that it was not used in the first Celebration by our Saviour with his Disciples nor in the Apostles time as doth any way appear nor afterwards when General Councils forbad kneeling in any act of adoration on the Lords day To this it may be answered that it is not the enjoyning but the using of this gesture that is consented to and the objected inconvenience follows not the using but the enjoyning thereof in the rigor as to debar from the Sacrament those that scruple it But I further inquire Whether a consent to the use of a Rubrick which hath the nature of an injunction doth not imply a consent not only to the using but to the injoyning of the thing therein prescribed Moreover the very using or observing of this Rubrick by the Minister is an injunction in respect of the people because it includes an obligation upon him not to deliver the Sacrament to them except they use this gesture In the Rubrick after the Communion Note that every Parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year whereof Easter to be one That it is the duty of every Parishioner to be fit to receive the Sacrament and accordingly to receive it also that the Church may require this duty of all her Members and Censure those who continue wilfully unfit is not to be questioned But this Rubrick injoyns all Parishioners to communicate and the Parish-Ministers to admit them without any proviso here made touching their fitness or due caution elsewhere taken for it that I know of when it is sadly known that in most Parishes too many Parishioners are notoriously unfit And we see the practice consequent to this Rule a constant general admission or intrusion of notoriously ignorant or ungodly Persons who pollute the Communion of the Church and eat and drink Damnation to themselves Besides this Infidels Papists and such as secretly at least renounce the Communion of the Parish-Churches are Parishioners in many places Now tho such may be compelled to use those means which God hath made universally necessary to bring the ignorant and erroneous to the knowledg of the truth yet I do not see that they may be injoyned in word or deed to profess what they believe not or to take that which is the special Priviledg of Visible Church-Members Of the Order of Baptism THE sign of the Cross in Baptism hath been more suspected to be unlawful than any other ceremony injoyned in the Church of England I shall first set down what hath made me question the lawfulness of it and afterwards what may be said in answer to it Against the lawfulness of the sign of the Cross it is thus objected It is not a meer circumstance but an ordinance of Divine Worship of mans devising and as great as an external rite can be and hath in it the nature of a Sacrament Here is an outward Visible sign of an inward spiritual Grace The outward sign is the representation of the Cross the instrument of Christs Suffering the spiritual Grace is the Grace of being a Christian or a Soldier and Servant of Christ and of Christian fortitude consequent thereunto as the Words of the Liturgy do import And we sign him with the sign of the Cross in token hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ crucified and to fight manfully under his banner against Sin the World and the Devil and to continue Christs faithful Soldier and Servant unto his lives end If it were granted it hath not the compleat Nature of a Sacrament yet one essential part thereof is most apparently in it that is to be an engaging-sign for our part in the Covenant of Grace For in the Liturgy it is declared to be a token of our engagement to Christ crucified in the relations of his Soldier and Servant and to perform the duties of those relations Moreover 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 badge whereby the party baptized is dedicated to the Service of him that dyed upon the Cross Hereupon I inquire Whether an Ordinance that is of the same import with the Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace or an essential part thereof may be instituted by humane authority or lawfully used by those that are under authority Tho the Imposers say it is not a Sacrament yet while they declare its meaning to be of the formal Nature of a Sacrament they make it to be one indeed tho in word they deny it Whereas to avoid this Argument some say it is imposible for man to make a Sacrament therefore the sign of the Cross cannot be such it is answered That tho God only can institute a lawful and valid Sacrament of his Covenant yet man may presume to institute an Ordinance of the same nature and reason and intent with a Sacrament of divine institution tho it be unlawful and of no effect And such an Ordinance is truly and properly a Sacrament tho an unlawful one as any other Ordinance devised by man that hath the Nature and formal Reason of Religious Worship is truly and properly Worship whatsoever may be said of the lawfulness or unlawfulness thereof The Reply The grand objection against the lawfulness of the sign of the Cross as used in Baptism supposes that it is of the same Nature with a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace whereupon the proper Nature of such a Sacrament is necessary to be considered Sacraments are signs appointed to ratisie seal and confirm the Covenant of God and to tender and exhibit the Grace of that Covenant to us And if any humane authority constitute any sign to this end it would be a high intrenchment upon the soveraignty of God But the sign of the Cross in Baptism is not used to this end and purpose It is used indeed as a token by way of remembrance and as a testimony of engagement that the party