Iowest political church but as constituted by the political union of congregational or parochial churches held also to be political under an officer of another order and the proper superior of those officers under which the parochial churches immediately are then let it be observed that a church of this frame is not properly an Episcopal but an Archiepiscopal Church For the churches whereof it is compacted are properly Episcopal being such as have each of them their own bishop pastor or elder But the divine right of such an Archiepiscopal church I leave to further inquiry As for a National church I come now to inquire in what sence it may or may not be granted In a more general notion it is some part of the universal church distinguished and severed from the rest of that body by the limits of a Nation or of a civil state or in other terms a nation of Christian churches or the Christian churches of a Nation But there are more express and special notions thereof respecting the frame of Ecclesiastical Polity which are discrepant from each other And about the being thereof in these special notions mens judgments vary Some own a national church in this sence only viz. a nation of churches or the churches of a nation agreeing at least in the essentials of christian Dectrine divine Worship and church-Government Some own a national church in a stricter sense namely the said churches not only agreeing in the points aforesaid but politically united by the same common band of Ecclesiastical Government under one head personal or collective And this stricter sence hath a subdivision for it may be understood of the churches united in a Civil Ecclesiastical polity under a civil head or supream or of the churches embodyed in the band of a polity purely Ecclesiastical under a spiritual head or supream I own the rightful being and divine warrant of a national church as united in one Civil Ecclesiastical polity under one civil head or supream either personal as in a Monarchy or collective as in a Republick And in this sence I assent to the National Church of England viz. All the churches in England politically united under one Supream Civil Church-Governour the Kings Majesty Yet it is to be understood that the partition of a church by the bounds of a nation or of a civil state is but extrinsecal or accidental to the church as such also that the union of the churches of a nation in the band of civil church-polity under a civil head is but an extrinsecal and not an intrinsecal union But I question the divine warrant of a national church embodied in the band of one national polity purely Ecclesiastical under one spiritual head or supream either Personal as a Primate or Patriarch or collective as a consistory of bishops or elders intrinsecally belonging to it and being a constitutive part of it For I find no Canon or Precedent for it in Scripture which is the adequate rule of divine right in the frame of churches and of what intrinsecally belongs thereuntò and I do not know any such spiritual head of the Church of England as for the Arch-bishops of Canterbury and York they at the most can be heads but of their respective provinces and are not subordinate but coordinate to each other in point of Archiepiscopal Government however the case is between them in point of precedency Yet if the civil supream power shall constitute a person or persons Ecclesiastical to be head of a national church or the churches of a nation politically imbodied I here offer nothing against it or for it But if there be such a national constitution being but humane it is but extrinsecal and accidental to the church and being derived from the civil supream it is but a civil church-polity § 21. The subordination of particular Churches to an association or collective body of the same Churches considered I Come to enquire whether there be a subordination of churches taken distributively to an association o◠collective body of the same Churches or an assembly thereof and again whether there be a subordination of that collective body to a larger association of more collective bodies or to an assembly thereof and so forward till we come to the largest that can be reached unto The association of particular churches is of the law of nature and therefore to be put in practise according to their capacity tho there were no positive law for it for they are all so many distinct members of one great body or integral parts of the Catholick church and they are all concerned in each others well being both in reference to themselves as fellow members of one body and to Christ their Head whose honour and interest they must promote each church not only within themselves but throughout all the churches to the utmost extent of their agency And they naturally stand in need of each others help in things that concern them severally and jointly Likewise that there be greater and lesser associations acting in their several spheres higher or lower the one included in the other is of the law of nature or of natural convenience for the more ample capacity and more orderly contributing of the mutual help aforesad such as have been called classical provincial and national assemblies used in one form of church-government yea and beyond this the association of the churches of many nations as far towards an oecumenical council as they are capable of convening is of the same reason But of an oecumenical association truly so called that is of all the churches in the world the moral impossibility thereof hath been spoken of before It is also by the law of nature most convenienient that in the lesser associations all the ruling officers personally meet and that in the larger they meet by their delegates or representatives chosen by all and sent in the name of all which meetings are called assemblies or synods and the convenience of meeting by delegates is that the particular churches be not for a time left wholly destitute of their guides and that there may be less trouble and difficulty and danger of disorder in the whole management Note That what is most naturally convenient hath in it the reason of necessary or is matter of duty unless when something gainsay or hinder and then indeed it ceaseth to be convenient And that there be some kind of subordination in the said associations and their respective Assemblies is of the Law of nature which requires order but as to the kind or manner of subordination men go several ways Some place it in a proper Authority or Governing power that the collective bodies of Churches have over the several Churches included in them others place it in the agreement of the several churches and some of these make this further explanation that the Canons made by Synods as they are made for the people who are subject to the Pastors are a sort of Laws and oblige by
experience consider we whether a man may and ought to have a Certainty therein and of what sort it is On the one hand doubtless it is not such a Certainty as expels all fear of carefulness On the other hand it is doubtless such a Certainty at least as expels anxiety and is sufficient to settle the peace of conscience And I think in this both Papists and Protestants do agree There is a Certainty that expels all apprehension that the contrary may be true whereof this is an instance That there were such persons as Alexander the Great and Julius Cesar and this hath gained the name of moral Certainty tho I think it may be called natural as grounded on naturally certain evidence And that a man may have such a Certainty of his unfeigned faith is held by Protestants in general and some Papists Nevertheless the Papists in general grant not this kind but only a lower kind of Certainty hereof which they call conjectural yet they tell us that it is certainty truly so called that it expels fluctuation and suspence and brings peace and joy and security and withal they say that the Just believe indeed that they are not herein deceived but not that they cannot be deceived But how this lower kind can be certainty properly so called I see not For an apprehension that the thing is otherwise than I think excludes all Certainty properly or strictly so called The above said moral Certainty of justification or being in the state of Grace is not attained by all justified persons and where it is attained it is not ordinarily continued without interruption nor ordinarily in the same degree because justified persons even the best of them do not continue without interruption in the same degree of faith and holiness on the internal sense whereof this Certainty depends THE TRUE STATE Of The ANCIENT EPISCOPACY § 1 What was anciently a Bishops Church THE Name Church is the first and only Scripture-name properly belonging to a Bishops charge In the beginning of Christianity Bishops or Pastors had their Churches in Cities or Towns And commonly the Converts of the Adjacent Villages were by reason of their paucity taken in as parts of the City Congregation and all made but one particular Church the members whereof had local Communion with each other Accordingly the name of city applied to a Bishops charge could be but extrinsecal it being not the name of the thing it self but only of the place where it was congregate The name of Parish came next in use for the said charge And this name is still in use for a particular Church or Congregation which hath its proper and immediate Bishop or Pastor The word Diocess as relating to a Bishop was unknown for several ages of Christianity but afterwards it was borrowed from civil use and applied to the Church A Diocess was one of the larger divisions of the Roman Empire and comprehended several Provinces Accordingly when it was first applied to the Church it was used for the same circuit and as a Province was the charge of a Metropolitan who had many Bishops under him so a Diocess was the charge of a Patriarch who had many Metropolitans under him And according to this sence there was a Canon made to forbid the running for ordination without the Diocess that is without or beyond the foresaid patriarchal circuit But the use of the word for the charge of such a Bishop as had no Bishops but only Presbyters under him came up in latter times From the first and only Scripture-name properly belonging to a Bishops charge it is inferred that a Bishop and a particular Church are correlates A particular Church as such hath its own proper Bishop and a Bishop as such hath his particular Church as his proper and immediate charge The bishops Church was anciently but one society Ecclesiastical which might and did personally meet together at once or by turns for Worship and Discipline under the same immediate Pastors which appears by the proofs here following 1. All the members thereof even men servants and maid-servants as well as others might and should be known by name to the bishop Ignat. Ep. to Policarp Id. ad Trall In the Panegyrick of Paulinus Bishop of Tyre Euseb lib. 10. cap. 4. It is said 'T is the work of a bishop to be intimately acquainted with the minds and states of every one of the flock when by experience and time he hath made inquiry into every one of them 2. One Church had but one Altar and consequently but one stated assembly for full Communion Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph To the Presbyters and Deacons my fellow servants If one bishop must here be taken numerically so must one altar The Apostles Canons c. 5.32 make it appear there was but one altar and one bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons in a church Also Council Antiochen c. 5. Hereupon Mr. Mede saith that before diocesses were divided into parishes they had not only one altar in one church or dominicum but one altar to a church taking church for the company or corporation of the faithful united under one bishop or pastor and that was in the city or place where the bishop had his Sea or Residence Add hereunto that to set up another altar was accounted a note of schism 3. Each single church had its proper and immediate bishop Ignat ad Philad as before to every church one altar one bishop He shews also that without a bishop the state of a church exists not Ep. ad Smyrn Wheresoever the bishop appears there is the church as wheresoever Jesus Christ appears there is the Catholick church A particular church was then no larger than that where the bishop appeared Id. ad Trall The bishop is a type of the highest father and the Presbyters are as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God and the bond of Apostolical concord Ib. Be subject to the bishop likewise to the presbyters and deacons This shews that the bishop and presbyters were together in one and the same particular church and jointly took the immediate charge of the flock 4. Some of the Ancients testifie that the Apostles placed only bishops without presbyters in some churches Epiphan Heres 65. 5. Concerning the largeness of a bishops church let that instance of Gregory Thaumaturgus be considered He was made bishop of Neocaesarea when he had but seventeen Christians afterwards when many were converted at Comana a small town that was near he did not make it a part of his own diocess but ordained Alexander the Collier a right worthy person to be their bishop And they were of no greater number than what met to chuse him and hear him preach 6. The ordinary work of a bishop shews that it was but one single church that he had charge of Justin Martyr setting forth the manner of the church assemblies tells us that the President himself preached gave thanks administred the Eucharist and exercised discipline Tertullian
