granted to them by the Civil Magistrate and held in tenure from him and not claimed as pertaining to the Episcopal function by Divine right 4. Their Courts determine no other civil causes than the Civil Magistrate and his Laws do permit or if any do the fault is not in the Prelateship but in the persons Further they inflict civil punishments give licences exact oaths c. by authority from the Magistrate whose substitutes therein they are And therefore the Prelates neither in this nor in any of the former instances can be said to impair the dignity authority or supremacy of the Civil Magistrate but herein do all things in and by the protection of his authority 5. If all our Ministers be exempt from the Magistrates Jurisdiction in some things appertaining to them but in what things I know not this very exemption it self is an act of the Magistrates Jurisdiction and depends upon his pleasure and how can it then any wayes impair the same Sect. 45 These things may satisfie in answer to this exception The Honours and Lordships given to the Bishops is a civil additament which we have no reason to envy them neither doth that Title or their rule and dominion infringe the Prerogative of Christ or the Power and Authority of the King And how their Honours and power in the Church should discharge us of our obedience or be a ground of our contentions I must profess I see not how any rational account can be given to any considering man Sect. 46 Except partic 6 6. But if they have a power themselves yet how can they set up and substitute and require our obedience to other officers which in the Church are confessedly not of divine institution for this also is an exception against our Episcopacy and thus did the Presbyterian Divines give it in in their (e) 1. Pap. of Propos except 2. against Bishops Proposals to His Majesty That by reason of the disability to discharge their duties and trusts personally The Bishops did depute the Administration of much of their trust even in matters of Spiritual Cognizance to Commissaries Chancellors and Officials whereof some are meer secular persons and could not administer that power which originally pertaineth to the Officers of the Church And again in their Second paper to His Majesty presented in reference to His Majesties Declaration communicated to them before its publication they say The Prelacy which we disclaim is That of Diocesans upon the claim of a superior order to a Presbyter assuming the sole power of Ordination and of Publick admonition of particular offendors enjoyning Penitence excommunicating and absolving besides Confirmation over so many Churches as necessitated the corruption of Discipline and using of Humane officers as Chancellors Surrogates Officials Commissaries Arch-deacons while the undoubted officers of Christ the Pastors of particular Churches were hindred from the exercise of their office Sect. 47 Answ 1 Answ 1. How much these things may signifie towards the design for which they were urged by these Brethren petitioning for an alteration of the establishment which here I meddle not with sure I am should all these things be granted they signifie nothing as to the exemption of us from a peaceable submission to these officers being established And this is all that I here aim at As to the Diocesses and Superior Order I have already spoken to them the matter of Ordination I shall examine under the next exception Sect. 48 Answ 2 2. As to Publick admonition Penances Excommunication and Absolving c. I say that such censures as these are to be executed in the Church none that knows the nature of a Church and is acquainted with the Scriptures did ever or do now question The censures are necessary the ends great To preserve the Church in Purity and Peace To keep men from Scandal and Schism To recover the lapsed sinner To restore the Penitent To strengthen the weak To confirm and establish the doubtful to make the Church (f) Cant. 6.4 10 comely and beautiful in her self and terrible to her enemies as a well marshalled Army Now when we acknowledge the Censures of Divine institution and of so great necessity why should we quarrel at the Administrators which yet are not so uncapable of this trust as some may conceive The Bishops on all hands are granted an interest in the power of the Keyes even by those who will not acknowledge them above the Presbyters Now if they exercise this power alone or with others yet excluding some whom we judge to have an interest with them yet what they do they do by vertue of that authority which they have The taking too much upon them or any male-administration may be personal faults but no ground for us to refuse obedience Sect. 49 Answ 3 3. Neither do these inferior officers pass these Censures alone but with others nor do any according to our constitutions keep Courts in affairs of this nature but with someone or more Presbyters there with them Sect. 50 Answ 4 4. But grant that these Officers have not a Divine institution but substitute under the Bishop by an authority meerly humane though some conceive some footsteps of an Archdeacon in Scripture in Silas and Mark to Paul and Barnabas although not under the same name Yet 1. The Lay-Elders beyond all doubt are as much secular persons as any of these and have as little a foundation in Scripture as these as to the being Ecclesiastical officers and the passing of Church-censures and then methinks these men that could admit them may admit these If their being secular persons be an argument against these sure I am it is as strong against them and with us more for they never had any legal establishment in this Church as these have But 2. The legal establishment of these Officers by the Laws of the Kingdom is enough to engage our submission to those Laws and upon this account may even those men with a good conscience obey them who yet acknowledge not a Divine institution of them nor a Divine right in Episcopacy it self For 1. Sect. 51 I think there is very much truth in those words of Archbishop Whitgift which I find cited but miserably misapplied by Johnson the Separatist viz. The substance and nature of Government must be taken out of the Word of God and consisteth in these parts That the Word be truly taught the Sacraments rightly administred Vertue furthered Vice repressed and the Church kept in quietness and order All this is certainly of Divine institution and this we may and must submit to And this is all which the Bishops and Officers under them are impowered to do But saith he the Officers of the Church whereby this Government is wrought be not namely and particularly expressed in Scripture but in some points left to the discretion and liberty of the Church to be disposed according to the state of times persons and places Now if there be a truth in this which