baptized stands obliged to maintain the Christian profession and warfare And altho such profession and engagement be included in a Sacrament yet it is not peculiar thereunto or of its specifically differencing nature Standing at the Creed is a professing and engaging sign of Christianity yet it is not a Sacrament It appears both by the 30th Canon and by the Liturgy it self That the Infant baptized is by vertue of Baptism before it be signed with the sign of the Cross received into the Congregation of Christs Flock as a perfect member thereof and not by any power ascribed to the sign of the Cross And tho it be declared by the Canon That it is an honourable badge whereby the party Baptized is dedicated c. yet this Dedication by the Cross is wholly distinct from the baptismal Dedication to be a Member of the Church We must understand that the Church by this sign engageth the party upon her account to the Service of Christ The Minister acting in the
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
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
Christ indeed hath instituted a ministry for the compleating of his church unto the consummation of all things he hath also promised his Apostles and his ministers successively in them that he will be with them alway to the end of the world But I find no promise of an uninterrupted succession of regularly ordained ministers That which is delivered by ordination is the sacred ministerial office at large as respecting the universal Church to be exercised here or there according to particular calls and opportunities § 21. Of Prayer and Fasting and Imposition of Hands in Ordination PRAYER is such a duty as is requisite to the sanctifying of all other duties as the preaching of the Word administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper and therefore is necessary to this sacred action of ordaining ministers Fasting is a service expressive of solemn humiliation and a necessary adjunct of extra ordinary prayer for the obtaining of more special mercy and therefore a necessary preparative and concomitant in this solemnity And we have Scripture Examples for prayer and fasting in the mission of persons to the work of the ministry Luke 6.12 13. Act. 13.2 Act. 14 23. What imposition of hands imports and the moment of it is to be considered from the use of it both in the Old and New Testament In the Old Testament 't was used 1. In solemn benediction the person blessing laid his hand on the person blessed Gen. 48.14 2. In offering Sacrifice as a sign of devoting it to the Lord by him that offered it Lev. 1.4 3. In ordaining to an office as a sign of setting apart therunto Numb 27.18 20. In the New Testament it is used 1. in blessing Mark 10.16 2. In curing bodily diseases Mark 16.18 Luke 13.13 Acts 19.11 3. In conveying the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost Acts 8.17 Acts 19.6 4. In ordaining ministers Acts 6.6 1 Tim 4.14 The meaning of imposition of hands spoken of Heb. 6.2 is diversly taken some take it as used for the remitting of sins as they also do 1 Tim. 5.22 and say that Baptism refers to the making of proselytes and laying on of hands to the absolving of penitents Others take it for confirmation Others conceive that the whole ministry is by a synecdoche therein comprehended From the various uses of this Rite we collect that it was a sign of conveying a benefit or of designing to an office or of devoting one to the Lord and particularly of authoritative benediction and designation to the office of the ministry and of devoting to the Lord in that kind There is no sufficient reason to make it but a temporary Rite and to limit the use of it in ordination only to the times of miraeles there being no circumstance in any Text to shew that it was done only for the present occasion And we read not that miraculous gifts were given by imposition of hands in ordination § 22. The power of Ordaining belongs to the Pastors of the Church SOme give this reason why the power of Ordination is not in the people but in the Pastors because the act of ordaining is a potestative or authoritative mission which power of mission is first seated in Christ and from him committed to the Apostles and from them to the Bishops or Elders But this Reason must be taken with a grain of salt or in a sound sense because Bishops or Elders have spiritual power formalier but not efficienter and they do not properly make or give the ministerial power but are only instruments of designation or application of that power to the person to whom Christ immediately gives it by the standing-act of his Law That the power of ordaining belongs not to the people but to the Church officers first appears by Scripture-authority for that in all the New Testament there is no example of ordination by any of the Laity but contrariwise it is therein expresly committed to spiritual officers 2. By Reason for that the Pastors of the Churches are better qualified for the designation of a person to the Holy ministry and for performing the action of solemn investiture as also for that ordination includes an authoritative benediction and that is to come from a Superior as the Scripture saith The less is blessed of the greater and not the greater of the less as it would be if the Pastor were to be ordained by the people that are governed by him Some argue for a popular ordination because election which is the greater belongs to the people But 1. Election is not greater than Ordination in the ministerial Call For in ordination investiture in the Function it self is given but in the peoples election no more is given than the stated