THE REMAINS OF THE REVEREND and LEARNED Mr John Corbet Late of Chichester Printed from his own Manuscripts LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercers Chappel 1684. AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER HERE thou hast the Remains of the Reverend and Learned Mr. Corbet late of Chichester Those that knew him say That he was a man endued with the wisdom that is from above that is first pure and then peaceable gentle meek moderate and easie to be intreated full of mercy and good fruits without partiality without hypocrisie Therefore it is conceived that any thing which he had designed for publick use may be well accepted of by all those that desire to follow after peace with all men so far as is consistent with purity Whether the design of these Remains of his be not to vindicate the truth and to promote purity first and then peace is left to thee to judg after thou hast impartially perused and considered them in the fear of God and if in any measure they conduce to so good an end it is hoped thou wilt be thankful to God for the benefit which the Church of Christ and therein thy self mayst receive by the use of them Thou hast them just as they were left under his own hand if himself had lived to publish them thou mightest possibly have had them better Polisht but it is not thought fit that any other person should take upon him to alter any thing in them There are printed of this Authors and sold by Thomas Parkhurst The Kingdom of God among men together with a Tract of Church Unity and Schism Self-employment in Secret containing Evidences upon Self-Examination Thoughts upon painful Afflictions Memorials for Practice OF THE CHURCH § 1. Of the Church and Ministry as related to each other WHETHER the Church or the Ministry be first in nature is to be considered that for the more orderly handling of both we may know which of them to begin with For that seems to require the precedency of handling that hath the priority of nature or the being whereof is presupposed to the being of the other Now some have thus resolved it As the question whether the Hen or the Egg be first is resolved by the Creation That God made the Hen first so is the Question Whether the Church or Ministry be first by the consideration of the first Institution of Christ And it appears that the Ministry was first Instituted or at least that it was first in existence In setting up the Christian Church Christ set up the Ministry first to convert men or make them Christians Moreover the Ministry as taken for the collective body of Ministers is a constitutive part of the Church considered not entitativè but organicè as some Phrase the distinction that is not as a meer company of Believers gathered to Christ but as a Political Society or Spiritual Commonwealth in this World And the Constitutive parts should be distinctly treated of before the Whole that is constituted of them On the other hand the Church is the end of the Ministry Eph. 4.11 and in design or intention before it and consequently the Ministry hath a respect of subserviency to the Church and is Adapted to the state thereof Likewise the Ministry is in the Church as the lesser in the greater as a part in the whole as a thing residing in the seat of its residence as Stewardship in a Family This indeed holds principally and perpetually of the Church Universal 1 Cor. 12.28 Moreover the Ministers power and vertue is theirs as they are the Churches which indeed hath the propriety of them and their Ministerial gifts as being all under God and Christ finally for its behoof Upon these considerations I shall discourse first of the Church and then of the Ministry § 2. Of the Church its Name and Nature THE word Ecclesia is noted to signifie 1. An Assembly called together by a Superior 2. Any multitude gathered into one place 3. According to the use of the holy Scripture a certain multitude that retain the Name as well when they are a part as when they are met together An Assembly at large is called Ecclesia but Appellativè but they that are now so called by special appropriation of the word are a Society standing in a special Relation to God as his devoted People and that both when they are assembled and when they are apart and whether they be the Universal Society of Gods People or the particular Societies that are the integral parts of the Universal The word Church is the English of Ecclesia in its appropriated signification and it is taken divers ways but all agreeing in the aforesaid Notion 1. For the whole Company of Gods Elect comprising the uncalled and the Militant and the Triumphant Eph. 5.25 26. 2. For the whole Company of the faithful both Militant and Triumphant Col. 1.18 Heb. 12.23 3. For all professors of the Faith of Christ or visible Christians Acts 5.11 Acts 8.3 Acts 12.1 4. For the Catholick Visible Church as a political Society 1 Cor. 12.28 5. For the particular Churches parts of the Catholick as comprising the Church Officers and the people or Community of the faithful as the Church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1.2 The Churches of Galatia Gal. 1.2 and in many other places 6. For the members of the Church or Community of the faithful as distinct from their spiritual Rulers Acts 15.4 22. 7. For the Governours of the Church as distinct from the governed Mat. 18.17 18 19. 8. For a Church-Assembly come together for Divine Worship 1 Cor. 14.19 34. 9. For the faithful in some one family Rom. 16.5 Philem. 2. if it do not signifie a Church meeting in those houses These several acceptions of the word agree in the said common Notion of a number of People associated in a peculiar and Spiritual Relation to God yet the said Notion is more noble and compleat in some of them than in others Besides all these there is the vulgar use of the Word for the House set a part for the Church to meet in for Gods Publick Worship And no doubt but the Word may be lawfully so used it being a trope in ordinary use to put the name of the persons contained upon the place containing as also the name of the place containing upon the persons contained But that there is any such use of the word in Holy Scripture to me is not evident As for the Text 1 Cor. 11.22 Have ye not houses to eat and drink in or despise ye the Church of God it seems not to me to be inferred from it For the Church of God there said to be despised may be understood rather of Gods People assembled § 3. The Church is a Society distinct from the Commonwealth IT hath been well noted That there can be no greater Evidence of real distinction than actual separation And the Church and Commonwealth are separate wheresoever there
in a higher or lower degree about ones part in this Society according to its Invisible form yet it can ground a judgment of certainty about ones part in the same according to its Visible form So that altho God only knows those whom he accepts yet the Church may know certainly whom she ought to admit And as God in the matter belonging to his cognizance to wit the sincerity of profession and the rights consequent thereunto so the Church in the matter belonging to its cognizance to wit the credibility of profession and the rights consequent thereunto proceeds upon certain knowledg § 5. Of the Catholick Church Invisible and Visible IT hath been well observed That the term Catholick Church hath been sometimes used of a particular Church holding the true Doctrine of the Apostles and is the same with Apostolical and in this sence any Bishop of a true Apostolical Church may be called a Catholick Bishop But here the term Catholick signifies the same with Oecumenical or the Church that is throughout the whole World or the whole World of Christians And in this sence the Church is termed Catholick not as actually extending to the whole World but potentially no Nation or People being excluded but all having Liberty to accept and injoy the Priviledges thereof In this notion there is one Catholick Church both in the Invisible and Visible form The Catholick Church Invisible is the whole company of true Believers throughout the World who make that part of Christs Mystical Body which ia militant here on Earth The Catholick Church Visible is the whole company of Visible believers throughout the World or believers according to humane judgment § 6. The Vnity of the Catholick Church Visible THE Catholick Church is not only notionally but really existent and hath Relation to particular Churches as an intregal whole to integral parts The same relation it hath also to particular Christians yea and to such as are not fixed members of a particular Church There being one peculiar Kingdom of Christ throughout the World distinct from the World in general visibly constituted and administred not by humane Laws and Coercive Power as Secular Kingdoms are but by Divine Laws and Power directly and purely respecting the conscience there must needs be one Caetholick Visible Church The Catholick Church in its Visible form is one political Society or Spiritual Commonwealth the City of God the more special Kingdom of Christ upon Earth for the World in general is his Kingdom at large The Unity of the Catholick Church being a political Society ariseth not out of a local contiguity but out of the moral and political Union of the parts And if the Invisible Church be one body the Visible must be so likewise For these terms the Church Visible and Invisible do not signifie two Societies as hath been shewed but the same Society distinguished by its diver considerations The Visible Catholick Church hath one Head and Supreme Lord even Christ one Charter and Systeme of Laws Members that are free denizons of the whole Society one form of admission or solemn initiation for all its Members one Spiritual polity or one Divine form of Government and one kind of Ecclesiastical Power The members of one particular Church are intituled to the priviledges granted of God to visible Christians in any other Church wheresoever they come to be injoyed by them according to their capacity and in a due order And wheresoever any Christian comes as a stranger he is by his relation to the Universal Church bound to have communion with the particular Church or Churches of that place in Gods ordinances according to his capacity and opportunity And if it be said he is looked upon as a transient member of that particular Church where he comes as a stranger I answer that it ariseth from his being a member of the Catholick Church which contains all particular Churches as an integral whole its several parts for it is his right and not a favour or a matter of mere charity Whosoever is justly and orderly cast out of one Church is thereby vertually cast out of all Churches and ought to be received by none This cannot be meerly by compact among the Churches or by the mutual relation of mere concordant or sister Churches but by their being integral parts of one society for the ejection out of all de jure follows naturally necessarily ipso facto from the ejection out of one The Apostles were general officers of the whole Catholick Church as of one visible society And it is not to be imagined that it lost its unity by their death The ordinary Pastors and Teachers tho actually and in exercise overseeing their own parts are habitually and radically related to the whole Catholick Church and thereby are inabled to exercise their ministerial authority in any other parts wheresoever they come without a new ordination or receiving a new pastoral authority so that they do it in a due order This shews that the several Churches are parts of one political society otherwise the officers could not act authoritatively out of their own particular congregation no more than as one well observes a Mayor or Constable can exercise their offices in other Corporations § 7. The Priority in nature of the Catholick Church to particular Churches FOrasmuch a◠men are Christians in order of nature before they are members of a particular Church and ministers in general before they are ministers of a particular Church they are members and ministers first of the Catholick Church in order of nature and then of particular Churches And the Charter and Body of Laws and Ordinances by which the Church subsists doth first belong to the Catholick Church and then to particular Churches as parts thereof To be a member of a particular congregation gives only the opportunity of injoying divine ordinances and Church priviledges but immediate right thereunto is gained by being a visible believer or a member of the Church Catholick One may be a member of the Church Catholick and yet not a fixed member of any particular Church and that in some cases occessarily and in that state he hath right to Gods ordinances The Ethiopian Eunuch was of no particular Church and yet baptized by Philip. The Promises Threatning and Precents of Christ are dispensed by his Minister to the members of his Church primarily not as members of a particular but of the universal Church And therefore the Minister dispenseth the same with authority in Christs Name even to strangers that come into his Congregation 8. The Visibility of the Catholick Church AS a large Empire is visible to the eye of sence not in the whole at one view but in the several parts one after another so is the Catholich Church As a large Empire is visible in the whole at one view by an act of the understanding which is the eye of the mind so is the Catholick Church As the unity of a large Empire is not judged invisible