in convenience there may be in this I cannot imagine 4. Sect. 84 Yea we shall find some foot-steps of such a thing as a repeated Ordination and a New Imposition of Hands in the Scripture practice too which will prove it lawful and in some cases convenient as when a man is sent to a new place and in a new particular Mission though he were in the Ministery before It is not only my notion but having communicated my thoughts I have met with divers of the same judgement in this and have since seen this Argument gathered up together in its full force by (k) Humph. of Re-ord Sect. 1. p. 6. Sect. 4. p. 30. Master Humphreyes It is evident That St. Paul was made a Minister and an Apostle by Christ himself who saith (l) Act. 26.16 17 18. I have appeared to thee for this purpose to make thee a Minister And now I send thee to the Gentiles to open their eyes Here he was made a Minister and had the office of Apostleship conferred upon him This he stands upon (m) Gal. 1.1 Neither of man nor by man but by Jesus Christ This he pleads as his undoubted call when ever he is called in question He is now then estated and invested in this office and function Yet we may well conjecture and some think it cannot well be denied that Paul was confirmed in this Ministery by the imposition of the hands of Ananias (n) Acts 9.17 18 20. with Acts 22.14 15 16. who put his hands on him and he then was filled with the Holy Ghost was baptized and then went and preached But clearly after this we find him again (o) Acts 13.3 Separated to the work of the Gospel by Prayer and laying on of hands With him take his Companion Barnabas it is clear He was (p) Act. 11.22 sent forth before by the Church at Jerusalem and it is not probable that He so famous a Minister should be in such a work without Ordination yet He also with Paul in the forenamed place hath a New Ordination Separate me Barnabas and Saul said the Holy Ghost to the work whereunto I have called them And they did so (q) Acts 13.1 2 3. When they i.e. Niger and Lucius had fasted and prayed they laid their hands on them and sent them away They were called now to go upon a special Mission to preach the Gospel at Seleucia Cyprus Salamis Paphos c. and are sent out by a New Ordination And the same reason shall justifie persons that submit to a Re-ordination now which may be given of the Imposition of hands upon those two who without controversie were in the Evangelical Ministery and their office before There was indeed the special command of the Holy Ghost true but the Holy Ghost commands nothing to be done but the thing it self hath its proper reason and end To give them the Ministerial or Apostolical office it could not be for that needed not they had it already But it was to send them out to a particular work to give them a just repute in the places to which they were sent to put a due valuation upon them that they might be received as the Ministers of God and Apostles of Christ And upon the same reason or the like thus far infallibly may any conscientious Christian submit to the required Re-ordination though he still stand upon his former Ministery as valid in foro Dei and all his former Ministerial acts by vertue thereof good and valid too yet as the case stands with us in England wherein the Laws suffer none to exercise their Ministery unless ordained or at least allowed and licensed by the Bishop and wherein many will not some perhaps out of conscience cannot suppose it their weakness hold him for a true lawful Minister otherwise at least not a Minister of the Church of England He may I say considering these cases submit without sin and for these reasons take this new Ordination That he may have both a full and free authority from the Laws to exercise his Ministery and that he may be received as an allowed Preacher a Minister legally sent as to the exercise of his function with freedom acception and success with those among whom he is placed Before I leave this instance 5. Sect. 85 What if I should adde this which I look not upon as an idle conceit but a rational conjecture of (r) Humph. of Reord Sect. 1. p. 7. the forenamed Author gathered from this new Imposition of hands on Paul and Barnabas That if a Minister have a call to a new place or a new special work though there be no necessity of it yet he lawfully may have a peculiar Ordination to that place and work so far that if the hands of a Bishop and other grave persons were laid on him afresh with fasting and prayers for Gods blessing on him in the same no man can rationally judge that in so doing either the Bishop or himself should be involved in any guilt of sin 6. Sect. 86 But as to our case Those who are called to the Evangelical Ministery so they are and so they judge themselves to be who have been ordained by the Presbytery are obliged for a (s) 1 Cor. 9 16. Necessity is laid upon them to preach the Gospel and to administer the Ordinances of Christ to that Congregation where they are placed leave and liberty they may have to do this if they will thus far submit to the Episcopal authority Now sure I am that Woe is unto them and they sin if they do it not where they may have leave and liberty but I am not sure they should sin if they should submit to this Episcopal Ordination superadded to their former that they may have liberty and authority to exercise that Ministery in this Church which they have received Nay very probably yea I think infallibly they should not sin in this but should sin certainly if they would rather lay down their Ministery and forsake their work and standing than submit to this Ordination required Now then whether it be fit to commit a certain sin such as laying down our work and the exercise of our Ministery upon the doubt or fear of but a supposed sin in taking a new Ordination which is in this case but a Confirming of us in our Ministery let any serious considering man judge 7. Sect. 87 Yea it seems not only a thing lawful that may be done but according to our present state if required a duty that must be done upon the account of that Obedience which the Gospel requires (t) Rom. 13.1 5. in every soul to the Higher Powers and this For conscience sake and to (v) 1 Pet. 2.13 14 15. every Ordinance or Politie among men for that I conceive is the genuine meaning of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostle Whether to the King as Supreme or to other Governours commissioned by him for the Lords sake
kept from disobeying And though by submitting to this punishment ordained by the law to those who break it they may have satisfied the Courts of men yet in this case they are not cleared from sin or guilt before God because they were obliged actually to do the duty of the law not only for wrath but for conscience sake The Murderer Thief Felon is hanged the Traytor executed thus the law of man is satisfied as to the penalty but the guilt of sin upon the conscience is not cleared nor the man with God innocent Sect. 10 8. Neither do I doubt of consent in this as a thing equally evident That though a law may not be so good as we could wish or as indeed it should be yet if the matter of it be not evil a sin forbidden by God we are bound in conscience to obey it It is not strange in the world wherein the best men are not perfect to see imperfections in the best lawes and some lawes made which are not so good or convenient as they might be because they are like the men that made them imperfect at the best yet when they are not evil no sin in the matter enjoyned they oblige the conscience to conforme to them It may be possible that we may be able to devise a better law yet God never made particular Subjects judges of what is fit or not fit to be enacted for a law to the Community nor ever gave us power to prescribe a law to our selves nor will he acquit us from sin in disobeying a law which is not evil upon our imaginations that it might be better For we are bound to be [o] Rom. 13.5 subject and to [p] 1 Pet. 2.14 submit as patiently submitting to the Powers punishing us without rebellion or murmuring so especially readily doing what they command us in what we can and may lawfully do [q] Tit. 2.