exercise of the ministry in that Congregation 2. In case Election were greater than Ordination yet the consequence holds not Several parties may have each their own part divided to them and he that may do the greater may not always do the lesser unless the lesser be essentially included in the greater which is not in this case It is likewise urged for popular ordination That in the consecration of the Levites the children of Israel laid their hands upon them Numb 8.11 To this it is answered That the Levites were taken by God instead of the first born of all the children of Israel which the Lord claimed as his own upon the destroying of the first-born of the Egyptians and so the imposition of hands by the first-born upon the Levites was not strictly an ordaining of them to their office but an offering of them as a sacrifice in their own stead to make an atonement for them as he that brought a sacrifice laid his hand on the head of it Tho in Timothy's ordination the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery be mentioned and where many Presbyters were they joined in this action yet I see not any thing in Scripture or Reason to gainsay the validity of ordination by a single Bishop or Presbyter Nevertheless ordination by the imposition of many hands is more unquestionable and the use thereof most laudabl◠and in no case to be omitted where it may be had according to the custom of the Church in all ages § 23. The Validity of Presbyterian Ordination IF a Bishop and Presbyter of divine institution be the same as hath been before proved the controversie about ordination by Presbyters is at an end And if the Bishop that now is be another kind of officer than the Scripture Presbyter there is no proof of his divine institution That the Presbyter that now is hath the Pastoral or Episcopal office hath been already proved by the form of their ordination and by the nature of that power of the keys that is granted to reside in them If the Prelates have invested them with an office that is truly Episcopal it matters not whether in express terms they gave them the power of ordaining or no or whether they expresly excluded the power of ordaining for not
was referred to a Synod consisting of bishops and presbyters Other precepts given them were above the proper work of a bishop of a particular Church To erect and govern Churches in a hundred Cities and to govern such presbyters who according to Dr. Hammond were bishops belonged not to an ordinary bishop of a particular Church Wherefore this latter sort of duties belonged to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists or General Ministers who had a kind of Vice-Apostolick office of which sort were Barnabas Silas Apollos Titus Timothy and Epaphroditus and others Ambrose on Eph. 4. saith they are stiled Evangelists who did Evangelizare sine Cathedra It often happened that those unfixed Officers resided for a longer time in some places and then they managed the affairs of those Churches in chief during the time of their residence § 10. Concerning the Angels of the Seven Churches in ASIA IT is much insisted on that these Angels were bishops of a superior Order to that of presbyters Whereupon let it be considered 1. That the title of Stars and Angels are not proper but figurative and mystical names made use of in a mystical book and that the said names are common to all ministers Gregory the Great l. 34. Mor. on Joâ— c. 4. saith that these Angels are the preachers of the Churches 2. That the name Angel may be taken collectively not individually Austins Homily on the Apoc on these words I will remove thy Candlestick saith that John calls the Church the Angel As the Civil state of the Pagano-Christian Empire is called the Beast and the Ecclesiastical state the Whore so Angel may signifie the whole Presbytery but put in the singular number to hold proportion to the seven stars which signifie the same thing and the seven Candlesticks In these Epistles to the Churches there are indications that not a single person but a company is represented under this name Rev. 2.10 16 24 25. 3. Beza saith that this Angel was only praeses Indeed he to whom the title of bishop was appropriated by the ancient Fathers was the President of the presbytery Ambrose on 1 Tim. c. 3. saith He is the bishop who is first among the presbyters This priority or presidency is in History observed to have begun first at Alexandria the people whereof above other men were given to schism and sedition as Socrates saith of them l 7. c. 13. If this presidency began at Alexandria upon the death of Mark it must needs be long before the death of John the Apostle Howbeit Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians takes no notice of such a priority or presidency of one above the rest in that Church And Jerome having mentioned John as the last of the Apostles saith that afterwards one was set over the rest Now whereas Jerome called the imparity of bishops and presbyters an Apostolical tradition it is to be noted that with him an Apostolical tradition and Ecclesiastical custome are the same But the main thing still remains unproved for ought that is to be gathered from this title of Angel or from any thing contained in these Epistles to the Asian Churches namely that these Angels whatsoever they might be were bishops of a superior order than that of presbyters or that they had a superiority of jurisdiction over the presbyters or that they were bishops set over divers setled Churches or fixed Congregations with their Pastors or that they had the sole power of jurisdiction and ordination The main point in controversie is