because it cannot be seen without an act of the understanding no more may the unity of the Catholick Church be for that reason judged invisible I have already shewed that the adequate notion of visible and invisible in this subject is to be not only the object of the bodily eye or other external sence but also of any humane intuition or certain perception or that which falls under humane cognizance and judgment § 9. The Polity of the Catholick Church THE Catholick Church is not as secular Kingdoms or Commonwealths are autonomical that is having within it self that Power of its own fundamental constitution and of the laws and officers and administrations belonging to it as a Church or spiritual polity but it hath received all these from Christ its Head King and Law giver Indeed as it includes Christ the Head it is in reference to him autonomical but here we consider it as a political Body visible upon earth and abstracted from its Head Nevertheless it hath according to the capacity of its acting that is in its several parts a power of secondary Laws or Canons either to impress the Laws of Christ upon its members or to regulate circumstantials and accidentals in Religion by determining things necessary in genere and not determined of Christ in spâ—câ—â— but left to humane determination The spiritual authority seated in the Church is not seated in the Church as Catholick so as to descend from it by way of derivation and communication to particular Churches but it is immediately seated in the several particular Churches as similar parts of one political Body the Church Catholick The Church Catholick is as one universal or Oecumenical Kingdom having one supream Lord one Body of Lawâ— one Form of Government one way of Enrollment into it and subiects who have freedom throughout the whole extent thereof radically and fundamentally always and actually to be used according to their occasions and capacities but having no Terrene Universal Administrator or Vicegerent personal or collective but several administrators in the several provinces or parts thereof invested with the same kind of authority respecting the whole kingdom radically or fundamentally but to be exercised ordinarily in their own stated limits and occasionally any where else according to a due call and order Wherefore tho it be one political society yet not so as to have one terrestrial vicarious Head personal or collective having legislation and jurisdiction over the whole And indeed no terrestrial Head is capable of the Government and Christ the Supream Head and Lord being powerfully present throughout the whole by his spirit causeth that such a vicarious Head is not wanted Indeed the Apostles as such were universal officers having Apostolick authority not only radically or habitually but actually also over the whole Catholick Church in regard they were divinely inspired and immediately commissioned by Christ under him to erect his Church and to establish his religion even the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government that was to be received by all Christians But this office was but temporary in the nature and formal reason of it and so expired with their persons and was not of the essence or a constitutive part of this society § 10. The Headship of a General Council examined BY Headship over the Church in this inquiry is not meant a dominion and Desporick power over it for the Church hath no Lord but Christ nor soveraign authority over it which is the power of legislation and final decisive judgment by which men stand or fall finally for the Church hath no King but Christ I exclude Headship in any such sence as not fit to come under consideration But the Query is Whether a general Council be supream in that kind of power which resides in the Church and is only ministerial and dispensatory that is whether it hath a supream ministry or Geconomy over the Catholick Church so that all Churches and ministers have their power conveyed to them from the same not as from the Fountain which is Christ alone but as from the first receptacle thereof and are subject to its authoritative regulation and determinations and finally accountable to it for their administrations Who can affirm that an Oecumenical council rightly so named was ever in being The councils that have born that name were conventions of Bishops within the Roman Empire except some very few that were without it and those living near the confines of it Whereupon let it be considered whether the said councils were truly Oecumenical or just representatives of the Catholick Church That which is wont to be said for the affirmative is that no Bishops were excluded from the right of voting therein but from all parts of the world they might come to them as rightful members of them if they would But what if no greater number of Bishops meet upon a summons to a General council than did at the council of Trent May such a convention be called an Oecumenical council because all might come that would when so small a number came as was comparatively nothing to the number of bishops throughout the world Or can the convention of a greater number suppose as many as met in the first Nicene council be justly called a representative of the Catholick Church or carry the sence of it when it bears no more proportion to it Surely it is not their freedom of access but their actual convening at least in a proportionable number that can justly give the denomination And what if the bishops without the limits of the Roman Empire would not come to a General council called by the Mandate of the Roman Emperour especially they that lived in the remoter parts as Ethiopia and India c Were they obliged to come to a general council in case it had been summoned in another especially a remoter Empire or Dominionâ— Moreover what if they could not come which may well be supposed by reason of the restraint of their several Princes or the length of the journey or insuperable difficulties or utter incapacities Tho the most illustrious part of the Catholick Church was contained in the Roman Empire yet an assembly of the bishops thereof could no more make a representative of the Catholick Church than an assembly of the bishops of the other part of the world without them could have done if there had been such an assembly Besides the ancient General councils were usually called in the Eastern parts of the Empire and tho the bishops of those parts might convene in a considerable number yet the number from the Western parts was inconsiderable and as none comparatively to a just proportion Let it be hereupon considered whether the said councils were a just representative and did carry the sence of that part of the Catholick Church that was included in that Empire And in this consideration it is not of little moment to observe what numbers of bishops were ordinarily congregated in the many provincial assemblies and that within
provinces of narrower circuits of ground And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council rightly so named can be For suppose it be not necessary to consist of all the bishops in the world but of some as delegates in the name of all yet it must consist of so many proportionably delegated from all in the several quarters as may signifie the sence and consent of all Hereupon let it be considered whether there be a possibility of such assemblies much more whether there be a possibility of the continuation or of the succession of them in such frequency as would be requisite in case such an assembly were Head of the Church Nor doth it stand with reason that an Oecumenical council in case it were existent can possibly execute the authority that belongs to the head of the Universal Church in overseeing all in receiving appeals from all in making authoritative determinations for all either immediately by it self or mediately by subordinate councils judicatories and ministers to be superintended regulated and determined by it in their proceedings Nor is there any notice given of the said headship of a General council more than of the Popes or any other bishops universal headship in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Christ hath given to his Church to wit the Holy Scriptures Nor is any rule given therein for the constitution of a General council whether it shall be made up only of the Clergy or only of such bishops as are of a higher order thâ—â— Presbyters or of all such bishops of the Catholick Church or if of some in the name of all what number there must be either definite or indefinite and proportionate to the number of those that are represented It is evident de facto that the officers of the Catholick Church as the particular bishops or pastors and the associations and conventions of them do not derive their spiritual authority from a General council Nor doth it appear that de jure they should derive their power from it any more than from the Pope § 11. The infallibility of the Catholick Church examined THE Romanists assert an insallibility about matters of faith somewhere seated within the Catholick Church as the perpetual priviledg thereof some of them place it in the Pope and others in a General council Hereupon this priviledg is to be considered whether it be and what it is The meaning of the term is a being not liable to be deceived or to deceive about those matters about which it is said to be That the catholick church is infallible in the essentials of the christian religion is a most indubitable truth for every member of the catholick church so remaining is infallible so far it involves a a contradiction that any such should err therein for it were as much as to be a christian and no christian The Query therefore is whether it be liable to errour in the integrals aâ—d accidentals of Religion Now the church remaining such is not necessarily or in its nature infallible so far and therefore if it be infallible it must be so from the free grant of Christ But it doth not appear in the Holy Scripture that any such grant is made to the church What was the Apostles doctrine and consequently the doctrine of the Church in their days obedient to their authority we know what the church universally held in any one age touching all the integral parts of religion much more concerning accidentals I conceive extreamly difficult if not impossible to be known But that the church hath de facto if not universally yet very generally erred in the same errour about some integrals of religion appears by the ancient general practise of some things now generally accounted erroneous as for instance the giving of the Lords Supper to infants Moreover it is evident that the whole Church in its several parts hath erred some in one point some in another and that no part thereof hath been found in which hath appeared no error in some point of Religion or other And if all the parts may variously err in several points why may not they also harmoniously err all of them in one and the same point If the Catholick Church be not infallible in all doctrines of Faith much less is any such Council infallible as was ever yet congregated or is ever like to be congregated Hereupon it follows that in all Controversies of doctrine we cannot stand finally to the decision of the Catholick Church if it were possible to be had or to the decision of any the largest Council that can possibly convene We cannot tell what the Catholick Church is nor what particular Churches or persons are sound parts thereof but by the holy Scriptures For what Criterion can be brought besides them Mens bare testimony of themselves is not to be rested on How can we know that the first Nicene Council was orthodox in its determination about the Sacred Trinity and the second Nicene Council erroneous in its determination for Image-worship but by finding that the former was consonant and the latter dissonant to the Scripture in their aforesaid determinations If it be said That of Councils called General those that consist of greater numbers of bishops must carry it against those that consist of lesser numbers let some proof either from Scripture or Reason be given for it What ground is there from either to conclude that in the time of the Arrian Heresie the major part of bishops in the Roman Empire or the major part of those that assembled in Council and for instance in the first Council at Nice might not possibly have been Arrians Moreover if the major part were to carry it in the first six Centuries why not also in the ten last That promise of Christ Mat. 28. I am with you always to the end of the world may imply That there shall be a successive continuation of Bishops or Pastors in the Catholick Church to the worlds end that shall be Orthodox in the Essentials yea and in the Integrals of Religion yet it doth not imply that they shall be the greater number of those that are called and reputed bishops or pastors within Christendom nor that the greater number of those being convened in Councils shall not err in their Conciliar determinations about matters of Faith § 12. Of the Indefectibility of the Catholick Church CHRIST hath promised the perpetuity of the Church in general in saying that he would build it on a Rock and the gates of Hell should not prevail against it and I am with you always to the end of the world but how far and in what respect this perpetuity and indefectibility is promised ought to be enquired into lest we expect or insist upon more than the promise hath ensured That which Christ hath promised cannot be less than that there be always upon earth a number of true believers or faithful Christians made visible by their external profession of Christianity successively
continued till the end of all things It is also ascertained that there shall be at least the essentials of a Church-state or Church organical as some express it consisting of a part governing and a part governed always continued somewhere upon earth For Christs promise is to be with his Apostles in the executing of their Ministry always to the end of the world and it must be understood of them not barely considered as persons but as his commissioned Officers including their successors not in the Apostolical and Temporary but in the ordinary and perpetual Authority which they had in common with Pastors Bishops or Presbyters And Eph. 4.11 shews that the Ministry is to endure till the whole Mystical body of Christ be compleated But the promise doth not import that any particular Church or any particular combination of Churches in one frame of Ecclesiastical Polity how ample or illustrious soever shall be perpetuated by an uninterrupted succession of Pastors and secured from a total defection and rejection either from a Church state or from Christianity it self If any particular church or any one larger part of the Catholick church hath been preserved from the Apostles days till now when others have been extinct it is by the good pleasure of God whose ways and counsels are wise and holy yet unsearchable and past finding out Nor doth the promise import that the true church shall be perpetually conspicuous tho it be perpetually visible for in some Ages it may be more obscure in others more apparent It is granted by that party that much insists upon the conspicuousness of their church as a city on a hill That in the time of Antichrist the church shall scarcely be discerned Now in such a state it may be said to be tho not absolutely yet comparatively invisible that is being compared with what it is when more conspicuously Visible Nor doth it import that any particular church or any most ample and illustrious part of the Catholick church shall perpetually abide in the Apostolick purity of doctrine worship and government but that it may depart from it and fall into most enormous errors and practises in the said points and yet may not lose the essentials of Christian doctrine and church-state The Scripture foretels of a great falling away and a lasting defection in the Christian church and a long continued predominancy of an Antichristian state therein Nay for ought can be cogently inferred from the aforesaid promise the said defection might have been