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without disputing or gainsaying When I say lawfully do I mean still the matter not being evil for there may be somewhat in the Form or other circumstances of the law which may denominate that an evil law and yet the subjects bound to obey that law though not unto evil Sect. 11 9. I am therefore fully convinced of this also which I think no conscientious understanding Christian will deny That though the making of such a law may be a sin in the law-maker yet when that law is made if it command not sin it is to be obeyed by the subject e. g. if a law be made rashly without that serious consideration of the necessities expediencies and benefit of the people for whom it is made this is sinful in the law-maker who is bound to use all care circumspection and prudence and advice that is possible conveniently to be had again if a law do too much disproportion the offences and penalties laying on a grievous and heavie censure or capital punishment upon a light or trivial offence supposing no ill consequences likely to ensue of an higher nature for this alters the case much and makes the offence great in the circumstances which is inconsiderable in the particular matter or inflicting onely a slight inconsiderable censure on an hainâ—us transgression or capital crime This would be an evil because unequal and unjust law but it is evil only in the form of it and notwithstanding this doth still oblige the subject to obedience because the matter enjoyned is not evil but may be done and the offences punished are really offences and may not be done The formal injustice in the law in the disproportioning of the penalties is only the sin of the law-maker and he alone shall answer it and that only to the Lord above him It is the matter only which concerneth the Subject And the sin of the law-giver can be no plea to justifie the subject in the breach of the Law when it is once made and given for a Law Sect. 12 All these are principles so evident both by Scripture and Reason that all sober Christians I think and all Protestant Divines that I know do agree in them even those who yet scruple in the particular case of the Common Prayer and Rites of the Church of England will I presume subscribe to these general things of the Obligation of Laws made by a just Authority upon the Conscience And I am confident were these things duly considered and seriously weighed there would be much more peace and charity in the Church even among and with those whose judgements do dissent about some particular practices of and laws in the Church Sect. 13 Well then to apply these generals to the particular case in hand about the prescribed Liturgy and the Rites therein ordained 1. There is we all know a Law establishing this made by unquestionable authority An Act of Parliament legally summoned legally chosen justly constituted confirmed by the Royal assent whose only stamp and fiat gives Laws their being and makes them perfect Acts valid and obliging Sect. 14 2. This Law requires the actual use of this Book of all Ministers upon very severe penalties Now though the penalties have their proper use for that purpose to which they are ordained viz. to preserve the Law from contempt of men to preserve the peace of the Church which might otherwise be violated by some who make no Conscience of the duty enjoyned and to prevail with some spirits to do that which otherwise they would not do The fear of wrath being one motive though not the only one and though not the principal but of an inferiour and lower yet not of no consideration Yet the Conscience of duty is the principal thing that should in this case oblige our conformity For being convinced and agreeing upon the fore named principles that the Laws of a just Authority do oblige us in Conscience to yield actual Obedience so that it is not indifferent whether we obey or no we must also be convinced that we are bound to obey this Law nor can be excused of sin if we do not supposing in this we should not break our higher Obligation to the Law of God Sect. 15 3. All the work then which we have now to do is to examine the Liturgy it self and consider what we are required to do whether this be evil or repugnant to the Law of God or no for this case as far as concerns our practice admitteth no other consideration For the Law is made and a Law is granted to have an Obligation upon the Conscience and though it should be supposed there were some sin the Law-giver or inequality in the form of the Law or that it is not so good as it might be or we wish it were and that the things required are not antecedently necessary to be done yet if the things be in themselves lawful to be performed there is without all peradventure an Obligation upon Conscience to perform them Sect. 16 Let us then examine the matter of
the general cases and rules of Scandal Now then to apply these generals to the particular under debate The action proposed to the present enquiry is the using of the Sign of the Crosse in Baptism an usage enjoyned us by an undoubted Law and the publick constitution of the Church of England The inquiry is Whether it may be done with a good conscience in regard of the Scandal that is given or at least may be taken thereat yea or no Now for resolution in this case § 46 1. We take it for granted that no intelligent or understanding Christian is so unreasonable as to judge the bare use of such a Sign to be a thing in its own nature simply evil there is no shadow of reason to induce such a belief § 47 2. We take it for granted that the most earnest contenders against this Rite and most eager dissenters from the publick constitutions are not cannot be so uncharitable as to judge so severely and unjustly of those that use the Crosse as if they did it whether well or ill it matters not with a formal purpose or the least intention to give a Scandal either to vex or grieve their brethren or to draw others into sinne by their example They must forfeit their Christianity yea even Humanity that can admit or passe such a censure It is manifest then that the two first mentioned cases of Scandal with the rules appending are not at all pertinent to this case of the Crosse for neither is it in it self evil and so scandalous nor do we use it be it good or evil with any intention to give Scandal § 48 3. Nor can the third Case and Rule be applied to this particular any more than the former For though where a thing may reasonably be forborne we must do nothing whereat Scandal may be taken yet with us the case is otherwise we are not free our act is not spontaneous To Sign with the Crosse is not onely lawfull but to us at least prudentially necessary which we cannot forbear without incurring those great inconveniences upon our selves that we rationally must expect to ensue upon our contempt and breach of the Law yea and upon others also by the violation of the Peace and order of the Church yea in conscience necessary it is to us who acknowledge it lawfull and are to it obliged by a Law which we must not disobey It is not a thing then that can reasonably be forborne nor can we be obliged to such a Charity as we are not at liberty to perform So that neither doth this Case or Rule concern this matter before us § 49 4. It is the last onely that cometh up to our case Here then we have no more to do for the setling of our judgements the quieting of our consciences and the regulating of our actions in this affaire than to consider what the Rule