not Whether bishops but whether such as the present Diocesan bishops have continued from the Apostles times to this Age. The ancient bishop was the Officer of a particular Church not a general Officer of many Churches He was not a bishop of bishops that is he did not assume a power of ruling bishops who have their proper stated Churches Cypr. in Conc. Carth. saith None of us calls himself or makes himself to be a bishop of bishops or by tyrannical terror drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying The ancient bishop did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church He did not and might not ordain without the Counsel of his Clergy Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trall saith What is the presbytery but the sacred Assembly of the Councellors and Confessors of the bishops Cyprian in his epistle to Cornelius wisheth him to read his Letters to the flourishing Clergy at Rome that did preside with him Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit From the beginning of my Episcopacy I resolved to do nothing without your counsel and without the consent of my people 4. Conc. Carthag 23. The sentence of a bishop shall be void without the presence of his Clericks Concil Caâ—thag c. 22. Let not a bishop ordain Clericks without a Council of his Clericks The Present Ecclesiastical Government compared with the Ancient EPISCOPACY IT is commonly objected against the Nonconformists That they are enemies to Episcopacy and that they renounce the Ancient Government received in all the Churches The truth of this Objection may easily be believed by those that hear of Episcopal Government and consider only the name thereof which hath continued the same till now but not the thing signified by that name which is so changed that it is of another nature and kind from what was in the first Ages There be Nonconformists who think they are more for the Ancient Episcopacy than the Assertors of the present Hierarchy are and who believe they are able to make it evident may they be permitted Something to this purpose is here in a short Scheme tendered to consideration and proof is ready to be made of each particular here asserted touching the state and practice of the Ancient Church 1. IN the first ages a Political Church constituted as well for Government and Discipline as for Divine Worship was one particular Society of Christians having its proper and immediate bishop or bishops pastor or pastors In these times the lowest political Church is a Diocess usually consisting of many hundred parishes having according to the Hierarchical principle no bishop but the Diocesan Yet these parishes being stated ecclesiastical Societies having their proper pastors are really so many particular Churches 2. In the first Ages the bishops were bishops of one stated Ecclesiastical Society or particular Church But in the present age bishops that are of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle are bishops of many hundred churches which kind of bishop the ancient churches did not know and which differs as much from the ancient bishop as the General of an Army from the Captain of a single Company 3. The bishop of the first Ages was a bishop over his own Church but he was not a bishop of bishops that is he was not a Ruler of the Pastors of other Churchs But the present bishop even of the lowest rank according to the Hierarchical principle is a bishop of bishops namely of the presbyters of
Name of God baptizeth the party in the name of the Father c. but acting in the name of the Church he signeth him with the sign of the Cross This sign is not any tender of Grace received from God nor any proper consecration to God in his Name and Authority and as by his Symbol but a declarative token of duty and engagement to God The Israelites were circumcised kept the Passover and had their Sacrifices all which were tokens of the Covenant between God and them Yet Joshua did solemnly engage them to God by setting up a Stone as a Witness thereof The Objection and Reply I leave for a while to further consideration I have somewhat more to say touching this point The Stone of Witness set up by Joshua was a meer professing or witnessing-sign of the Israelites acknowledged Relation and Obligation to God and the erecting or using of it was not for their Dedication to God as by an Act of solemn Worship The using of the Cross in Banners and Coyns c. is no Act of Religious Worship but a professing-sign or signal Action to testifie to the World that they who use it do believe in Christ crucified And surely it is not unlawful to profess by other signs as well as by words that we are Christians But the sign of the Cross in Baptism is a solemn and stated Symbol of a Divine Mystery Its usage therein is not a meer circumstance but a very important Act of Divine Worship It is a compleat Institution of it self added to the Ordinance of Christ appearing to be of the same nature and end It is evidently used as a rite of solemn Dedication to God upon the terms of the Covenant of Grace and in this regard it is plainly Sacramental and it seems a Dedication added by way of supplement to the Baptismal Dedication and in that regard derogatory from the sufficiency of Baptism to that end It is also performed by a Minister of Christ acting as his Minister towards one of his Flock Moreover it is a rite not of private arbitrary use but of publick institution and it is made a matter not of occasional temporary Observance but a perpetual Ordinance of Worship of the same reason with those Ordinances which God hath instituted to be universally and perpetually observed by his