so universal as to leave no part of the Catholick church divided from the Apostatical or Antichristian state and party by a different external church-polity but the sound and sincere part of the Church may truckle under it and be included in its external frame and keep themselves from being destroyed by it some of them discerning and shunning the bainful doctrine and practise and others that are infected with it holding the truth predominantly in their hearts and lives and so tho not speculatively yet practically prevailing against the wicked errours If in all times there have been some societies of Christians that did not fall away in the great defection nor incorporate with the antichristian state but were by themselves in a severed church-state yet Christ hath not promised that there shall be notice thereof throughout all Christendom in the times when the said societies were in being nor that histories should be written thereof for the knowledg of after ages Howbeit we have sufficient notice by credible history that there have been many ample christian churches throughout all ages that were not incorporated with the antichristian state and that did dissent from their great enormities in Doctrine Worship and Government also that many Worthies living in the midst of that great apostacy did during the whole time thereof successively bear witness for the truth against it and that for a great part of the time huge multitudes also living in the midst of the said apostacy separated from it and were embodied into churches of another constitution more conformable to the Primitive Christianity § 13. The frame of the particular Churches mentioned in Scripture AS we find in Scripture one Catholick church related as one Kingdom Family Flock Spouse and Body to Christ as its only King Master Shepherd Husband and Head so we find particular churches as so many political societies distinct from each other yet all compacted together as parts of that one ample Society the Catholick church as the church at Antioch Acts 13.1 the church at Jerusalem Acts 11.22 Acts 15.4 the church at Cesarea Acts 18.22 the church at Cenchrea Rom. 10.1 the church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1.2 the churches of Galatia Gal. 1.2 the church of the Thessalonians 1 Thes 1.1 the church at Babylon 1 Pet. 5 13. and the seven churches in Asia Apoc. 1. 2. viz. of Ephesus Smyrna Pergamos Thyatyra Sardis Thiladelphia and Laodicea We likewise find that the Christians of a city o◠lesser precinct made one church as the church at Corinth the church at Cenchrea c. but the Christians of a Region or a larger circuit made many churches as the churches of Asia the churches of Galatiae We find also that each of these particular churches did consist of a part governing and a part governed and consequently were political Societies Every church had their proper Elder or Elders Acts. 4.23 which Elders were the same with Bishops Acts 20.28 Tit. 1.5 7. 1 Pet. 5.1 2. and they were constitutive parts of those churches considered as Political Societies We find also that these Elders or Bishops did personally superintend or oversee all the Flock or every member of the church over which they did preside Acts 20 28 29. 1 Thes 5.12 Heb. 13.17 This appears further by their particular work expresly mentioned in Scripture to be personally performed towards all viz. to be the ordinary Teachers of all Heb. 13 7. 1 Thes 5.12 13. to admonish all that were unruly and to rebuke them openly 1 Tim. 5.20 Tit. 1.10 to visit and pray with the sick and all the sick were to send for them to that end James 5.14 and no grant from Christ to discharge the same by Substitutes or Delegates can be found § 14. The Form of a particular Church considered FROM the premises it is evident That all particular churches mentioned in the New Testament were so constituted as that all the members thereof were capable of personal communion in worshipping God if not always at once together yet by turns at least and of living under the present personal superintendency of their proper Elder or Elders Bishop or Bishops Whether to be embodied or associated for personal communion in worship and for personal superintendency of the Pastors over all the members be the true formal or essential constitution of particular churches by divine right I leave to consideration But this is evident that all those churches that the Scripture takes notice of were so constituted and that
either by the immediate agency of the Apostles themselves Acts 14.23 or of others by their appointment Tit. 1.5 Yet I do not hereby mean that every Congregation or Assembly for worship or acts of government was a whole political church For some such congregations might be only parts of a church meeting according to convenience but still the said personal communion was in the whole church simul or per vices and there was a personal superintendency of the Bishop or Pastor over the whole in all the acts of his Pastoral office As for such a particular church as consists of many it may be several hundred stated congregations having each of them their proper Presbyter or Presbyters and is governed by one sole Bishop the aforesaid Presbyters being said to be no Bishops and whose members are not capable of personal communion among themselves either simul or per vices nor of the personal superintendency of their Bishop in the necessary acts of his Pastoral Office if there be any Scripture-precedent or divine Rule for the same I am ready to take notice of it § 15. The due place of constituting a particular Church ORdinarily the place of a particular church was a City and from the City the church ordinarily took its denomination Nevertheless nothing is found in Scripture to make a City the only proper Mansion of a church so that no Village could be a fit Receptacle of it yea the Scripture mentions a church which was not a City-church viz that at Cenchrea which was not a City but the Haven of Corinth Cities being places of the confluence of people had ordinarily the Gospel first preached and first received in them and consequently first afforded the materials of a church And they were the fittest places for the erection of a church in order to the making of more converts to be added to them besides other conveniences And therefore right Reason without a particular Divine command would direct those Master-builders the Apostles to erect churches in cities Howbeit the City-churches were not confined to the respective cities but commonly took in all the Christians of the adjacent Villages And in the Apostles times the Christians both of a city and its adjacent Villages did ordinarily but make up one competent congregation or in its numbers it did not exceed one of our parishes Tho some very few churches quickly grew numerous yet most rationally it may be conceived that they did not exceed many nor equal some of our very populous Parishes Here it must be considered that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a city was any Town corporate and that every such that had Christians in any competent number had a stated church in it And the Rule was not then as now that the church and its bishop did make that a city which otherwise would not be but that every city or town corporate or place of confluence of people where there were christians should have its church with its proper bishop § 16. Each particular Church is a distinct Political Society AS Cities in a Kingdom so are particular churches in the church universal This similitude holds in the main but not in all respects As a whole Kingdom hath its fundamental Constitution by which it subsists and its Magna Charta for priviledges belonging to the whole so the church universal hath its fundamental constitution and charter by which it subsists in its proper state And as every city is a distinct body-politick under the King and hath from him its charter by which it subsists so every particular church as a distinct political Society under Christ hath its charter from him by which it subsists in its proper state The erecting of particular churches as several political societies by the Apostles who were Christs authorized Agents for erecting his special Kingdom the church and guided therein by his infallible spirit and by others at their direction and according to the same Rule is a sufficient Charter for the constitution of such churches wherever there are fit materials Besides the law of nature requires the parcelling the church universal into such distinct Societies under their proper Pastors that church-communion and Pastoral superintendency might not be transient and uncertain but permanent and certain The several cities in the same Kingdom may have their special Laws and Priviledges divers from each other according to the diversity of their charters granted by the King But particular churches have not municipal laws and priviledges divers from each other but the same in common to them all because they have all the same charter in specie Here note that they may be rightly called distinct Political Societies that have each of them their own charter tho it be not divers but the same in kind among them all He that is a citizen or a Magistrate of one city is not a citizen Magistrate or Officer in all cities of the same Kingdom But a member or a Pastor of one particular church hath an habitual or fundamental Right of being a member or Pastor in any particular church throughout the world which is not actually to be made use of but in a due order as hath been above noted Particular churches tho they consist of dissimilar parts are all of them similar parts of the Church Catholick partaking of its name and nature whereas cities are dissimilar parts of a Kingdom From these premises it follows that the qualifications requisite to make men members or ministers of the universal church do sufficiently qualifie them to be members or ministers of any particular church wherewith they are naturally capable of Communion § 17. Of the local bounds of Churches ALL the Christians in the world are one holy society and if it were possible they should have local presential communion one with another but that being impossible by reason of the large extent of the society they are necessarily parcelled into several congregations for the capacity of such communion is the end of erecting particular churches in all reason they should consist of persons who by their cohabitation in a vicinity are made capable of it and there may not be a greater local distance of the persons from each other than can stand with it Moreover all Christians of the same local precinct not more populous nor of larger extent than to allow personal communion are most conveniently brought into one and the same stated church that there might be the greatest union among them and that the occasion of straggling and running into severed parties might be avoided And so we find in Scripture that all the Christians within such a local precinct commonly made but one church Tho it be highly convenient that particular churches be so bounded as to take in all the christians of the same precinct as aforesaid and therefore necessary when some special reason doth not compel to vary yet it is not absolutâ—ly necessary in reason nor do we find any divine institution to make it invariable tho
the Authority of the Pastors but as they are made for the present or absent Pastors who are separately of equal Office Power they are no Laws except in an equivocal sense but only Agreements Now in judging between these two ways of the subordination enquired of let it be considered first That every particular church hath power of government within it self as hath been before observed 2. That a particular church doth not derive that power from any other particular church or collective body of churches but hath it immediately from Christ 3. That yet the acts of government in every particular church have an influence into all the churches being but integral parts of one whole the Catholick church and consequently they are all of them nearly concerned in one another as members of the same body 4. Thereupon that particular churches combine in such collective bodies and associations as have been before mentioned is not arbitrary but their duty 5. That the greater collective bodies are in degrees more august and venerable than the lesser included in them and in that regard ought to have sway with the lesser and not meerly in regard of agreement For tho in the greater there be but the same power in specie with that in the lesser yet it is more amply and illustriously exerted 6. That in all Societies every part being ordered for the good of the whole and the more ample and comprehensive parts coming nearer to the nature and reason of the whole than the lesser and comprehended the more ample parts if they have not a proper governing power over the lesser have at least a preeminence over them for the ends sake and this preeminence hath the force of a proper superior power in bearing sway 7. Hence it follows that the acts of Synods if they be not directly acts of government over the particular Pastors yet they have the efficacy of government as being to be submitted to for the ends sake The general good § 22. What is and what is not of Divine Right in Ecclesiastical Polity WE must distinguish between things that belong to the church as a church or a Society divers in kind from all other Societies and those things that belong to it extrinsecally upon a reason common to it with other regular societies The former wholly rest upon Divine Right the latter are in genere requisite by the Law of Nature which requires decency and order and whatsoever is convenient in all societies and so far they rest upon Divine Right but in specie they are left to human determination according to the general Rules given of God in Nature or Scripture And it is to be noted That such is the sulness of Scripture that it contains all the general Rules of the Law of Nature What soever in matter of Church government doth go to the formal constitution of a church of Christ is of Divine Right The frame of the Church catholick as one spiritual society under Christ the head as before described wholly rests upon Divine Right and so the frame of particular churches as several spiritual Polities and integral parts of the Catholick church as before described is also of Divine Right if