his Diocess who are the proper and immediate Pastors of their several Churches and really bishops according to the true import of that name and office as it is in Scripture 4. The Presbyters of the Church of England if they be not bishops are not of the same order with the presbyters mentioned in Scripture for all presbyters therein mentioned were bishops truly and properly so called Now if they be not of the same order with the Scripture presbyters they are not of divine but meerly humane institution but if it be acknowledged that they are of the same order as indeed they are why are they denied to be bishops of their respective Charges And why are they bereaved of the Episcopal or pastoral Authority therein 5. The bishops of the first Ages had no greater number of souls under their Episcopacy than of which they could take the personal oversight But the present bishops have commonly more souls under their Episcopacy than a hundred bishops can personally watch over The ordinary work of the ancient bishop was to preach give thanks administer the Eucharist pronounce the blessing and exercise discipline to the people under his charge But the bishops of the present age neither do nor can perform these ministries to the people that are under their charge 6. The ancient bishop did exercise his Episcopaâ—y personally and not by Delegates or Substitutes But the present bishop doth for the most part exercise it not personally but either by his Delegates who have no Episcopal authority of themselves but what they derive from him alone or by Substitutes whom he accounts no bishops 7. The ancient bishops did not govern alone but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church he being the first presbyter and stiled the Brother and Colleague of the presbyters But the present bishop hath in himself alone the power of jurisdiction both over the Clergy and Laity 8. The ancient bishop did not and might not ordain Ministers without the counsel of his Clergy But the present bishop hath the sole power of ordination Tho some presbyters whom he shall think fit join with him in laying on of hands yet he alone hath the whole power of the act without their consent or counsel 9. To labour in the word and doctrine was anciently the most honourable part of the bishops work and it was constantly performed by him in his particular Church or Congregation But now preaching is not reckoned to be the ordinary work of a bishop and many bishops preach but rarely and extraordinarily 10. The ancient bishops were chosen by all the people at least not without their consent over whom they were to preside And when a bishop was to be ordained it was the ordinary course of the first ages for all the next bishops to assemble with the people for whom he was to be ordained and every one was acquainted with his conversation But the present bishops entrance into his office is by a far different way 11. Anciently there was a bishop with his Church in every City which had a competent number of Christians But in the later times many yea most Cities have not their proper bishops I mean bishops in the Hierarchical sense tho they be as large and populous as those that have It is to be noted that the manner was not anciently as now that a Church and its bishop did cause that to be called a City which otherwise would not be so called but any Town-corporate or Burrough was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a City according to the ancient use of the word 12. Because in the first ages the Christians of a City and its adjacent Villages did ordinarily make up but one competent Congregation There was commonly but one Church in a City and that City-church took in all the Christians of the adjacent Villages who were but one stated Society all the members whereof might have personal communion one with another But the dividing of the bishops Cure into such parts as are now called Parishes came not in till long after the Apostles times and when that division first took place they were but as Chappels of Ease to the City-church Here it is to be noted That till Constantine's time it cannot be proved that there were above four or five Churches in all the world that consisted of more people than one of 〈◊〉 parishes nor of half so many as some of them 13. In the beginning of Christianity Cities or Towns were judged the â—ittest places for the constituting of Churches because in them the materials of a Church to wit believers were most numerous and in them was the greatest opportunity of making â—ore Converts with other advantages which the Villages did not afford Yet when the number of Christians encreased in a Region Churches having their proper Bishops were constituted in Villages or places that were not Cities one proof whereof is in the Chorepiscopi who were bishops distinct from ordinary presbyters Thus it was in the first ages But in the following times when the worldly grandure of Episcopacy was rising decâ—â—ed were made that bishops might not be ordained in Villages or small Cities lest the name and authority of a bishop should â—e contemptible 14. Tho it hath been decreed by Councils That there be but one bishop in a city and the custom hath generally prevailed yet there in manifold proof that in the first ages more bishops than one were allowed at once in the same city yea in the same church Indeed the Ecclesiastical Historians now extant being comparatively but of later ages and having respect to the government of their own times set down the succession of the ancient bishops by single persons whereas several bishops presiding at the same time the surviving and most noted Colleague was reckoned the Successor 15. The ancient bishops exercised discipline in a spiritual manner by the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God and