Church Sacred rites of this nature more than those which God hath instituted are not of that rank of things which are necessary in genere and need to be determined in specie and being not necessary they may be matter of scruple to those who think that unnecessary rites of Worship should not be ordained or statedly used in conjunction with the Holy Sacrament That God hath reserved some things in Religion to his own appointment and left other things therein to humane Determination is not to be questioned But to discern exactly and throughly between the one and the other sort I want a sufficient clearness of Judgment That the sign of the Cross in Baptism as now used is to me a puzling difficulty I am not ashamed to confess tho it may be thought a weakness in me If the sign of the Cross were lawful I am not satisfied to declare an assent and consent to the imposing of it as a bar against the Baptism of the Children of those Parents who judg it unlawful and a sin in them to permit the signing of their Children therewith To this it may be answered That it is not the injoyning but the using of this ceremony that is consented to But here also I inquire Whether I may lawfully declare an unfeigned consent to the use of this Rubrick if I dissent from the injunction of the things thereby injoyned The use of this Rubrick doth include such an Obligation upon the Minister as hinders his Baptizing of the Children of such Parents as are before described Further I inquire Whether I may declare my unfeigned consent to the use of this ceremony if I be perswaded that it is not in it self unlawful yet wish in my heart that the use thereof were not retained in regard it is necessary and an occasion of stumbling to many I may submit to the use of a thing not simply evil when I may not declare a hearty consent to it The saving Regeneration of all baptized Infants and their undoubted Salvation if they dye before actual sin being asserted in the Liturgy is to be considered In the prayer after the Child is Bapt zed are these words We yield thee hearty thanks most merciful Father that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit c. At the end of publick Baptism there is this Rubrick It is certain by Gods word that Children which are baptized dying before actual sin are undoubtedly saved Admitting that the injoyned Declaration doth not respect this Rubrick as being not a matter of practice but a doctrinal assertion Nevertheless the form of thanksgiving for all baptized Children aforcited is unquestionably contained under it and I am ingaged to examine the truth and lawfulness thereof The extent of the efficacy of Baptism is a point much controverted by Protestant Divines among themselves and the state of Infants seems not to be so fully and clearly express'd in Scripture as the state of adult persons and I acknowledg my self unable to dertermine thereof in the manner here required The Question is not Whether there be any saving-benefit to Infants by Baptism But whether every Infant admitted thereunto be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and received of God for his own Child by Adoption c. That an Infant be a partaker of these saving-benefits besides his being baptized this condition is requisite that he be duly qualified for Baptism and have right thereunto in the sight of God Be it granted that the Sacrament hath its effect where the receiver doth not set a bar against it yet it must be supposed that the receiver is one who hath right to Baptism in the fight of God and to whom the promise of Salvation doth belong But I do not find that the promise of Salvation belongs to Children whose Parents Proparents or proprietors are impious or infidels under the Mask of the Christian profession or that such have right before God to Baptism whatsoever right they may have before the Church while the impiety or infidelity of the Parents c. is not discovered It is not enough to say that the Infants title to Baptism is founded in Christ Institution of the Sacrament For as there must be an Institution of the Sacrament so there must be a due qualification of the subject that receives it The Infants of Jews or Mahomitans or Pagans do not actually set a bar against the efficacy of the Sacrament yet it cannot be said of such Infants in case they were baptized that they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit The Parents infidelity doth put a bar to the efficacy of the Sacrament towards his Infant and this bar
can be without some Alteration Here the question that concerns me is Whether there lies no secondary obligation from this Covenant upon any person that took it to do that which he was antecedently obliged to do viz. To endeavour in his own place and calling and only by legal ways that alteration of Government in the Church which is just and necessary to be made It is to be considered that the Renunciation required is to declare not only that there lies no obligation from the Covenant to endeavour an alteration of the substance of Church-government to wit Episcopacy but that there lies no obligation thence to endeavour any alteration of Government in the Church The extent of the words doth equally respect any change in any point tho never so just and necessary It is a point too high for me to judg of all persons whatsoever who have taken this Covenant how far they are or are not bound thereby And put case I may not be so clear and sure in this matter as to assert the obligation thereof I may also not be so clear and sure therein as to renounce the obligation thereof As Gods Moral Law primarily obligeth to endeavour Church-Reformation