in the case given obligeth us unto Which is not to leave the action undone for the danger of Scandal for we are obliged to do it and to leave it undone besides the inconveniencies formerly mentioned would not so much avoid one as raise more Scandals and start new Questions and these beget more to the multiplying of scruples in infinitum But so to order our doing of it that if possible no Scandal may ensue thereupon or at leastwise not through our default by our carelesse and indiscreet managing of it Even as the Jew that stood in need to sink a pit for the service of his house or ground was not for fear of his neighbours beasts falling into it bound by the Law to forbear the making of it but only so provided a sufficient cover for it when made In this case the use of the Crosse the thing is not to be left undone when we are so expresly enjoyned it and it so much behoves us to do it but the action is so managed as to the manner of doing of it in all respects and circumstances thereto belonging that the necessity of our so doing with the true cause thereof may appear to the world to the satisfaction of those who are willing to take notice of it And that such persons who would be ready by our example to do the same thing to another purpose or an ill end in an ill way when they have not the like reason may do it only upon their own score and not be able to vouch our practice for their excuse and those who are offended at us may see that if they are troubled we cannot help it we do but our duty the Scandal being unjustly taken by them and not rationally chargeable on our practice nor indeed given by us § 50 This we shall sufficiently do if we be carefull to instruct our brethren in the true end of this use in our Church if we be carefull to remove those abuses which the Church of Rome hath continued with it if we declare it to be no part of the Sacrament no essential part of Worship no necessary duty of Christianity no new covenanting or engaging Sign if we declare to the world that we worship it not we use it not for those ends as the Papists do but onely as an Ecclesiastical Constitution an innocent Ceremony not to offer exhibit give or seal grace to us but to signifie and declare our profession of Faith in a Crucified Jesus that we acknowledge him our Lord and Captain-General under whose Banners we are by our Bapitsm not by this Sign listed and engaged to fight constantly against the World Flesh and Devil and that we use this not for any secular or unworthy ends not out of any superstitious design or innovating humour but to shew our Communion with the antient Christians to testifie our obedience to our lawfull Governours and the Laws established All which the Church of England in her Offices Rubricks and Canons hath taken care for and sufficiently declared § 51 This if we shall do bonâ fide and with our utmost endeavours in singlenesse of heart n Colos 3.22 as men whose aime is not to please men but to fear God and with a goldly discretion perhaps it will not be enough to prevent either the censures of inconsiderate or inconsiderable men or the ill use that may be made of our example through the ignorance and negligence of some which is the o Scandalum Pusillorum Scandal of the weak or through the perversenesse or malice of others the p Scandalum Pharisaeorum Scandal of the Pharisees as some term them But assuredly it will be sufficient abundantly sufficient in the sight of God and in the witnesse of our own hearts and to the conscience of all charitable and considering men to acquit us from all guilt of Scandal in any yea the least degree § 52 Thus have we now seen this innocent harmlesse Rite The Sign of the Crosse in Baptisme fully cleared and vindicated from all guilt of Scandal and consequently from all breach of
the mean time they forget the most essential and necessary practices of Religion and Piety and begin to place the main of Religion in these unnecessary things and make Conformity and Non-Conformity the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or distinguishing Character of an ungodly and godly man Hence arise those bitter invectives animosities and heart-burnings harsh censures envyings railings and revilings one of another the very bane and pests of Piety and Charity a reproach and scandal even to Religion as too sad experience doth woefully witnesse Now which of these two doth most edifie and so is most expedient he who hath but half an eye may readily see and the weakest reason may soon judg 3. § 7 Again on the one side the Law enjoynes this practice the publick Constitution of the Church requires it on the other side one or some particular Christians are offended at it Judg now which is and must be concluded most expedient whether to refuse obedience by Non-conformity and so offend against a publick establishment scandalize an whole Church and Christian Nation break an uniform order and publick peace offend your lawfull Governours and Superiours and by an eager contending against them give too much occasion to be censured as men that e 2 Pet. 2.10 Jude 8. Despise dominion presumptuous self-willed and not affraid to speak evil of dignities Or on the other side humility to submit to Authority in all lawfull though not necessary things to Conform to the Law which can be but an offence to some particular men who either through weaknesse or frowardnesse may take offence when none is given Which is more blameable to scandalize one or more a few private Christians or a Community and a publick body Which is more expedient to obey a Law and offend but a few or despise a Law and scandalize all 4. § 8 Lastly A Law is made and a Law comes with an armed power a severe sanction if we disobey the publick Constitutions and will not submit to the Laws of the Church we cannot expect to be continued in the Ministery of that Church whose Laws we despise nor receive the legall maintenance annexed to this Ministery Now then supposing still the matter lawfull consider which is more expedient for men to deny Conformity and obedience for the sake of such inconsiderable Circumstances and so become obnoxious to the censure of the Law and deprive themselves of the opportunities of discharging those great duties that lye upon them in their Ministerial Calling and withall deprive their Churches of the benefits of those labours and pains and parts and endowments which God hath given them which they are called to exercise and might by the blessing of God successefully exercise among them to their everlasting advantage yea and possibly expose themselves to misery and want and hunger and thirst when being deposed from their Ministery they may also be deprived of the profits of their places which should buy them bread Or on the other side by a sober compliance an humble obedience in these things which though they like not yet they cannot condemne as simply evil in themselves and unlawfull to preserve themselves secure in their place and Ministery where they may freely do the work of their Calling Preach the Gospel on which errand they are sent lay forth themselves for the good of the Church and employ their Talents for their edification and salvation Which of these two is more expedient Compare these two together which is the more noble work and more necessary duty to Preach the Gospel or to wear a Surplice or to use any other external Ceremonies Which is then more expedient to Silence our selves or occasion our being Silenced for the sake of a