by arguments deduced from it sought to convince the judgment and awe the conscience according to the true nature of Ecclesiastical discipline But the present bishops have their Courts which are managed like Secular Courts to compel men to an outward observance of their decrees by the dread of temporal penalties annexed to excommunication 16. The present bishops say of their Church-government that without secular force none would regard it But the ancient bishops thought it a reproach to Christs discipline to declare to the world that it is a powerless thing of it self and insufficient to obtain 〈…〉 unless the temporal sword inforce it 17. The Episcopal or Pastoral authority is now commonly exercised by a Lay-chancellor and tho an ordinary priest be present in the Court to speak the words of excommunication yet the Chancellor as Judg decrees it And excommunications and absolutions pass in the bishops name and authority when he never had the hearing of the cause but anciently it was not so In this case I enquire Whether Christ hath authorised any
it doth not hence follow that Peter was a fixed Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles no more were any of the Apostles fixed Bishops in those places where they were more especially imployed and we know that they made frequent removes §. 10. Of the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus THE Name of Bishop is not given either to Timothy or Titus except in the Postscripts of the Epistles But those Postscripts are taken for no part of Canonical Scripture For if they were free from the objected Errors about the places from which the Epistles were written they cannot in reason be supposed to be Pauls own words and written by him when the Epistles were written Moreover the travels of Timothy and Titus do evidently shew that they were not diocesan bishops nor the setled Overseers of particular churches And those passages 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus and Tit. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete shew an occasional and temporary employment And whatsoever stress may be laid upon these texts to prove they were bishops of those places yet they do not sound like the fixing of them each in their proper diocess The name of an Evangelist is expresly given to one of them 2 Tim. 4.5 and the work enjoined both of them and accordingly performed by them being throughout of the same kind there is all reason to believe that they had the same kind of office Now by several texts of Scripture compared together we find the work of Evangelists to be partly such as belonged to the Apostles whose Agents or Adjuncts they were and partly such as was common to Pastors and Teachers whose office was included in theirs Their work in common with the Apostles was the planting and setling of churches by travelling from place to place and in this regard they have been well called Apostles of the Apostles And in doing this Vice-apostolick service they did also that which was common to pastors and teachers in teaching and ruling but with this difference that the ordinary pastors did it statedly in those churches where they were fixed but these transiently in several churches which they were sent to erect or establish or to set things in order therein as the Apostles saw need Or if Timothy and Titus were not in an office essentially divers from the ordinary pastors and teachers yet they were in extraordinary service as being the Apostles Agents and being in that capacity might have their intrinsick spiritual power enlarged to a greater extent and higher pitch of exercise than the ordinary Ministers Howbeit I rather judg that they had an office specifically different from that of the ordinary pastors because in the enumeration of the several sacred offices Paul mentions the office of an Evangelist as a distinct kind from the rest But if it can be proved that the Superiority of Timothy and Titus over bishops or elders of particular churches was not as they were the Apostles assistants or as extraordinary and temporary officers but as ordinary superiors it will indeed follow that Archbishops or bishops of bishops are of divine Right Nevertheless the Episcopal authority of bishops or presbyters of particular churches such as the Scripture-bishops were remains unshaken § 11. Of the Angels of the Churches ANother allegation for the divine right of bishops of an higher order than presbyters is from the Angels of the seven Churches Apoc. 1. and 2. To which many things are said by those of the other persuasion As that those Angels are not called Bishops nor any where implied to be bishops in the present Vulgar sense of the word That the denomination of Angels and Stars in the judgment of ancient and modern Writers do belong to the Ministers of the Word in general That in mysterious or prophetick Writings and Visional Representations a number of things or persons is usually expressed by singulars and that it is very probable that the term Angel is explained under that plurality you distinguished from the rest Apoc. 2.24 but to you and the rest in Thyatira c. and to be a collective name expressing all the Elders of that church Also some observe that it might be expressed in the same manner as Gods providence in the administration of the World by Angels is expressed wherein one being set as chief over such a countrey the things which are done by many are attributed to one Angel president It is further to be considered that in the church of Ephesus one of the seven the Scripture makes mention of many bishops who were no other than presbyters Acts 20.28 Against this some say That the Elders there mentioned were not the presbyters of the church of Ephesus but the bishops of Asia then gathered together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul to Miletum But 1. This is affirmed altogether without proof 2. The text saith Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus to call the elders of the church which in rational interpretation must be the Elders of the church to which he sent 3. If the bishops of all Asia had been meant it would have been said the Elders of the churches For in Scripture tho we find the Christians of one city called a church yet the Christians of a Region did ever make a plurality of churches as the churches of Judea the churches of Galatia and the churches of Asia 4. There is not the least hint given of the meeting of the bishops of Asia at Ephesus when Paul sent for the elders of the Church 5. The asserters of prelacy hold that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus now Paul did not send for him for he was already present with him and accompanied him in his travels Nor did he commit the charge of the church to him but to the Elders that were sent for 6. It could not be the sence of the church of England that those Elders who are declared to be bishops were bishops in the Vulgar meaning of the word when she appointed that portion of Scripture to be read at the ordination of Presbyters to instruct them in the nature and work of their Office Some say That by the Angel of the church is meant the Moderator or President of the Presbytery who might be either for a time or always the same person and the Epistle might be directed to him in the same manner as when the King sends a Message to the Parliament he directs it to the Speaker Now such a Moderator or President makes nothing for bishops of a higher order than Presbyters § 12. A further Consideration of the Office of an EVANGELIST and of a general Minister COncerning the Office of Evangelists such as Timothy and Titus the query is Whether it was temporary or perpetual An eminent Hierarchical Divine saith That Evangelists were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs wherâ—ver they saw need Now this description doth not make them of a specifically
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
the close So that in all things as aforesaid the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity is to be worshipped He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity What less than the whole doctrine aforegoing can the said words in all things as aforesaid refer to For ought doth appear no one part of the doctrine or explication is made more necessary to be believed than another Besides in the Nicene Creed in the doctrine of the Person of Christ why may not the summary thereof expressed in these words and in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God be distinguished in like manner from the following explicatory words begotten of the Father before all worlds God of God light of light c. as if the one but not the other were thereby intended as necessary to be believed Moreover if the sense of this Creed in the said Assertions be not to exclude from salvation all such as do not so distinctly know nor so explicitely believe concerning the doctrine of the Trinity as its sets forth in the explication thereof yet certainly it can be taken for no less than the excluding of such as apprehend and believe in any point contrary thereto which is the case of the Greek Church in denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son Admit the said Assertions are to be restrained to those that believe not as is expressed only in the summary of the doctrine I then make this query Whether none of those who being of very low capacities do not distinctly apprehend and explicitely believe one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity so as in their apprehensions neither to confound the persons nor divide the substance can truly and savingly fear God and believe in Christ Here let it be no offence to make the following Queries 1. Whether it be certain by the word of God that all those of the Christian profession whose apprehensions of the Trinity were not fully conformable to the Faith of the Homousians as the Orthodox were called in those times did perish everlastingly 2. Whether it be certain by the Word of God that all those who so apprehended of the union of the natures in Christ as was exprest either by the Nestorians or Eutychians did perish everlastingly Furthermore I enquire Whether it be certain by the Word of God That all Pagans who have lived since the times of Christianity and to whom the Gospel was never published are damned In the aforesaid Assertions the form of words being unlimited and universal seems to import so much Now the case of such who live in meer negative infidelity being without the revelation of the Gospel is different from theirs who by wilful perverseness overthrow the Faith against the evidence of that Divine testimony in the Holy Scripture which they profess to believe Without doubt none of the whole stock of Mankind can be saved but through the Redeemer Jesus Christ But it is not so certain that all are damned who live and dye without the knowledg of Redemption by him I certainly know That without holiness no man shall see the Lord and that no man can be holy without the sanctifying operation of the Holy Spirit But that none of them are sanctified who are without the knowledg of Christ and his Gospel is not so evidently and certainly known to me either from Scripture or Reason The sum of the matter is That I am afraid in the solemn rehearsal of a Creed in the midst of Divine Service to adjudg those to eternal damnation that are not so adjudged by the word of God yet I heartily and entirely assent to the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation of Christ according to the explication thereof as set forth in this Creed and I would not give my suffrage that any