such Right be sufficiently signified by the Precepts and Rules given by the Apostles for the framing of them and by their practise therein Moreover the parcelling of that one great Society the Church-catholick into particular Political Societies under their proper spiritual Guides and Rulers is so necessary in nature to the good of the whole that the Law of Nature hath made it unalterable It is intrinsick to all particular stated Churches and so of Divine Right that there be publick Assemblies thereof for the solemn Worship of God that there be Bishops Elders or spiritual Pastors therein and that these as Christs Officers guide the said Assemblies in publick Worship that therein they authoritatively preach the Word and in Christs Name offer the mercies of the Gospel upon his terms and denounce the threatnings of the Gospel against those that despise the mercies thereof that they dispence the Sacraments to the meet partakers and the spiritual censures upon those that justly fall under them that the members of these Societies explicitely or implicitely consent to their relation to their Pastors and one towards another It doth also intrinsecally belong to particular churches as they are integral parts of one Catholick church of which all the particular Christians contained in them are members and consequently it appears to be of Divine Right that they hold communion one with another and that they be imbodied according to their capacities in such Associations as have been before described As for all circumstantial variation and accidental modification of the things aforesaid with respect to meer decency order and convenience according to time and occasion being extrinsick to the spiritual frame and Polity of the Church as such and belonging in common to it with all orderly Societies they are of Divine Right only in genere but in specie they are left to those to whom the conduct and government of the church is committed to be determined according to the general Rules of Gods word Much of the controversie of this Age about several forms of Church-government is about things extrinsick to the church-state and but accidental modes thereof tho the several parties in the controversie make those Forms to which they adhere to be of Divine Right and necessary to a Church-state or as some speak a Church-organical Now in the said controverted Forms of Government there may be a great difference for some may be congruous to the divine and constitutive frame of the Church and advantageous to its ends others may be incongruous to it and destructive to its ends § 23. Of a True or False Church MANY notes of a true Church are contentiously brought in by those that would darken the truth by words without knowledg But without more ado the true and real being of a Church stands in its conformity to that Law of Christ upon which his Church is founded This Law is compleatly written in the Holy Scriptures The more of the aforesaid Conformity is sound in any Church the more true and sound it is and the less of it is found in any church the more corrupt and false it is and the more it declines from truth and soundness A Church may bear so much conformity to its Rule as is sufficient to the real being or essential state of a Christian church and yet withall bear such disconformity to its Rule as renders it very enormous A church holding all the essentials of Faith Worship Ministry and Government together with the addition of such Doctrine Worship Ministry and Government as is by consequence a denial of those essentials and a subverting of the foundation is a true church as to the essentials tho very enormous and dangerous And they that are of the communion of such a church who hold the essentials of Religion
different Order from the ordinary presbyters and it seems to confine their Ministry to the Apostles times Grotius saith they were presbyters tyed to no place and that many such Evangelists were ordained long after and thereupon concludes that not to ordain without a title to some particular place is not of divine right Indeed if the office of an Evangelist be no other than that of a general Minister or a presbyter tyed to no place it seems not only to have been requisite in the Apostles times but to be of standing conveniency if not of necessity in the church And his not being limited to one church is but the extending of the common office of a presbyter or bishop and not the making of a new office For this more extensive power of a general Minister is only the having of that in ordinary exercise which every Minister hath in actu primo by vertue of his relation to the Catholick church in which Teachers and Pastors are set 1 Cor. 12.28 and into which his ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing have influence yea which he hath by vertue of his relation to Christ as a steward to an housholder in his Family and as a delegate to the chief pastor for the calling of the unconverted as well as for the confirming of Converts Now the more or less extensive exercise of an Office is a matter of humane prudence and variable according to time and place But that a general Minister be of a higher order than fixed bishops or presbyters is not of standing or perpetual necessity Nor is it always necessary that he be in a state of superintendency over them Nevertheless if a superintendency be granted to him by the consent of the churches and pastors for the common good or by the Magistrate as to his delegate in his authority in Ecclesiastical affairs I cannot condemn it but rather judg that it may be sometimes not only expedient but necessary Yet it is not of divine right but of prudential determination § 13. A further Consideration of the Angels of the Churches and of a President bishop AS touching the Angel of a Church it being a mystical expression in a mystical book it may be rationally questioned Whether it be meant of one person or of a number of Colleagues as may appear by what hath been already noted But if it be meant of one person it is not necessarily to be understood of one that is the sole pastor and bishop of a Church Nay by what hath been already noted it may with as great if not greater probability be understood of a Prefident bishop who is not of a superior order to the rest of the bishops but the first or chief in degree of the same order and like the Moderator of an Assembly a Chair-man in a Committee and Mayor in a Court of Aldermen And for such a presidency there needs no divine institution it being not a holy order or office of a different species from that of the rest of the Pastors but a priority in the same office for orders sake For it is orderly and convenient that where there are many Presbyters or elders of a particular Church that for concords sake they consent that one that is ablest among them should statedly have a guiding power among them in the ordering of Church-affairs § 14. Of the Office of Ruling Elders THESE have been commonly called Lay-Elders but some have disliked that name alledging that they are sacred officers but they own the name of Ruling Elders Now it is to be noted that the asserters of the divine right of this office make it not an office of total dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister but allow such as bear it to have secular imployments not only occasionally but as their stated particular calling also that they make it not an office of final dedication to sacred imployment as the office of a Minister is but grant that such as bear it may cease from it and again become no Elders Also they make not these Elders to have office power in all Churches as Ministers have actu primo but only in their own particular Churches and in Classical and Synodical assemblies nor do they ascribe unto these Elders the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins which belong to Ministers nor do they solemnly ordain these Elders by prayer and imposition of hands as Ministers are ordained Now the Query is whether Christ hath instituted in his Church such a spiritual officer as this ruling Elder who is not totally nor finally dedicated to sacred imployment but statedly left to secular callings and hath no office power no not in actu primo in the church at large but only in his own church or in such an assembly as that Church helps to make up nor hath the power of the keys of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins nor is ordained by prayer and imposition of hands I say whether Christ hath instituted such an officer and authorized him in his name as his steward to admit into or cast out of his Family the Church I find nothing in Holy Scripture to warrant his divine right nor can I see in reason how one destitute of the above nanamed capacities can put forth acts of spiritual Discipline or of binding and loosing in Christ Name In the New Testament there be three significations of Presbyter the first belonging to age the second to Magistracy in the greater or lesser Sanhedrim the third to ministers of the Gospel The only place that hath a shew of mentioning the ruling Elder in the Church that is not a Minister of the Gospel is 1 Tim. 5.17 The Elders that rule well c. But this hath nothing cogently to evince two different kinds of officers but that of those in the same office some may be imployed more especially in one part of the work thereof and others in another part and that the being more abundantly imployed in the Word and Doctrine hath the preeminence The Emphasis lies in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that some did more especially or abundantly labour therein but not implying that others did not meddle therewith And learned men observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is maintenance which is not used to be given to this kind of officer we are now inquiring of For they are such as have secular imployment to live by The Enumerations of divers gifts Rom. 12.6 doth not infer the institution of divers offices For as he that giveth and he that sheweth Mercy may be the same man so he that teacheth and he that exhorteth and he that ruleth may be the same For they are all proper acts of the pastoral office Likewise in 1 Cor. 12.28 those two expressions Helps and Governments do necessarily infer the institution of two Functions no more than Miracles and Gifts of healing there also mentioned do infer the same § 15. That a single Presbyter
supernatural help in remembring and attesting it The first Churches received the Testimony from the first witnesses upon naturally certain and infallible evidence it being impossible that those witnesses could by combination deceive the world in such matters of fact in the very age and place when and where the things are pretended to be done and said And these Churches had the concomitance of supernatural attestation in themselves by the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost and by miracles wrought by them The Christians or Churches of the next age received the testimony from those of the first with a greater evidence of natural infallible Certainty for that the Doctrine was delivered to them in the records of sacred Scripture and both the miracles and reporters were more numerous and they were dispersed over much of the world and with these also was the supernatural evidence of miracles We of the present age receive it insallibly from the Churches of all precedent ages successively to this day by the same way with greater advantages in some respects and with lesser in others not upon the Churches bare authority but the natural Cerainty of the infallible tradition of the Holy Scriptures or records of this religion and of the perpetual exercise thereof according to those records in all essential points wherein it was naturally impossible for the precedent ages to impose falshoods upon the subsequent And this rational evidence of the Churches tradition was in conjunction with the histories of heathens and the concessions of the Churches enemies infidels and hereticks all which did acknowledg the verity of the matters of fact There is natural evidence of the impossibility that all the witnesses and reporters being so many of such condition and in such circumstances should agree to deceive and never be detected for there is no possible sufficient cause that so many thousand believers and reporters in so many several countries throughout the world should be deceived or be herein mad or sensless and that those many thousands should be able in these matters unanimously to agree to deceive more than themselves into a belief of the same untruth in the very time and place where the things were said to be done And no sufficient cause can be given but that some among so many malicious enemies should have detected the deceit especially considering the numbers of Apostates and the contentions of Heriticks Besides all this there is a succession of the same spirit of Wisdom and Goodness which was in the Apostles and their hearers continued to this day and is wrought by their Doctrine § 20. Of the infallible Knowledg of the Sense of Scripture AS we may be infallibly certain of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scripture so likewise of the sence of the Scripture at least in points fundamental or essential to the Christian Religion and that without an infallible Teacher We may certainly know that an interpretation of Scripture repugnant to the common reason of mankind and to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true if we can certainly know any thing is impossible to be true and consequently we may infallibly know it The sence of Scripture in many things and those most material to Christian faith and life is so evident from the plain open and ample expression thereof that he that runs may read it if his understanding be notoriously prejudiced And if we cannot know the said sense to be necessarily true we can know nothing to be so and so we are at uncertainty for every thing It will surely be granted by all that we may as certainly know the sense of Scripture in things plainy and amply expressed as the sense of any other writings as for instance of the Writings of Euclide in the definitions and axioms in which men are universally agreed If any say the words in which the said definitions and axiomes are expressed may possibly bear another sense it is answered That they may absolutely considered because words which have their sense