Surplice c or rather not to scruple these low things but use them as enjoyned for the sake of Religion Let the Preaching of the Gospel and the main essentials of Piety have their due esteem in our hearts and the matters of Order Circumstance Habits Rites which are not materially evil will not be set in any competition with them and we shall then be able easily to decide the businesse of expediency § 9 The things in Controversie The Liturgy Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England being now proved neither unlawfull nor inexpedient this is abundantly sufficient to prove the main Conclusion That there is nothing in either of them but what a sober Christian may with a good conscience comply with That we may lawfully Conform to the Law in reference to all these yea during the continuance of this Law and Obligation upon us we ought in conscience to obey and are bound to maintain Peace and Charity in the use of them CHAP. VI. The Conclusion of the whole pressing the main design exhorting and shewing the way to Vnity and Peace § 1 THese things of Government Liturgy and Rites being discussed and nothing appearing in them as established but what may be submitted to without sin I cannot see what imaginable thing can remaine to be justly a Rocke of offence and yet hinder our peaceable communion For 1. § 2 We have a full profession of perfect agreement in all the fundamental and material points and substantial parts of Doctrine and Worship We take it for granted say those a Propos to his Majest Pap. 1. Reverend Presbyterian Divines that there is a firme agreement between our Brethren and Vs in the Doctrinal truths of the Reformed Religion and in the substantial parts of Divine Worship 2. § 3 It is acknowledged that all these things about which the contention is so sharp among us are extra-fundamental of a low inferiour consideration The Differences say those b Pap. of Propos ibid. Brethren are ONELY in some various conceptions about the Antient Form of Church-Government and some particulars about Liturgy and Ceremonies And it is farther granted that these things thus contended against and desired by them to be removed are c Account of Proceed Gen. Except ad fin p. 11. Not of the foundation of Religion nor the essentials of publick Worship § 4 Now these Rites Ceremonis c. being of so low and inferiour a nature is it not sad and to be bitterly lamented that they should be made the foundation of so many evils in the Church and State Account of Proceed p. 10. and the occasion of such sad Divisions between Ministers and Ministers Ministers and their Flocks yea between Subjects and their Rulers an occasion of Sedition and Disobedience to Authority and so exposing many an otherwise-able Minister to the displeasure of their Governours casting them on the edge of Penal Statutes to the losse of livings livelyhoods and of their opportunities for the service of Christ and his Church § 5 But what shall we charge all these evils upon the things upon a sound Liturgy an innocent Ceremony a lawfull Rite God forbid What upon the imposition and too rigorous exactions of our Governours Where is our warrant
they will the thing which only we are to subscribe is That the Doctrine contained therein is agreeable to the Word of God and to this there is a consent whether those By passages stand or fall What some have added That the Articles are not full enough nor do particularly enough express all the substance of Faith or Truth to be believed This signifies nothing in this case For to omit that 1. I look upon it as the wisdom of This Church to couch her Articles in those general expressions agreeable to the Sacred Canon to which all must unanimously subscribe rather than descend to more particular decisions which would have been still more matter of controversie Men according to their various sentiments differing in particulars and the more they descend to particularities the wider they are in their judgements when yet they agree in the general Doctrines I say to omit this 2. The Article requires not our judgement as to any thing else nor doth it oblige us to believe that nothing else is agreeable to the Word of God but that this Doctrine contained in these Articles is so This we see is granted and why then may it not be subscribed 2. Sect. 68 Here is no scruple neither at the Oaths of Allegiance or Supremacy which is all required in the first Article That then may also be subscribed 3. Sect. 69 The only difficulty is about the second the lawfulness of the use of the Book of Common Prayer and a promise to use it Of this I shall give a more full account in the next parts But in the mean time let us see what is yielded and how far we are required to subscribe it 1. Sect. 70 It is professed by those Reverend Divines That They would not have the door left open for Papists and Hereticks to come in Now the use of this Liturgy was ever accounted one Characteristical of our Church differencing it from the Church of Rome so far is it from being nothing but their Mass-book and in the judgement of our Governours who require it an excellent barre to the door and a means to keep out Papists and Hereticks And with this do but compare their professed principles That the publick judgement Civil and Ecclesiastical belongs only to publick persons and not to private men And this will go very far towards a perswasion of the lawfulness of this Subscription which in the judgement of our Superiours is so necessary as to that very thing which we our selves would have to be done Again 2. Sect. 71 Here is nothing urged against this Subscription that speaks the particulars of the Liturgy and Ceremonies materially or manifestly evil but only that there are some controverted passages about them Now in such things how much may we yield for peace sake when if nothing be required that is materially evil or manifestly against Gods Word it is certain we cannot sin in subscribing But it is not certain we should not sin in refusing yea it is certain we should sin in disobeying an established Law where that Law is not contrary to the Law of God And that is all that we subscribe not that it is the best that may be framed but that it is good or not contrary to the holy Word and may lawfully be used And what may lawfully be used we may lawfully promise to use But of this more hereafter 3. Sect. 72 Let me adde one consideration more There cannot I think be produced any settled or established Church or any established order in a Christian Common-wealth where some subscription or engagement is not required of all those who are admitted to any publick office or imployment in it Yea I suppose it may be made appear also that the things required by others are not of lesse but matter of more dispute and doubt among learned and conscientious men than these or any of these are which are required of us Look into the Dutch Churches may any be admitted among them to the exercise of a publick ministery who will not subscribe or which is equivalent expressely own the Decisions of the Synod of Dort against the Remonstrants And those points I am sure are an higher controversie a matter of much more doubt among learned and conscientious men than any of ours wherein had our Church decided either way and required our subscription to it it would have unavoidably proved a matter of perpetual Schism as we may justly deem to the worlds end Sect. 73 But to go no further than our own time and place It cannot be forgotten nor may