptisme we deny it Here we see then there are such and so many differences between us and the Papists that though we use the same Signe once yet we are far from owning their superstitions nor can our Church be therefore charged with Popery in this thing nor indeed q Duo cum faciunt idem non est idem to do the same thing as they do So that possible it is to retain as we do a lawfull use separate from all superstitious or Idolatrous abuses Therefore whatsoever abuses have been or yet are in the Church of Rome they are not chargeable on us who deny them nor is it necessary for us to lay aside the use of this Signe of the Crosse when we have thus purged it from the Popish corruptions and may keep it so purged still nor nor do the abuses of others of which we are not guilty former abuses among our selves if any have been which are not continued sull necessarily engage or oblige us to do it § 31 3. Hence are we helped to a ready answer and easie solution to that Analogicall Argument drawne from Hezekiahs act in Breaking the Brazen Serpent for indeed the Analogy holds not the case is different For § 32 1. The Brazen Serpent was not a signe only but that very materiall numericall Serpent r Num 21 8-2 King 18.4 which was made by Moses and was the instrument of the deliverance of their Fathers and was preserved to that day and people therefore were more ready to worship that as if that had saved them and so it was a more difficult thing to separate the Idolatry from the memoriall But in this Rite we have only a transient resemblance of a Crosse and nothing remains visible after the Action and so nothing to be objected to our eye or in danger to be abused or so to be worshipped § 33 2. That Brazen Serpent was so abused and Idolized not by others but by themselves and there was reason therefore to take from them that object of their own Idolatry But this Signe of the Crosse was not so abused by us but by the Romanists who widely differ from us in many main points and practices of Christianity Though there may be some Argument from this Act of Hezekiah to take away the Crosse and the use of the Signe among them who do so abuse it but it concerns not us who are not chargeable with such abuses § 34 3. Farther The Idolatry about the Brazen Serpent was not only sometime the sin of that people but it continued among them till the very time of the breaking of it That Zealous King therefore justly removed that Monument because the Idolatry accompanying it could not otherwise be removed Had it been free from that abuse it might have stood and served still as a remembrance of Gods goodnesse but being not so it must away it is but Nehushtan But there is no such thing in our use of the Crosse no superstition in the practice of the Church of England cleaving to it or continued among us Therefore from Hezekiah's destroying that to which they still burned incense to argue the necessity