should be allowed in the publick Ministry who holds in any point contrary to the said doctrine Of the LITANY THE manner of the composure of the Litany and more especially that the formally petitioning words are in great part uttered by the people only I judg not so inconvenient but that I may comply therewith yet I had much rather and do heartily wish that it were otherwise framed Now I enquire Whether being thus minded I may justly declare my unfeigned consent to the use thereof Of the COLLECTS c. IN the Collect for Christmas-day these words And as at this time to be born are to be considered That our Saviour was born on or about the 25th of December is a matter of great uncertainty and little probability and contrary to the most rational Chronology It is therefore questioned whether the said words may be statedly used in a solemn prayer of the Church Tho this be a small matter yet the question is VVhether one may declare an assent and consent to the use of it while he doth not believe it to be true Of the Order for the Ministration of the Holy Communion IT is liable to exception That a great part of the Communion Service as it is called which makes a great part of the Morning-prayer for the Lords day is appointed to be read at the Communion-Table when there is no administration of the Sacrament If the declared consent hereunto import no more than that it may be complyed with in submission to authority I shall not refuse it In the Fourth Commandment it is appointed to be read The Lord blessed the Seventh day instead of the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day It may well be questioned whether one may consent to the changing of God own Words in this Commandment into other words of mans chusing But if the declared consent respect not the changing of one word for another but only the simple using of that word which stands in the Liturgy I shall not utterly refuse it seeing it hath nothing that is false or evil nor any so considerable inconvenience that I discern as to necessitate to a non-compliance Yet I dislike the retaining of it In the Exhortation preparatory to the Sacrament it is declared That it is requisite that no man should come to the Holy Communion but with a full trust in Gods Mercy and quiet conscience Here it is said not only that it is a duty to be so qualified in coming but that it is requisite that no man should come but so qualified This seems to mean that the said qualification is so necessary that none may lawfully come without it It is hereupon to be considered whether a godly Christian under doubts and fears touching his own estate towards God and apprehensive of Gods displeasure towards him may not have that Grace which may enable him to come acceptably to this Sacrament Tho I do not scruple the lawfulness of kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacramental Bread and Wine yet it is hard to consent to a Rule that debars from the Lords Supper all Christians who through unfeigned scruple of conscience refuse this gesture especially considering
appearance of Regeneration may be qualified for Confirmation according to the terms prescribed in this book and besides all this that children of ungodly Parents to whom the promise of salvation doth not belong cannot be supposed to be really regenerate and pardoned by Baptism Let the tendency of the said assertion as also of that touching the saving regeneration and undoubted salvation of all baptized infants be well considered whether it be to bring men to a sight of their misery in the unregenerate state and an endeavour of their recovery by real regeneration or to keep them from it The Rubrick after Confirmation There shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion until such time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confirmed This Rubrick is not only in the nature of a Directory shewing that Confirmation according to due order is requisite to be received by persons before they come to the Communion but a rigid exclusion of all from the Communion who are not confirmed or are not ready and desirous to be confirmed according to the prescribed manner It is granted That a credible approved profession of Faith and Repentance may be made necessary to admission because they who do not make such profession are justly excluded from Communion in the Sacrament But there are many that are fit for this Communion that are not willing to submit to this order of Confirmation And if their refusal of it be culpable yet it may not deserve so great punishment as exclusion from the Sacrament Of the Form of Matrimony TOuching this form of words Who hast consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery that in it is signified and represented the spiritual Marriage and unity betwixt Christ and his Church be it considered that this Doctrine is not found in Scripture that Marriage was consecrated to represent the said mystery It is indeed a similitude used to express that mistical union But every similitude used in Scripture to express a holy Mystery as that of the Vine and the Branches to express the Union betwixt Christ and the faithful is not consecrated to a representation thereof Upon this very ground the Papists hold Matrimony to be a Sacrament because God hath put in it the signification of so excellent a thing as the indissoluble conjunction of Christ with the Church The Apostle Eph. 5.30 31. speaking of a great mystery doth not in any respect intend the Marriage-Institution and Union but only the Union of Christ and his Church Now tho this be a small matter for which a peaceable man would not break with a Church yet such a one may question Whether he may declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of it while he doth not believe it to be true The Rubrick at the end of Matrimony