it be denied That even then when the Presbyterial Government was erected by the Ordinance of the two Houses of Parliament the Covenant was really made a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Shibboleth to distinguish parties to omit how it was a snare too to many conscientious men and so only used for it is too manifestly known particularly at Cambridge it was tendered to none but those whom they suspected and had a mind to eject out of their places none could be ordained nor admitted into a living unless he did subscribe it and solemnly swear the Extirpation of the established Episcopacy were he otherwise in Doctrine never so Orthodox and in holy life never so exemplary nor indeed keep that living whereof he was legally possessed How many I say not scandalous and vicious persons but truly learned able faithful orthodox holy men were ejected and sequestred only for refusing that Covenant and conscientiously keeping close to their Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy not to speak of the latter times wherein the Usurpations Tyrannies and Extravagances of men ran up to the height of Enmity against the Church and Ministery Sect. 74 Now Brethren let me beseech you lay your hands upon your hearts Might you require Subscription then to your Establishments And is it sin in our Governours now to require the like to theirs yea not theirs only but of this Church and Kingdom ever since the Reformation Is the established Episcopacy a matter of controversie now and was it not so then Or are those only who oppose it learned and conscientious godly men and those only who are for it men of no learning conscience or godliness Was it lawful for you to require a Subscription to one side of the controversie which you judged right and is it not lawful for them to require the same to that part which they judge so yea is it not much more legal in them who require it by the Authority of an established Law than in those who had no such Authority In a word was it by you accounted lawful that men for the liberty of exercise of their publick Ministery should not only subscribe but swear to endeavour the extirpation of the Prelacy of England which was never proved unlawful to submit to though some have judged it so to exercise a business which those who were put upon Covenanting had no call to act in an established Government by a known
parts we see the contrary Sect. 14 4. Excommunication in whose hands For the power of Excommunication this is indeed denied them nor can I find that in any Age either in the Jewish or Christian Church any single Minister of a particular Congregation challenged it or that ever any Church allowed it To omit the practice of the Jewish Church where the learned know that a particular Priest or Levite never had that power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but even their Niddui the least and lowest of their Excommunications 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was passed in a Court though a lower and more private one but their greater Excommunications both their Cherem or Anathema and especially their Shammatha which was called Excommunicatio in secreto nominis Tetragrammati the Form whereof we find recorded by (r) Drus de Trib â—ect lib. 3. cap. 11 Drusius were passed no where but in the publick Courts and Ecclesiastical Consistories in the face of the whole Church The first that we read of in practice in the Christian Church is this Excommunication of the (s) 1 Cor 53 4.5 incestuous Corinthian This now was not the Act of one single Minister in Corinth but of the Apostle himself first (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judging and sentencing though absent and then charging the Church when (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together too to see it executed Another we read of is that of (x) 1 Tim. 1.20 Hymeneus and Alexander this an Apostolical Act also Whom I St. Paul himself have delivered unto Satan And I dare challenge all the contrary minded to shew me any Church well regulated and constituted where ever this was intrusted in the hands only of the Minister of a particular Congregation Sure I am had there been any such we should have heard something of it in these dayes of Contention But in all those varieties of Forms and wayes of Government pleaded for none yet pleaded for this but would have it in other hands The Separatists and with them those of the Independent and Congregational way who are for a Democratical Government in the Church place the Power of the Keyes and this in particular in the Collective Body of the Congregation together the Pastor having but his single Vote and perhaps pronouncing the sentence as they decree And in the Presbyterial way it is as little allowed to the Parochial Pastor for though he with his particular Eldership be allowed the exercise of some lower censures yet this of Excommunication is solely referred to the Classical Assembly And if our Brethren account it there fit to deny this power to the particular Pastor and fix it in the Classis Why it may not now under Episcopacy be also denied to the Paroshial Pastor and reserved to the Bishops Consistory I see not That the same thing should be no fault in the Presbyterian way and a great fault in the Episcopal seems somewhat strange we have therefore reason to judge that this particular is no part of that undoubted Office which our Brethren say The particular Pastors are denied the exercise of when in their own way they do not allow it him 4. Sect. â—â— But suppose there were many parts of the particular Pastors Office which we were hindered to exercise what must we conclude Is it therefore not lawful for us to submit Or are we bound to exercise all that we judge to belong to our Office whether we may be suffered or no The truth is where we have liberty we are obliged but where we are powerfully restrained we are not Our Ministry it self we cannot publickly exercise without leave and license from the Magistrate in his own Dominions and from those Governours who are set over us in his Church And that we may sit down in peace when hindred from the whole We may also when hindred but in part and may yet have liberty to perform the principal parts of our work To preach the Word and Administer the Holy Sacraments If the Laws and Powers under which we live deny us liberty to exercise what we are called to if causlesly it is their sin and they alone must answer it but there can be no sin in our submission and forbearance when we cannot help it Infallibly if we are diligent sedulous and faithful in doing all that we can and that we have liberty to do that we do no more will not be imputed as a fault to us by any rational man nor will it be by the Righteous God Yea we shall be very much eased of a very Great Charge and much of that account will be taken off from us which would and must have been required of us if all these things also should be laid upon our shoulders But certainly the most gracious God will never make us accountable for that which we had not in charge And seriously I know not any Minister who faithfully desires the discharge of his duty but he would be willing very willing to be confined to his Study and the Pulpit and could find work enough there if he might with safety and a good conscience be excused from the performance of all other charges and duties CHAP. VII The Conclusion of this Part. From the foregoing Considerations inferring the lawfulness yea