ad placitum and from common use being absolutely considered may have a divers sense from what they have by common use but those words being respectively considered as setled by use cannot possibly bear another sense unless we imagine the greatest absurdity imaginable in the Writer Besides they that pretend the possibility of another sense I suppose do mean sense and not nonsense And how a divers sense of all those words in Euclide that is not pure nonsense should arise out of the same words and so conjoined is by me incomprehensible But if the possibility of the thing be comprehensible or so great an absurdity be imaginable in a Writer led only by a humane spirit it is not imaginable in Writers divinely inspired That the Holy Ghost should write unintelligibly and wholly diversly from the common use of words in things absolutely necessary to salvation is impossible If an infallible Teacher be necessary to give the sense of Scripture in all things and no other sense than what is so given can be safely rested in then either the right sense of that infallible Teachers words if he be at a distance cannot be known but by some other present infallible Teacher or else that pretended infallible Teacher is more able or more willing to ascertain us of his meaning than the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture To speak of seeking the meaning of Scripture from the sense that the Catholick Church hath thereof is but vain talk For first the Catholick church never yet hath and never is like to come together till the day of judgment to declare their sense of the things in question nor have they written it in any book or number of books 2. Never did any true Representative of the Catholick Church or any thing like it as yet come together or any way declare what is their sense of the Scripture and the things in question nor is ever like to do 3. Tho it be granted that the Catholick Church cannot err in the essentials of Christian Religion as indeed no true member thereof can for it would involve a contradiction yet there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that a great if not the greater part of the Catholick Church may err in the integrals much more in the accidentals of Religion yea there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that the whole Catholick Church may err at least per vices in the several parts thereof some in one thing some in another And all this is testified by experience in the great diversities of opinions about these things in the several parts of the Catholick Church yea and by the difference of judgment and practise of the larger parts thereof even from those among us who hold this principle of the necessity of standing to their judgment Wherefore shall we think that God puts men upon such dissiculties yea impossibilities of finding out the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures at least in the main points of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 57th Canon of the Laodicean Councel do shew that bishops with their Churches had been constituted in villages tho in some dependance on the City-bishop Mr. Beverege in his Annotations on Council Anchyram c. 13. shews that the the Chorepiscopi were truly bishops tho the exercise of some Episcopal functions were denied them by the Canons and by the Canon last mentioned they were not absolutely forbidden to ordain presbyters and deacons but that they should not do it without the permission of the City-bishop under whom they were § 3. Of divers Cities having two Bishops at once THERE are many instances in the antiquity of two bishops allowed at once in the same City Narcissus and Alexander were bishops of Jerusalem at the same time Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 9 10. Ignatius and Euodius were both bishops of Antioch at the same time Clemens const l. 7.46 At Rome Linus and Clâ—tus were fellow bishops in Peters days Platina in the life of St. Peter Epiphanius heresy 68 concerning Meletius saith Alexandria had not anciently two Bishops as other Cities had Austin was made Bishop of Hippo in the days of Valerius and joined with him as his colleague in the Episcopal function Aug. Epist 34. to Paulinus And some learned men of the hierarchical way conceive that Peter and Paul were bishops of Rome at the same time the one of the Circumcision and the other of the Uncircumcision The Nicene Council was the first that decreed that universally there should be but one bishop in a City Can. 8. If any that come from the Novations to the Catholick Church be a bishop let him have the dignity of Priesthood unless it please the Catholick bishop to give him also the honour of the Episcopal Name If it doth not please him let him find a place for him that he may be a Chorepiscopus in the parish or a presbyter in the Clergy that there may not seem to be two bishops in one City As concerning the Catalogues of the ancient bishops in great Cities wherein the succession is by one single person after another It may be considered That Historians being of later ages had respect to the custom of their own times wherein the Episcopacy resided in one And when anciently there were two or more equal in the name and authority of a Bishop the survivor was reckoned the successor whenas he was indeed but the surviving colleague Some do thus labour to remove the contradictions of Historians touching the order of the succession of the first bishops of Rome Linus Cletus Anacletus c. by supposing that these or some of them were presbyters or bishops at the same time ruling that Church in common and that the following writers fancying to themselves such bishops as were set up in the Church in their times fell into those diversities of tradition § 4. Of the more late Erection of many Parishes under one bishop IT is acknowedged by all parties that Christians in great Cities were not divided into divers fixed Congregations or Parishes till long after the Apostles days And tho when they were multiplied they had divers meeting-places yet those places were promiscuously frequented and the people were taught and governed by all the Presbyters in common and were called but one Church It is observed by Epiphanius Heres 68. n. 6. That it was the Custom only at Alexandria to have one president in the whole City and to distribute the presbyters to teach severally vid. Grot. Annot. on 1 Tim. 5.17 Seldens Comment on Eutych Origin Alexand. p. 85. And most agree that it was two hundred and sixty years after Christ before parishes were distinguished And there must be a distinction of parishes before there could be a union of them into Diocesses § 5. That Bishops and Presbyters are of the same order The Testimony of later times concerning it THat this is not the opinion only of those who are now called Presbyterians let the testimonies both of ancient and later times touching this point be considered I begin with those of later times The French and Belgick Confessions assert the parity of order of all Ministers of the Gospel Reynold Peacock bishop of Chichester wrote a book de Ministrorum aqualitate which the Papists caused to be burnt Vid. Erasmus his Annotations on 1 Tim. 4. Cassanders consult Article 14. saith It is agreed among all that of old in the Apostles days there was no difference between bishops and presbyters but for orders sake and avoiding of schism a bishop was put before a presbyter This his opinion he delivered to the Emperor of Germany being sent for by him to inform his conscience about such questions In the time of King Henry the Eighth there was published a book by Cranmer and others called the bishops book wherein is affirmed that the difference of bishops was a device of the ancient fathers not mentioned in Scripture An. 1537. In the book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the Clergy in a provincial synod and set forth by the Kings Authority and approved by the Parliament it is asserted That the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles instituted certain inferior degrees of Ministry yet in the New Testament no mention is made of any degrees or distinctions in orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of presbyters or bishops The Parliament Divines at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight in their Answer to the King say This doctrine of the sameness of the order of a bishop and presbyter was published by King Henry the Eighth An. 1543. to be received by all the subjects and was seen and approved by the Lords both spiritual and temporal and by the lower house of Parliament The words of the book are The Scripture mentions these two orders only to wit Presbyters and Deacons and the Apostles confirming them by prayer and imposition of hands Mr. Mede discourse 5. on 1 Cor. 4 1. saith there are properly but two orders Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Deacons the rest are but divers degrees of these two Dr. Hammonds opinion concerning bishops and presbyters is thus declared in his Annotations on Acts 11. Altho the Title of Elders hath extended to a second order in the Church and now is in use only for them yet in the Scripture-times it belonged principally if not alone to the bishops there being no evidence that any of that second order were then instituted in the Churches Now if in Scripture-times presbyters of an inferior order to bishops were not instituted as this learned man supposeth it is evident that all those Church-officers called presbyters mentioned in Scripture were bishops and if this inferior order of presbyters be not to be found in Scripture I desire to know what proof can be made of its divine institution Many if not most Papists acknowledg that presbytery is the highest order in the ministry and that Episcopacy is but a different degree of the same order And it is
convene and ordain one to the Patriarchate and that they might chuse the Patriarch out of any Region Jerome as an Historian only mentions from the testimony of Eusebius some bishops made by the Apostles But who can prove that those bishops were of a higher order than Presbyters The Testimonies of other Ancients in the same point Cyprian lib. 3. Epist 9. Erasmus his Edit to Rogatianus The Deacons must remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is bishops and Praepositi but after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles made Deacons to themselves as ministers of their Episcopacy and the church Here are but two Orders mentioned 1. bishops and Praepositi who were as the Apostles 2. Deacons who are ministers to them and the church Id. lib. 1. Epist 11. to Pomponius When all ought to maintain discipline much more the Praepositi and the Deacons From this and the other place before cited it may plainly appear that there was no middle office between that of the Praepositi and the Deacons And all the Presbyters being Praepositi must needs be of the same Order with bishops that title importing the very nature of the bishops office Chrysostome on the first to Timothy consesseth that there is little or no difference between a bishop and a presbyter That a bishop had not a different ordination from a presbyter Ambrose shews on 1 Tim. c. 3. in these words Why after the bishop doth he come to the ordination of a deacon Why but because there is one ordination of a bishop and presbyter for either of them is a priest but the bishop is the first every bishop is a presbyter but every presbyter is not a bishop for he is a bishop who is first among the presbyters Here note that the difference lies in this that the bishop is the first among the Presbyters Vid. Sedulius on Tit. 1. Anselm of Canterbury on Phil. 1. Beda on Acts 20. Alcuinus de divinis officiis c. 35 36. all agreeing in this point § 7. Testimonies to prove That the Episcopal Authority is really in the Presbyters 1. THAT Presbyters have the power of the keys and that the Apostles received it as Presbyters is commonly agreed on all sides Mr. Thorndike in his form of primitive Government and Right of Churches p. 128. saith That the power of the keys that is the power of the Church whereof that power is the root and source is common to bishops and presbyters Bishop Morton in his Apology Dr. Field and many others say much more 2. Presbyters have the power of jurisdiction and discipline particularly of excommunication and absolution Spalatensis proves that the power of excommunication and absolution is not different from the power of the keys which is exercised in foro poenitentiali and is acknowledged to belong to presbyters L. 5 c. 9. n. 2. l. 5. c. 2. n. 48 c. Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor saith If I sin a presbyter may deliver me to Satan In the Church of England a presbyter is set to pass the sentence of excommunication in the Chancellors Court tho he doth but speak the words when the Court bids him Tertullian in his Apology c. 59. saith that probati quique seniores all the approved Elders did exercise discipline in the Church Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 7. saith that in the Church the presbyters keep that discipline which makes men better Irenaeus l. 4. c. 44. With the order of presbytery they keep the doctrine of the Apostles sound and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest This place shews that discipline for correction as well as doctrine for information did belong to the presbyters Epiphanius haeres 42. reports that Marcion was expell'd by the Roman presbyters the Sea being vacant Id Heres 47. That Noetus was convicted judged and expelled by a session of presbyters Many Diocesses have been long without bishops upon several occasions and governed all that time by presbyters Vid. Blondels Apol. sect 3. p. 183 184. The Church of England allows presbyters in the Convocation to make Canons Also it allows presbyters to keep persons from the Communion of the Church for some offences and to receive them again if they repent To say that the presbyters cannot exercise this power without the bishops consent doth not derogate from the truth of their power herein for in some ancient times it was so ordered that presbyters could perform â—o sacred ministrations without their bishop They might not baptize as hath been observed without the bishops command but that limitation respected only the exercise of the power but not the power in it self 3. Presbyters have power of ordaining Acts 13.1 2 3. The Church of Antioch had not many Prelates at that time if any but the prophets and teachers there are mentioned as Ordainers Whereas some say they were bishops of many Churches in Syria they speak without proof and against the text which saith there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers c. which clearly expresseth that they all belonged to that Church this right of presbyters is confirmed by the passages before cited concerning the ordaining and making the bishops of Alexandria by the presbyters of that Church Firmilian in Cyprian Ep. 75. saith of them that Rule in the Church that they have the power of baptizing of laying on of hands and ordaining and who they be he expressed a little before viz. Seniors and Praepositi by which the presbyters as well as the bishops are understood Foelicissimus was ordained a deacon by Novatus one of Cyprians presbyters schismatically yet his ordination was not nulled by Cyprian but he was deposed for mal-administration The first Council of Nice in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria and all the Churches of Egypt Libia and Pentapolis thus determine concerning the presbyters ordained by Meletius Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. Let those that by the grace of God and helped by our prayers are found to have turned aside to no schism but have contained themselves within the bounds of the Catholick and Apostolick Church free from spot of error have authority of ordaining Ministers and also of nominating those that are worthy of the Clergy c. Now tho they had not this power granted them to be exercised apart without their bishop yet it is to be noted that they had the power tho the Bishop as president guided in all those acts The Author of the Comment on the Ephesians that goes under the name of Ambrose saith That in Egypt the presbyters ordain consignant if the bishop be not present Also Austin faith that in Alexandria and all Egypt if the bishop be wanting the presbyters consecrate Presbyters sent bishops into England and ordained bishops for England Bedes Hist l. 3. c. 4 5. The Abbot and other presbyters of the Island Hye sent Aydan c. at King Oswalds Request and this was the ordinary custom tho in respect of the custom
Calendar yet in other chapters appointed to be read this person who speaks that which was untrue is set forth for a holy Angel And c. 7.3 both the Angel and Tobias are reported to say to Raguel that which was false on the Angels part viz. that they were of the sons of Naphtalim who were captives in Niniveh Tho we read in Scripture that Angels were sometimes taken to be men and so called by them that took them to be such yet we do not read therein that any Holy Angels affirmed that they were men and such particular men by name Tob. 12.15 The Angel is reported to say I am Raphael one of the seven holy Angels which present the prayers of the Saints and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy one The presenting of the prayers of the Saints before God looks like a mediatory act And suppose it here signifies but an act of ministry not of mediation yet I question whether it be right to consent to the use of such a passage as seems to imply the mediation or intercession of Angels for us and which may give an occasion to believe it and be made use of to prove that opinion The story of Bell and the Dragon is thought to be fabulous and there may be some regret in consenting to its being appointed to be read at a time when it being omitted the first Chapter of Isaiah would come in course to be read Moreover the reading of the Apocrypha hath been excepted against as it excludeth much of the Canonical Scriptures and taketh in such Books in their stead as are commonly reputed fabulous yet read for real History Of the Tables and Rules for Holy dayes and times IN this Book is contained the appointment of divers Festivals and other solemn times Now tho I scruple not to join in the publick Worship of God performed in those days yet I hesitate about the expresâ— declaring of assent and consent to the use of Tables and Rules directing to the solemnizing thereof It is to me doubtful whether any humane power may lawfully institute such times and days as some of these are I confess there be arguments for the lawfulness of such institution which I cannot well answer and there be other arguments against it which also I cannot well answer and this later sort I crave leave to propound in this place The occasions of these days and times were existent in the Apostles times and if God would have had these days appointed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles and have left it recorded in Scripture as he did other like things If the institution of these days and times were necessary it is equally necessary in all ages and parts of the Catholick Church and is the matter of an universal Law and so belongs to the Universal Lawgiver If the Universal Lawgiver hath reserved any thing to his own power it can be no less than the making of such Laws and Ordinances as are universally and perpetually necessary To affirm such institution to be universally necessary when God hath made no Law concerning it in Scripture is to overthrow the sufficiency of Scripture as a Catholick Rule of divine faith and worship For men to institute Ordinances of Worship supposed to be universally and perpetually necessary to the Church supposeth a defect in the divine universal and perpetual Ordinances to be made up by adding other Ordinances by way of supplement The fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so high a nature that man may not presume to make the like The Table of all the Feasts to be observed begins All Sundays in the year so it calls the Lords day which it seems to put upon the same level with feasts of humane institution And there seems as great a sacredness if not greater conferred upon some of the high festivals as upon the Lords day which is of divine appointment The Lords day doth sufficiently answer the ends for which those festivals that relate to our Saviour are appointed for that being in memory of his Resurrection implies a memorial of all things done for mans redemption If such Institutions as these be not prohibited Deut. 4 2. Deut. 12.32 I enquire of what sort is the prohibited addition there spoken of The prohibition seems to me to be not meerly of adding to the Rule to wit the written law but of doing more than that Rule required as the precept is not of preserving the Rule but observing what is commanded in it I do not question the lawfulness of such humane institutions in divine Worship as are in meer subordination to divine institution and serve for the more convenient modifying and ordering thereof and which indeed are not properly additions thereunto because they are not of the same nature and use but are meerly accidentals of worship But I doubt of such humane Ordinances of divine worship as are coordinate with the divine Ordinances and express the same nature reason end and use with them and are additions properly so called The festival days appointed by the Church of England are in the Table of feasts set in coordination with the Lords day and they are not meerly the accidentals but very important integral parts of divine service in this Church In reason it must needs be that God hath sufficiently provided for his honour in the worship which he hath instituted as much as belongs to the reason and end of those things which he hath instituted Thereupon I enquire Whether it be not a presuming of our own against the divine wisdom to add to the divine Ordinances by way of supplement humane ordinances of the same reason and intent with the divine There is no question of the lawfulness of appointing some certain times besides the Lords day either fixed or variable to be spent in publick worship wherein God is to be glorified for Jesus Christ and the work of redemption wrought by him There is no question of the lawfulness of appointing days of humiliation and thanksgiving either for once or anniversarily upon special occasions and that besides the special occasions of those days things of universal and perpetual concernment ought to be minded in the religious exercises then performed In these cases the appointed days and times are only adjuncts of worship which as all other things must be performed in some certain time and they are for the worship but the worship is not for them and they are not intrinsecally holy but only by extrinsick denomination from the holy worship then solemnizâ—d But these concessions do not infer as I suppose the warrantableness of days appropriated to the same use and ends for which the Lords day is designed of God and made intrinsecally and permanently holy and sanctifying the worship as well as sanctified by it so that it were profaneness to alienate them to other uses Now as I assuredly believe that the Lords day is intrinsecally and
than of those that are of authoritative institution also of those that are used occasionally and pro hic nunc than of those that are used statedly Furthermore I apprehend that significant Ceremonies of Divine Worship are more apt to degenerate into Superstition and if they be multiplied that Religion is therewith loaded as with unprofitable luggage and that it is a form of Religion rather Mosaical than Evangelical wherein spiritual worship is most regarded I think also that significant Ceremonies are not necessary in genere as those things are which are left to the determination of humane authority and so not to be instituted and imposed in the ordinary Divine Service I apprehend that our Lord Christ hath instituted all those stated Ordinances of positive Worship that are necessary to the Church Universal and therefore that more of the same nature are not to be devised by men If any significant Ceremonies be indeed necessary for some parts of the Catholick Church in respect of time and place there seems to me a fairer plea for their institution in those times and places but the controverted Ceremonies among us seem to be necessary for the whole Church in every age if at all necessary Significant Ceremonies of the same nature and reason with those perpetual Ordinances that Christ hath instituted for the Universal Church may not be instituted by man and particularly such as are made Symbols of the Covenant of Grace and Christianity In matters doubted among sober Christians Superiors should take heed of strict imposing and thereby wresting the Consciences of their subjects and overstraining them to a compliance with them in derogation to Gods authority in their consciences If Superiors command that which is above their sphere to command namely things not necessary in genere yet if they be not simply evil subjects may do those things unless they be evil in their consequence to a higher degree than the not doing of them would be In this case it is not formal obedience but they are done for the ends sake and to avoid evil §. 7. Of bowing at the Name of JESVS IT is rationally supposed that in this act not the Name but the Person so named is made the object of adoration the Name pronounced is only the occasion of the present adoration of the Person Nothing in Reason or Scripture doth evince that it is simply evil to adore Christ by incurvation of the body or other reverent gesture upon occasion of the pronouncing of the Name JESUS Howbeit to make such incurvation a stated Ordinance of worship may be an excess in Religion that is Superstition tho not intolerable partly because it too rigidly tyes up Christians to a bodily exercise of no necessity nor of great moment partly because it makes them attend to an overcurious gesticulation and verges to externalness and formality hindring the inward life and power of devotion partly because it makes a difference where God hath made none and puts greater honour upon one Name that of right hath not greater honour than the other viz. Christ God Lord or Jehovah For tho the Name be not the object worshipped yet it hath an honour and preheminence given it above the other names without sufficient ground But if the said incurvation be so severely commanded that great mischief would follow the non-observance I judg it may be done tho not formally in obedience yet for avoiding that mischief and peradventure it may be expedient in that case to bow at the name of Christ God Lord. The place Phil. 2.10 is only a phrase expressing Subjection to Christ and used also Rom. 14.11 from Isa 45.23 to express Subjection to God § 8. Of kneeling in the Sacrament AS for kneeling in the Sacrament the inquiry is not here of the expediency of it much less of the imposing of it but of the bare lawfulness of it against which I find no evidence The Act of kneeling among us is no adoration of the elements nor owning of Christs corporal presence but it is either a gesture of prayer then made or a sign of most submiss and reverential receiving those pledges of Divine Grace or both Yet for as much as it was a Table-gesture in which Christs Disciples received it from their Lords hand a Table-gesture cannot reasonably be thought less safe or less decent § 9. Of wearing the Surplice AS touching the Surplice the wearing of a Garment of this or that colour or of this or that form or shape in Divine Worship is neither commanded nor forbidden of God But tho as to its materiale it may be indifferent yet as to its formal state it may not be also so If the Scurplice be made a holy Garment as the Priestly Garments under the Law if it be used to make him that wears it more holy and the Service more acceptable for obtaining Divine Grace it is Superstitious If it be made a Symbol of sanctity it may raise a scruple But a distinctive habit of a Minister whether used as his ordinary garb or only in sacred Administrations I cannot see to be Superstitious or forbidden But a habit that is not Superstitious may be too gawdy or too theatrical What is the formal state or reason of the Surplice is to be judged by the authoritatively declared meaning of those that injoyn it touching its end and use But whatsoever the nature and reason of this Garment be I cannot approve the inforcing of it upon such Ministers and in such Congregations to whom by reason of invincible prejudice it is either odious or ridiculous yea tho their prejudice be supposed culpable Wise Rulers give way to the unmoveable aversness of Inferiors in things unnecessary and of no great moment tho of good intention And as I should be loth to wear a fools coat in Divine Service upon the command of a Superior so I should be loth to appear in a Congregation in a habit which I knew would be to them as ridiculous as a fools coat tho it were their great folly so to think § 10. Of the Ring in Matrimony FOr as much as the Matrimonical contract and conjunction tho it be a Divine Ordinance yet is no part of Divine Worship I no more doubt of the lawfulness of the Ring as a sign of that contract than of any other sign used for ratification of humane Contracts § 11. Of the Cross in Baptism SOme Nonconformists say that they deny not the Civil use of the Cross in Coins and Banners Others of them say they dare not reprove the Ancient Christians that used the sign of the Cross meerly as a professing signal action to shew to the Heathen that they did believe in Christ crucified Indeed that usage thereof was not an Act of Worship but an informing of men touching their faith It seems lawful to signifie as by words so by other signs that we are Christ's and his devoted Servants For Words are but a kind of signs The grounds of scrupling the sign