It is convenient that the new Married persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage or at the first opportunity after their Marriage I question whether it be convenient that the new Married Persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage In case married Persons could at the time of their Marriage be composed to such a holy and spiritual and heavenly frame and so sequester their thoughts from the concernments of the body as requisite for the solemn duty of receiving the Sacrament and withal should abstain from those heightned sensitive injoyments which are used at that time this Rubrick were allowable and commendable But it is not so with one of a thousand if with any one nor do I know that it is requisite it should be so at least ordinarily The rule of Scripture is That Persons should abstain from conjugal embraces in time of most selemn Religious exercises 1 Cor. 7.5 This also is but a small matter for which no breach should be made But a sober peaceable man may question whether he may assent and consent to the use of such a Rubrick as to that part of it Yet questionless it may be convenient that the new-married Persons if duly qualified should receive the Holy Communion at the first opportunity after their Marriage Of the Order for Visitation of the Sick RUbrick The Sick person shall be moved to make a special confession of his sins if he shall feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter After which confession the Priest shall absolve him if he humbly and heartily desire it Here the Priest is desired and required to absolve every Sick person after special confession of sin in case he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter if he humbly and heartily desire it And the Absolution is to be given absolutely unto every such person and not conditionally if he truly repent In defence of Absolution given upon the only terms prescribed in this Book it doth not satisfie to say that if the Sick person shew himself truly penitent his Absolution ought not to be left to the Ministers discretion For every Minister ought to exercise a judgment of discretion about his own Act especially an Act of such importance as the absolving of a sinner from all his sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And the question still remains whether every Sick person that can verbally express as much as is here required be truly penitent yea or make a credible profession thereof To presume every one is truly penitent who is desirous to receive Absolution is a charity larger than of Gods allowing That the Absolution should be pronounced absolutely and never conditionally it doth not satisfie to say that the condition is understood For it is not reasonably supposed that all the Sick who can say so much as is here required of them do understand or consider that it is spoken to them conditionally Too many be stupidly sensless and grosly ignorant of their own spiritual estate and of the true conditions of reconciliation with God In the Rubrick of the Communion of the Sick the Curate is required to administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to every Sick person that is desirous to receive it but he is not allowed to consider whether he be fit to receive it To presume that every one is fit to receive that is desirous to receive is a Charity larger than of Gods allowing It is known by sad experience that many very bad men are desirous to receive the Sacrament when they are Sick It may be considered whether this manner of giving Absolution and administring the Sacrament to every Sick person that is desirous to receive the same tend to bring men to repentance or to harden them in impenitency Of the Order for Burial of the Dead THese ensuing forms Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the Soul of our dear Brother here departed we commit his Body to the ground c. in sure and certain Hope of the Resurrection to eternal Life Also we
Idolatry in any kind BY the meer appearance of idolatry I understand not external or meerly corporeal idolatry of which I have before spoken For this differs from that on this manner That is an outward sign of inward worship tho it be but seeming or feigned but this is only an appearance of being such a sign when it is not Query about incurvation towards the Altar or Communion-Table Whether it give not an appearance of idolatry before the Vulgar and those that are less accurate in distinguishing between an object to which and toward which Query much more about directing worship towards a Crucifix or other pictures tho but as to objects of remembrance The same appearance may be in the mixing of expressions of veneration to Saints or Angels amidst the worship of God tho they be not those expressions that are appropriated to Gods worship but only such as are common to the worship due to God and the creatures There may be indeed a notorious signifying of the difference of our veneration towards them from what is due to God Howbeit for fear of scandal it may be better wholly forborn Also the like appearance may be in bowing to a King or Potentate amidst the Worship of God except time custom and manner of doing do notoriously notifie the distinction Also when that which is a common expression both of Civil and Religious honour shall be made by a King to be a symbol of giving divinee honour to him if one use that expression towards him or his image with a civil intent without protesting against the idolatrous use thereof § 21. Whether a course of Idolatry in what kind soever infer a state of damnation THE meaning of this Question is Whether all Idolatry be mortal sin not only in respect of desert but existence as sins whose ordinary habitual practice denies the being of grace and presence of the sanctifying Spirit That all idolatry