and duty of an humble obedience to the established episcopacy and pleading for it both for Peace and Conscience sake Sect. 2 WE are now also come to the close of this Argument I have given some account of all the most material Exceptions taken to the Ecclesiastical Government established in this Church and I think plainly I hope to the satisfaction of all sober minded have solved all those difficulties and doubts that might seem to lie in the way to hinder a Conscientious Obedience to that Church-Politie which by the express Laws of the Land we are obliged to conform unto The exceptions I confess are many of them cited in the words of those Reverend Brethren of the Presbyterian perswasion yet give me leave here solemnly and seriously to profess that in so doing I had no design in the least to enter a quarrel with them nor to mis-represent their ends nor do I here examine how far they may be a Motive to Petition for an alteration or Regulation of the establishment to those in whose hands only such a power lies But the exceptions being the same which were taken of old and all unsatisfied men do make use of these and the others here spoken to and none else that I know as Arguments to keep off themselves and others from obeying and conforming to the Laws in being perswading themselves upon these very grounds they should sin in so doing and while men are setled in those perswasions there can be no hopes of peace but bitter animosities and contendings if not seditions and rebellions while the Laws positively require obedience and punish disobedience and yet men think they should sin if they should obey I could do
the Deacon read the Gospel appointed for the day This ended the Catechumens are dismissed and the Communicants proceed on Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us with our whole heart say and with our whole mind let us say Chorus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord have mercy upon us Deac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Lord Almighty the God of our Fathers we beseech thee hear us and have mercy upon us Chor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord have mercy upon us Deac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Have mercy upon us O God according to thy great mercy we beseech thee hear us and have mercie upon us Chor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord have mercy upon us Deac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We pray thee moreover going on to pray for their Kings and Emperors c. These things I have cited thus at large that it may appear that those several Practices and Interlocutions and Responsals as in the Liturgy in general so particularly at the Communion and the reading of the Epistles and Gospels as we use them in such Sections and Order is no new thing in the Church nor did the ancient Christians think this any way repugnant to the holy Canon Sect. 14 So that if we really consider the nature of the office the matter appointed the order of reading the practice of the Church here is nothing in this that should make us fear to observe this constitution nothing that will engage us in sin in the use of it And when the matter appointed is but the reading of such portions of Scripture me thinks it should not be a matter of contention among wise men how much is to be read or where or in what order whether out of the Apostles or Prophets or Acts whether called the Epistle or for the Epistle These are things almost infinitely below the Peace of the Church Thus I think I have gone over the most material exceptions against the Liturgy as relating to the Form Frame Manner of Composure and Order therein prescribed and have so far cleared it that it may appear there is nothing herein whose use is unlawful or contrary either to Scripture or the Gravity and Seriousnesse of a Religious service and the holy managing of our publick Devotions CHAP. VIII The Matter of the Liturgy examined and the exceptions against it 1. As Defective 2. As using corrupt Translations 3. As prescribing Apochryphal Books 4. As to the Form of Absolution considered and answered Sect. 1 HAving examined the Form we now are to consider the Matter of the Service and Prayers prescribed And if there be nothing in this evil to be done nothing required of us which is either against the Rule of Faith or Good Manners nothing contrary to Faith or Holynesse Then according to that known [a] Quod neque co â—ra fidem neque contra bonos more 's insungitur indifâ—â—ren â—eâ— est habendum et pro eorum inter quos vivitur societate servendum est Aug. ad Jan. Ep. 118 Rule there remains nothing in it but what may with a good Conscience be lawfully used and submitted to and this I hope to make appear in these ensuing Chapters And the truth is this is a matter of no great difficulty and therefore doth require no great skill or length of discourse to clear it for among all the exceptions there is not one that chargeth the matter as evil Let us take a view of the particulars and a transcient view in the most will serve the turn Sect. 2 Excep 1 Defectiveness 1. The first charge is Defectivenesse or want of due matter that should be [b] Accompt of pro. gen â—xc 17. Sect. 1 2 3 4 5. no preparatory addresse sins in Confession not expresse enough nor sufficiently enumerated prayers for the most part consisting of meer generals without mention of the particulars wherein the generals exist The Catechisme defective in many essential necessary Doctrines of our Religion c. But 1. Answered Sect. 3. It might be answered that many of these things are not wholly wanting but in some good measure there That despise not O Lord humble and contrite hearts in the Preface cannot with reason be recited as an exhortation but is really an addresse to God for acceptance Nor can these words That those things may please him which we do at this present be rationally said to be no words of prayer but a part of an exhortation to the people when they are expressly put up as a prayer in this petitionary form wherefore we beseech him to grant us true repentance that and the confession of sin is comprehensive of all the particulars required Psalms and Hymns there are of praise suited to Gospel worship and petitions both for general and special mercies Sect. 4 2. But supposing this defectiveness in the particulars proved granting there may be some reason to plead for a fuller expression and enumeration in a publike Liturgie yet all this signifies nothing to prove an unlawfulness of the use of that which is The absence of some good or perhaps necessary thing is not sufficient to prove it unlawful to use the present All that we are required is to use these forms the matter whereof being agreeable to the Word of God we may lawfully beyond dispute use them though there be not other particulars which we judge as good or necessary We are not required to give our judgments concerning other things but to conform to the use of these 2. Sect. 5. Except 2. Corrupt Translations Another exception is against the corrupt Translations used and appointed to be used These Translations are mentioned by the Divines in the Conference [c] Acc. of proceed Gen. Exc. 8.13 in the several Epistles and Gospels but by others in the old version of the Psalmes wherein some passages are said to be contrary to the Hebrew Text as particularly that in the Old [d] Psal 105.28 They were not obedient to the Hebrew and new Translation they rebelled not against his word and again in the Old [e] Psal 106.30 then stood up Phinehas and prayed to that in the New agreeable to the Hebrew and the truth of the [f] Num. 25.7 sacred Storie Then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment 1. Answ As to the Epistles and Gospels Sect. 6 this exception is now taken off not by a verbal answer but a reall deed that Old translation being rejected and the new brought into those parts of the Liturgy 2. Sect. 7 But in the Psalms whether because of the Musick used in Cathedrals being set to that Version or for what other reasons appearing to those Reverend persons to whom the business of the Liturgy was referred the Translation is not thought fit to be altered they must stand as they do but yet here is nothing that can amount to such an evill as for whose sake the Liturgie wherein this Version is retained should be deemed unlawful to be used For 1. Sect. 8 Possibly the