of the Cross in Baptism are these 1. That it is not a meer circumstance but an Ordinance of Worship as important as an external rite can be 2. That being a solemn and stated Symbolical sign of a Divine Mystery and devised of men it is of that classis or rank of things which are not necessary in genere and so not allowed to be determined and imposed by men as things necessary in genere are allowed 3. That either the whole nature of a Sacrament or at least a part thereof is in it That it is a Sacrament is thus proved It is an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual Grace The outward sign is the representation of the Cross the instrument of Christs sufferings and the inward spiritual Grace is fortitude in the Christian warfare according to the words of the Liturgy Here is a signification of Grace to be given us of God and of our duty according to that Grace Likewise this sign hath assigned unto it the moral efficacy of a Sacrament for working Grace by teaching and exciting us to the spiritual warfare and minding us of Christ crucified Also it signifies and seals our Relation to Christ or the Grace of being a Christian And the Liturgy so speaks We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs Flock and sign him c. in token c. The pretence that no rite can be a Sacrament but what God hath instituted is answered before Sect. 4. And tho the imposers thereof say it is not a Sacrament yet if they so declare its meaning as to be of the formal nature and reason of a Sacrament they make it to be one indeed tho in word they deny it If it were granted that it hath not the compleat or intire nature of a Sacrament yet there is one essential part of a Sâ—crament most apparently in it that is to be an ingaging sign on our part in the Covenant For we use it as a token of ingaging our selves to Christ crucified as our Captain and Saviour by his Cross and to perform the duties of his Soldiers and Servants to our lives ends And as Baptism dedicates to Christ so doth the sign of the Cross according to the express words of the Canon viz. It is an honourable badg whereby the party Baptized is dedicated to the Service of him that dyed on the Cross So it hath that in it which is essential to a Sacrament and part of the nature thereof at least Besides it seems to be an Ordinance of that nature and kind which Christ our Lawgiver hath reserved to himself from the reason in Sections 3 4 5. § 12. Of Holy-days THAT some time of every day is to be spent in Religious exercises and that whole days of Humiliation and Thanksgiving are to be kept upon special occasions and that there may be an Anniversary commemoration of great Mercies or Judgments is little doubted I see no reason why it is not lawful for a Nation or People to institute an Anniversary Commemoration of some eminent person sent of God as a great light among them as the first propagator of the Gospel or great Restorer of true Religion among them as of Luther among the Germans and Calvin among the French Protestants For scarce a greater blessing doth arise to a Nation Mr. R B. saith That an Apostolical Ministry being so eminent a mercy he can see no reason why the Churches of all succeeding Ages may not keep an Anniversary day for Peter or Paul c. but he saith also that whether it be lawful to separate an Anniversary for the commemoration of Christs Nativity Circumcision and such like things c. which were equally existent in the Apostles days and the reasons for observing them then equal with the following times is hard for him to determine being not able to prove it lawful and yet not seeing a plain prohibition of it Yet he gives these reasons of doubting their lawfulness First the occasions of these days were existent in the Apostles times and if God would have had these days observed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles in the Scripture as he did other like things 2. If it were necessary it would be equally necessary in all Ages and parts of the Catholick church and therefore must be the matter of an universal Law and God hath made no such Law in Scripture and therefore to say it is necessary is to overthrow the sufficiency of Scripture as the Catholick Rule of Faith and Universal Divine obedience 3. God himself hath appointed a day for the same purposes as these are pretended for the Resurrection implies all the rest of the Works of the Redeemer 4. The Fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so high a nature that man is not to presume to make the like He accounts it plainly unlawful for any Earthly Power to appoint a Weekly day in commemoration of any part of our Redemption and so make another stated Weekly Holy-day because it is the doing of the same thing for one day which God hath done by another and so seems an usurpation of power not given and an accusation of Christ and the Holy Ghost as if he had not done his Work sufficiently I think it also an usurpation of Power not given for any Human Authority to make any day or time permanently and unmovably holy as a perpetual oblation to God and not only sanctified by the duties therein performed but also sanctifying the duties and making them the more acceptable But as to the observation much more to the imposing of the observation of Holy-days of human institution regard is to be had not only to what is lawful but also to what is expedient And it is as easie to offend by excess as by defect in the instituting of set-times and days appropriated to Divine Worship § 13. Of a LITVRGY ANY particular form whether stinted or free is not of the essence of prayer but only its accidental shape or mode and pertains to it not as to a holy action but as to an action in general And for that no action can be performed but in some particular mode or other this holy action cannot otherwise be performed Now neither Scripture nor the nature of the thing hath made either a stated and stinted or a free and extemporal form in it self necessary and therefore either the one or the other may be used as expedience requires according to due choice and judgment As on the one hand they are too weak and ill advised that reject all set-forms so they on the other hand are too opinionative that reject all immediately conceived yea or preconceived forms that are not prescribed And both of them shew that they are too much addicted to their Parties § 14. Of Religious Austerities as acts or matter of Divine Worship THere are Austerities inconvenient in their kind such as the self cutting and lancing of Baals Priests and
who have received it should make use of it yet not under the constraint of a Vow but freely for those holy and good eâ—ds which are best obtained by it except some special reason as aforesaid doth oblige them to Marry But let them know that in using their gift they do no more than what is their duty to do The distinction between Counsels and Precepts in this and other matters is but vain For it is the bounden duty of all to do their utmost for the Glory of God and their own and others good § 16. As self-devised religiousness by degrees increased among Christians accordingly many rigorous Prohibitions and Limitations about Marrying both groundless and unreasonable were devised Many of the Ancients both Fathers of the Church and Hereticks were averse to or at least not much pleased with second successive Marriages either in Clergy or Laity And some degree of Penance for the same was injoyned by the Canons of some Councils The Scripture saith Marriage is honourable in all without exception thereby shewing that no condition of life puts a bar to it against those who are capable of it And if no condition of Life be a bar thereunto why should former Marriages be so The Scripture expresly asserts the lawfulness of second Marriages Rom. 7.3 If a Woman while her husband lives be married to another she shall be called an adulteress but if her husband be dead she is free from that law so that she is no adulteress tho she be married to another man St. Paul saith of Widows 2 Cor. 7.9 If they cannot contain let them marry Vers 39. A Wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives but if her husband he dead she is at liberty to be married to whom she will only in the Lord. Those young Widows whose Marriage is condemned 1 Tim. 5.11 12. were such as had devoted themselves to the service of the Church according to the manner of those times And they are said to have Condemnation not simply because they married but because they cast off their first faith that is they did violate their engagement to Christ and the Church to please the flesh Upon this ground the Apostle forbids the admitting of younger Women into that special Ministry that they might not be exposed to such temptation And vers 14. he exprefly wills That the younger women should marry which must necessarily include young Widows also because it is brought in immediately after the condemning of young Widows in case of prevarication against their aforesaid engagement His meaning is to shew that it is most covenient for them to Marry in regard of their age and condition yet not to bind any absolutely so to do Some of the Ancients thought the Apostle granted second Marriages only ex Venia by way of indulgence or dispensation so that he who used it sinned not as being not forbidden by the Law but he did not fulfil that high perfection of Life that the Gospel calls unto But herein such indulged their own opinion and I find that they were in other things very fanciful and over-rigorous in their Principles and somewhat Stoical But the Evangelical Law or the New Testament hath not so declared The prohibiting of second Marriages tends to the diminution of mankind and the weakning of Commonwealths with other inconveniences § 17. Successive Marriages more often reiterated had a greater ill name among the Ancients But those places of Scripture which license Widows to marry do it indefinitely without limitation to a Widow of the first Husband only And we find in Scripture no restraint against third fourth or more Marriages And according to reason if a Widow of the first Husband may lawfully Marry Why not also a Widow of the second Husband seeing there may be the same justifiable cause of Marriage Indeed there may be an excess in the reiterating of successive Marriages but then the dishonesty or sinfulness lies not in the Reiteration of the Marriage in it self considered but in the excess as undecent and uncomely The allowable frequency of such Reiteration is not punctually defined in general and a like to all but is varied according to the different cases of persons In the case propounded by the Sadduces to our Saviour of seven Brethren successively married to one Woman Matt. 22.25 he speaks nothing of the illegitimacy or unsoundness of the said Marriages The case of the Samaritan Woman Job 4. is to be considered Our Saviour doth tax her for living at that time with one as a husband who indeed was not her husband but he doth not expresly reprove her former plurality of successive Husbands nor do I observe that he puts any note of sinfulness upon it yet for ought I know there might be sinfulness in the undecent excess thereof The Papists say That the Catholick Church allows second and third Marriages and in whatsoever number successively yet the benediction ought not to be allowed to such Marriages because the Consecration ought not to be reiterated But this denial of the benediction and the ill reflection it hath upon second Marriages is founded upon an error that Marriage is a Sacrament and consecrated to be a Symol of the Mystical Union between Christ and the Church § 18. Seeing the gift of Continence in single Life is the Priviledg of particular persons and not of certain Orders and Callings of men a Vow or other Obligation to single Life should not be laid upon all that enter into some special Callings but particular persons should be left free therein to marry or abstain from Marriage as they find themselves qualified and called to the one or the other That Marriage is lawful and honest in the Ministers of the Gospel is evident from Scripture against all prejudices arising from customs introduced or Canons made in after-ages That one evidence that among the qualifications of a Bishop it is mentioned that he be the Husband of one Wife is clear and full against all contradiction As Peter had a Wife so Paul shews that he had power to take a Wife even in his Apostleship 2 Cor. 9 5. Have we not power to lead about a Sister a Wife as well as the other Apostles By a Sister he means a believing Christian by leading about a Sister a Wife he means living in Matrimony That disease of our fallen nature for which Marriage is appointed a remedy is common to all sorts and therefore the remedy should be as common And as is before noted the gift of Continence is a priviledg of particular persons and not of certain Orders and Callings Marriage is in it self no more impure to the Clergy than to the Laity Tit. 1.15 Vnto the pure all things are pure There is no Estate or Calling polluted by Marriage or made less holy or less worthy by the use of it for it is honourable in all men And it is to be considered that Gods Law binds every Christian to live as chastly