in whatsoever degree is not of this nature is plain For idolatry in general is the giving of that honour to the creature which is due to the Creator alone and this lies not only in solemn avowed worship but in the affection of the heart There are Idola seculi as well as Idola templi And it is too common among the true worshippers of God to rob him of his honour and to place it upon the creature and that habitually as on a Child or Wealth c. tho only in a mortified and not in a prevalent degree The remainders of covetousness which is idolatry is a witness hereof And if this may be in reference to the idols of the heart why not also in reference to the idols of the Templ◠Nay more easily may it be in this later than in the former respect in some devout persons that live in darker times and places because it may proceed not from the love of the creature more than God but meerly from ignorance and error about the way of Divine Worship Wherefore I doubt not but many holy Souls in darker Ages Countries have been habitually or customarily guilty of a lower kind of Idolatry in making Idols to themselves not simply as God but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the excessive honour they gave to the creature did not distroy the sincerity of their Devotion towards God nor deny their unfeigned giving of the highest honour to him alone For such we now speak of may heartily and prevalently own the true God and all the essentials of Religion and so they may be of the true Church of God as True is taken for the essence and not for the integral perfectness and healthfulness of the Church The Third Part Of Superstition less than Idolatry § 1. Of excess in the quantity or measure of Religious Observances ALL Superstition is an excess in Religion The excess in the object thereof being opened in the Second Part here it remains that I speak of that which is in the Acts thereof and this excess is either in the measure or in the kind when the Rule of Religion is transgressed in either of these ways and in some instances there may be an excess in both Excess in the quantity or measure of Religious Observances is when tho the thing in kind were not an excess yet for the quantity it is more than conduceth to the end of Religion yea is an hindrance thereto as for Example Prayer or Preaching of the word too Prolix or at an unseasonable time too rigid a pressing of Religious Exercises on the Lords day or at any other time lawfully set apart thereunto contrary to the works of Mercy or present necessity yea that conveniency to life and converse which doth not divert the mind from the things of God too much care and curiosity about circumstances of Decency and Order and too great a heaping up of Rites and Formalities § 2. Of Excess in Religious Observances for the kind thereof EXcess in the kind is when mans presumption in giving honour to God gives such signs of honour to him as for kind he would not should be given but hath forbidden the same God may forbid the kinds of Religious Observances either in particular as he did some heathenish rites to his people of old expressing them by name or else in general viz. by a general rule forbidding all of such a nature and reason in common Some kind of Religious Observances are unlawful in themselves or in the nature of the things as being naturally unfit to be offerrd to the Holy God namely such kind of Worship as was given to Bacchus and other like heathen gods who were served congruenti vitio And such need not to be forbidden in specie because they are naught in their common nature being vices and 't is enough to be forbidden in genere Some kinds of Religious Worship may not be vicious in their nature nor contrary to Gods holiness to command or allow Yet may be forbidden by the general precept of Scripture or other supernatural Revelation § 3. Of the Rule that limits the kinds of Worship OF Natural Worship the Law of Nature is the limiting Rule for all the kinds thereof Of positive Worship namely all that which in specie is not necessary in nature but is of free Determination the kinds thereof are supposed to be either restrained to Divine Institution or left to humane choice That there are Divine Institutions of positive Worship in sundry kinds is acknowledged by all that acknowledg the Scriptures Divine Authority And that many kinds of positive Worship have been taken up by humane discretion is known by all that know what is practiced in the World Now the Question is Whether these kinds that are of humane choice are lawful or lawfully intermingled in their use with Divine Institutions That all kinds of positive Worship should be left to humane choice seems in reason repugnant in regard of mans natural darkness in Divine things and proneness at the best to mistake therein and to
such as the Popish Whippings or such as some of the Ancients with pious intention but superstitiously used as perpetual abiding on the top of a Pillar never to sleep but standing c. And there are Austerities inconvenient for measure by excess in that which is for kind sutable and comely as immoderate Abstinences and Abasements all such being to be rejected come not into the present consideration But the query is Whether allowable Austerities may be not only adjuncts but also acts or matter of Worship Humiliation or Prostration of soul in self abasement before God is an act of internal Worship And I do not see but the Austerities we now speak of may be lawfully used as direct and immediate signs of such humiliation and consequently as acts of Worship Whatsoever is directly and immediately expressive of internal Worship is external Worship And so fasting and other abstinences may be esteemed not only as fit adjuncts of Worship and helps therein but acts thereof Vows of the aforesaid allowable Austerities