such upon severall emergencies yet in the case of t See Baxt. ibid. dayes to Christ it is otherwise for the occasion of these holy dayes were existent in the Apostles dayes and therefore to establish them as necessary to be observed when the Scripture hath made no order or provision about them is to accuse the Scripture of being animperfect rule and derogatory to the Scripture sufficiency But I answer 1. §. 27. Answ It is evident that Easter and Pentecost or Whitsontide were observed in the Apostles dayes which the same Mr. Bazter u Baxt. ibid. seemes to acknowledg when he ranks them together with other Lords-days saying These Holy-days excepting Easter and Whitsontide and other Lords-dayes are of later introduction c. These two then were of earlier times as early as the Lords-daies as beyond all dispute we find them in the very next age observed Now the occasion of these was existent before a great part of the Scripture was written viz. The Resurrection of Christ and the x Act. 2.1 Descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost Therefore if the Church might lawfully observe as they did the Feast of the Resurrection why should it be unlawfull to celebrate a day in memorial of the Nativity or Ascention c § 28 2. The occasion of many Saints and Martyrs dayes The Doctrine and Examples of the Apostles and the Martyrdome of some of them were existent before some part of the Scripture was written neither in any Scripture which was afterwards written do we find any order taken for the observation of these dayes Yet may such by Mr Baxters own confession be lawfully observed and this no imputation on the Scripture-sufficiency therefore this Argument is of no force against the solemnizing of a day to Christ § 29 3. These are not pleaded for as in themselves necessary and the matter of an universal Law to all ages and parts of the Catholick Church but as lawfull and so are they granted to be and consequently necessary to us pro hic nunc accidentally ex hypothesi by an Ecclesiastical constitution established by a Law of a just authority among our selves And this ingageth us to obedience and maketh the observation of these dayes to us a duty whatsoever it be to others Which consideration sufficiently answereth all the Arguments which I have seen brought against Christmas-day whose hard fate it is that when others shall be allowed their Festivity this shall be denied it But even in this also we have a concurrence enough to preserve our peace for saith our Author y Baxt. ibid. §. 50. If I lived under a Government that peremptorily commanded it I would observe the outward rest of such an Holy-day I would Preach on it and joyn with the Assemblies in Gods worship on it Yea I would thus observe the day rather than offend a weak Brother much more rather than I would make any division in the Church We need no more we ask no more We live where these things are commanded let us thus far obey and not dispute and our Peace is secure § 30 Well then there being in this matter of Festivals or Holy-dayes no repugnancy to Scripture but some example in Scripture warranting and the constant practice going before us in the observation of these solemnities I see not why a sober peaceably minded man should deny obedience in this thing nor why we should scruple to assemble together to worship God to blesse his name for his mercies to preserve the memory of the holy Apostles Confessors and Martyrs whose memory z Prov. 10.7 Psal 112.6 the Scripture saith is blessed and the remembrance of them everlasting when the name of the wicked shall rot and their memorial perish with them and by such examples to quicken our dull hearts to piety and constancy upon stated times appointed us when we may lawfully do all this upon any day of Assemblies were they not enjoyned us CHAP. II. Several Rites and Ceremonies Prescribed Examined and Vindicated § 1 2. THe great trouble and scruple is about the things enjoyned the Rites and Ceremonies prescribed to be used These are of different natures Some only of particular practice or perhaps the matter of particular command to some persons in some places Others the matter of a general Law upon all Some purely civil Some used only in the parts of Religious Worship Yet when I find acknowledged a Baxt. five Disp Disp 5. chap. 2. by the most zealous Non-Conformists a lawfullnesse in the use of most of these yea of all but one sc the Crosse so farre as to submit to the use being imposed though they question the lawfullnesse of Imposing rather than break the Peace of the Church And when I see nothing but a clear unspotted innocency in all yea the use of the Crosse it self I cannot but conclude that in these there is nothing but what we may submit to with a good conseience and not sinne And then being enjoyned we ought to do so for peace and for conscience-sake Let us take a view of the particulars § 2 1. For those Ceremonies which are not generally enjoyned but only a particular practice in some places and it may be a particular command there such as Altars Adoration or Bowing to the East Organs c. I say 1. Untill we are called to such places where the practice is required or untill these are commanded us in our places if we indeed consult the Peace of the Church let us be silent and move no doubts about them If we are unsatisfied in the use of them let us not accept of those places where they must be practised and we are free But be sure censure not those who do who possibly may see reason enough to warrant their practice though we do not § 3 2. But suppose they should be required of us all let us see whether we may not in these comply and obey the Law without sinne Here I shall only give you the judgement of one who cannot be accounted guilty of over-much kindnesse to Bishops Liturgy or Ceremonies but a zealous Disputer against all as established with us 1. As to the Name and Form of an Altar §. 4. Of Altar and Railes and the Railes about it he saith thus b Baxt. ibid. Disp 5. cap. 2. §. 51. I conceive that the dislike of these things in England was not as if they were simply evil Well if not evil in themselves they may then for any thing in the nature of them be used without sinne And why then should we deny obedience when a Law is made when we should not sin in obeying but should certainly sin in disobeying a Law but if not evil why disliked For this § 5 1. They were saith he illegal innovations forced on the Church without Law or just Authority 1. If indeed they were so then were we not bound to obey for where there is no Law there can be