while there is corruption in the Church so a solemn Swearing or Vowing thereof infers a secondary or further obligation thereunto in respect of the Oath or Vow God being a Party in an Oath or Vow of duties directly respecting him and antecedently required by his Law no humane Authority can nullifie the obligation thereof The unlawfulness of the imposition and the defect of Authority in the imposers or that it was taken constrainedly or in sinful circumstances doth not nullifie the obligation of an Oath or Vow when the matter thereof is in it self a duty The conjunction of things unlawful in an Oath or Vow doth not make it null as to those things which are antecedently necessary This Covenant consists of many parts which are indeed for the matter so many several Vows And those parts which are of things lawful and necessary do not rise from nor depend upon those parts that are objected to be unlawful but stand intire by their own force and valour Now the question is Whether those parts which are of things lawful and necessary can be made void by the conjuction of those other parts objected to be unlawful The obligation of this Covenant cannot cease by the mutual consent of the Covenanters because it was not solely or chiefly a league between men but chiefly an Oath or Vow to God of things to be performed towards him and the Union and Association of men therein was in vowing to God who was the party chiefly intended in it Tho a Vow of things in themselves arbitrary being made by such as are under the power of another may be disannulled by him under whose power they are yet it is not so in Vows of those things that are duties antecedently To be obliged by this Covenant to endeavour alteration of Government in the Church so far as that alteration is just and necessary to be made is against no due of obedience to Governours no just rights of Superiors or any persons whatsoever This Covenant cannot oblige to any such endeavour of alteration as includes the determining of matters of publick Government against the Law and mind of the Soveraign It is only an endeavour of a just and necessary alteration by lawful ways and means which is here taken into consideration Several things of moment in the Ecclesiastical Government may need Reformation tho Episcopacy remain as it was received in the ancient Church It is an ordinary and necessary practice to make an alteration of Laws and so of Government both in Civil and Ecclesiastical matters from time to time so far as need requires I freely declare That there lies no obligation from this Covenant upon any person to endeavour any alteration of Government in Church or State by Rebellion Sedition or any other unlawful means There lies no obligation from this Covenant upon any person to endeavour by any means any such alteration of Government in Church or State as may not lawfully be made by the authority of King and Parliament nor be endeavoured by others in subordination to the said Authority I consent to the Episcopacy that was of ancient Ecclesiastical custom as in the times of Ignatius Tertullian or Cyprian I consent to Bishop Vsher's Model of Government by Bishops and Archbishops with their Presbyters which was presented to his Majesty by the Divines called Presbyterian for a ground-work of accommodation I am willing to exercise the Ministry under the present Ecclesiastical Government and to promise obedience to the Ordinary in things lawful and honest if there were a relaxation about some injunctions which I scruple or if the grounds of my scruples about them were removed I am ready to engage not to disturb the peace of the Church and not to endeavour any point of alteration in its Government by Rebellious Seditious or any unlawful ways I am ready to engage also That I will not any way endeavour any point of alteration to be made in the Government of the Church otherwise than by authority of King of Parliament Yea for my own part I couâ—d willingly engage That I will not any way endeavour a change of Church Government from Episcopâ—l to Presbyterial The ancient conjunction of Episcopacy with Presbytrey is that which I wish might be restored to the Church Some have argued that the renouncing of the obligation of the Covenant is to be taken in a restrained sense viz. That there lies no obligation from this Covenant by Seditious Factious Turbulent and Tumultuous ways to disturb the publick Peace and Government now Established in Church or State Ans 1. It is hard to warrant this restrained sense of the Declaration by sufficient proof or good authority 2. When we intend to declare the non obligation of an Oath or Vow only in a limited sense it is not saâ—e to declare it in such words as express its non-obligation in any sense whatsoever Both the taking and renouncing of an Oath had need be done in words of unexceptionable clearness at least in such words as are not liable to great exception Not only the thing intended by an Oath but the expression thereof had need be warrantable 3. This Covenant hath been so handled and the form of the renunciation is so expressed as that one would easily think that the Law-makers intended an utter renouncing of all manner of obligation from it Of Divine Worship in three Parts The First Of the Nature Kinds Parts and Adjuncts of Divine Worship The Second Of Idolatry The Third Of Superstition less than Idolatry TO make diligent search into the nature of Divine Worship I have judg'd my self concern'd as a Christian and a Minister and a Sufferer for conscientious dissents and doubtings about some points thereof in joyned by Authority Some Delineation of what I discern in this