to be continued in for term of life or notable length of time are dangerous and apt to insnare the Consciences and if a special religious state be placed in them more than what belongs to Christianity as such they are Superstition and Will-worship MATRIMONIAL PVRITY § 1. MArriage is the Bond of an individual Conjunction between Man and Woman instituted of God to an individual Conversation or Course of Life This Bond cannot be dissolved by man because it is not man but God that makes it tho the Married parties voluntarily enter into it and publick Officers instrumentally authorize their Act according to Gods Law Hence it is said Whom God hath joyned let no man put asunder But this Rule puts no bar to Gods right of dissolving this Bond by an Act of his Law upon causes therein declared § 1. By the Church of Rome Matrimony is held a Sacrament upon this ground That God hath consecrated it to be a Symbol of the indissoluble Conjunction of Christ with the Church and of Grace to be conferred upon those that enter into it Indeed it is used in Scripture as a similitude to express or illustrate the Mystical Union betwixt Christ and his Church But every similitude used in Scripture to express a holy Mystery as that of the Vine and Branches to express the Union between Christ and the faithful doth not thereby become a consecrated Symbol thereof with a promise of Grace annexed to it as so consecrated Nevertheless tho Matrimony be not an instituted Symbol of Divine Grace yet Grace suitable to this state of Life is promised to the faithful and this state as all other things is sanctified by the word of God and prayer unto those holy ends which God hath designed in it § 3. The Causes for which Matrimony was ordained are excellently set by the Church of England in these words First It was ordained for the Procreation of Children to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord and to the praise of his holy Name Secondly it was ordained for a remedy against sin and to avoid Fornication that such as have not the gift of continency might Marry and keep themselves undefiled Members of Christs Body Thirdly It was ordained for the mutual Society help and comfort that the one ought to have of the other both in prosperity and adversity It belongs to the substance of Matrimony that the Man and the Woman give and take the power of their bodies mutually unto the conjugal due called benevolence 1 Cor. 7.3 4. And they are so equal in the matter of Wedlock that both of them are both superior and inferior in asking and rendering the said due Hence it is a resolved case That sterillity is not an impediment of Marriage because tho the primary end which is Procreation be thereby hindred yet the secondary end to be a remedy against sin which is also of Gods ordaining is obtained But Frigidity or total Impotency is a just impediment because in that case both the primary and secondary end of Marriage is made void and the essential due thereof cannot be rendered § 4. As concerning the ancient Polygamy or plurality of Wives at once some conceive that it was only by Divine connivence and that it was a sinful practice which God winked at Others conceive that it was by Divine dispensation and that the law of the Conjunction of one Man and one Woman was most consentaneous to nature but that it was not in nature immutable and indispensable but such as might be changed the state of things and persons being changed yet then not to be changed but by his authority from whom all the Laws of nature do proceed But whether Polygamy were allowed or only winked at it appears to be wholly disallowed by the Law of Christ and was never as yet admitted in any Christian Commonwealth If according to the words of Christ a Man putting away his Wife and Marrying another commiteth Adultery much more doth he commit Adutery if keeping the former Wife he Marry another The Concubines mentioned in the Old-Testament were not as in our days unmarried but properly Wives tho in respect of some Matrimonial Priviledges inferior to Wives strictly so called For their carnal Conjunction with any besides him whose they were was a defiling of the Marriage-bed Concerning Reuben who lay with Bilhah Jacobs Concubine this is denounced Thou shalt not excel because thou wentest up to thy Fathers bed then defiledst thou it Gen. 49.4 § 5. As concerning the honour of Matrimony it is written Heb. 13.4 Marriage is honourable among all men and the bed undefiled but Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judg This is the law of Christ On the contrary the hypocrisie and the countefeit sanctity of those lyars who were to bring in the great Apostacy upon the Christian Church is foretold to consist among other things in forbidding to Marry 1 Tim. 4.3 And the prohibition of it to divers orders of men and other unjust restrictions laid upon it are one kind of the forbidding to Marry intended in that prediction The wisest and most civilized Commonwealths that were not Christians have testified their great respect to Marriage by encouraging it with many Priviledges as more conducing to the publick good than the single Life By the Roman Laws in times of Gentilism Marriage was priviledged and the single Life disadvantaged § 6. The debasing of Matrimony came in with the degeneracy of the Church Quickly after the Apostles age Christians departed from the simplicity that is in Christ by devising rules of Life which Christ required not and built upon the precious foundation which had been laid Wood Hay and Stubble And the Devotion both of men and women was carried forth to a self-devised religiousness yet the essentials of Christianity were preserved sound Accordingly many of the Fathers of the Church extolled Celibate and Virginity with excessive praises and thought of Marriage as of a state