in a higher or lower degree about ones part in this Society according to its Invisible form yet it can ground a judgment of certainty about ones part in the same according to its Visible form So that altho God only knows those whom he accepts yet the Church may know certainly whom she ought to admit And as God in the matter belonging to his cognizance to wit the sincerity of profession and the rights consequent thereunto so the Church in the matter belonging to its cognizance to wit the credibility of profession and the rights consequent thereunto proceeds upon certain knowledg § 5. Of the Catholick Church Invisible and Visible IT hath been well observed That the term Catholick Church hath been sometimes used of a particular Church holding the true Doctrine of the Apostles and is the same with Apostolical and in this sence any Bishop of a true Apostolical Church may be called a Catholick Bishop But here the term Catholick signifies the same with Oecumenical or the Church that is throughout the whole World or the whole World of Christians And in this sence the Church is termed Catholick not as actually extending to the whole World but potentially no Nation or People being excluded but all having Liberty to accept and injoy the Priviledges thereof In this notion there is one Catholick Church both in the Invisible and Visible form The Catholick Church Invisible is the whole company of true Believers throughout the World who make that part of Christs Mystical Body which ia militant here on Earth The Catholick Church Visible is the whole company of Visible believers throughout the World or believers according to humane judgment § 6. The Vnity of the Catholick Church Visible THE Catholick Church is not only notionally but really existent and hath Relation to particular Churches as an intregal whole to integral parts The same relation it hath also to particular Christians yea and to such as are not fixed members of a particular Church There being one peculiar Kingdom of Christ throughout the World distinct from the World in general visibly constituted and administred not by humane Laws and Coercive Power as Secular Kingdoms are but by Divine Laws and Power directly and purely respecting the conscience there must needs be one Caetholick Visible Church The Catholick Church in its Visible form is one political Society or Spiritual Commonwealth the City of God the more special Kingdom of Christ upon Earth for the World in general is his Kingdom at large The Unity of the Catholick Church being a political Society ariseth not out of a local contiguity but out of the moral and political Union of the parts And if the Invisible Church be one body the Visible must be so likewise For these terms the Church Visible and Invisible do not signifie two Societies as hath been shewed but the same Society distinguished by its diver considerations The Visible Catholick Church hath one Head and Supreme Lord even Christ one Charter and Systeme of Laws Members that are free denizons of the whole Society one form of admission or solemn initiation for all its Members one Spiritual polity or one Divine form of Government and one kind of Ecclesiastical Power The members of one particular Church are intituled to the priviledges granted of God to visible Christians in any other Church wheresoever they come to be injoyed by them according to their capacity and in a due order And wheresoever any Christian comes as a stranger he is by his relation to the Universal Church bound to have communion with the particular Church or Churches of that place in Gods ordinances according to his capacity and opportunity And if it be said he is looked upon as a transient member of that particular Church where he comes as a stranger I answer that it ariseth from his being a member of the Catholick Church which contains all particular Churches as an integral whole its several parts for it is his right and not a favour or a matter of mere charity Whosoever is justly and orderly cast out of one Church is thereby vertually cast out of all Churches and ought to be received by none This cannot be meerly by compact among the Churches or by the mutual relation of mere concordant or sister Churches but by their being integral parts of one society for the ejection out of all de jure follows naturally necessarily ipso facto from the ejection out of one The Apostles were general officers of the whole Catholick Church as of one visible society And it is not to be imagined that it lost its unity by their death The ordinary Pastors and Teachers tho actually and in exercise overseeing their own parts are habitually and radically related to the whole Catholick Church and thereby are inabled to exercise their ministerial authority in any other parts wheresoever they come without a new ordination or receiving a new pastoral authority so that they do it in a due order This shews that the several Churches are parts of one political society otherwise the officers could not act authoritatively out of their own particular congregation no more than as one well observes a Mayor or Constable can exercise their offices in other Corporations § 7. The Priority in nature of the Catholick Church to particular Churches FOrasmuch a◠men are Christians in order of nature before they are members of a particular Church and ministers in general before they are ministers of a particular Church they are members and ministers first of the Catholick Church in order of nature and then of particular Churches And the Charter and Body of Laws and Ordinances by which the Church subsists doth first belong to the Catholick Church and then to particular Churches as parts thereof To be a member of a particular congregation gives only the opportunity of injoying divine ordinances and Church priviledges but immediate right thereunto is gained by being a visible believer or a member of the Church Catholick One may be a member of the Church Catholick and yet not a fixed member of any particular Church and that in some cases occessarily and in that state he hath right to Gods ordinances The Ethiopian Eunuch was of no particular Church and yet baptized by Philip. The Promises Threatning and Precents of Christ are dispensed by his Minister to the members of his Church primarily not as members of a particular but of the universal Church And therefore the Minister dispenseth the same with authority in Christs Name even to strangers that come into his Congregation 8. The Visibility of the Catholick Church AS a large Empire is visible to the eye of sence not in the whole at one view but in the several parts one after another so is the Catholich Church As a large Empire is visible in the whole at one view by an act of the understanding which is the eye of the mind so is the Catholick Church As the unity of a large Empire is not judged invisible
because it cannot be seen without an act of the understanding no more may the unity of the Catholick Church be for that reason judged invisible I have already shewed that the adequate notion of visible and invisible in this subject is to be not only the object of the bodily eye or other external sence but also of any humane intuition or certain perception or that which falls under humane cognizance and judgment § 9. The Polity of the Catholick Church THE Catholick Church is not as secular Kingdoms or Commonwealths are autonomical that is having within it self that Power of its own fundamental constitution and of the laws and officers and administrations belonging to it as a Church or spiritual polity but it hath received all these from Christ its Head King and Law giver Indeed as it includes Christ the Head it is in reference to him autonomical but here we consider it as a political Body visible upon earth and abstracted from its Head Nevertheless it hath according to the capacity of its acting that is in its several parts a power of secondary Laws or Canons either to impress the Laws of Christ upon its members or to regulate circumstantials and accidentals in Religion by determining things necessary in genere and not determined of Christ in spâ—câ—â— but left to humane determination The spiritual authority seated in the Church is not seated in the Church as Catholick so as to descend from it by way of derivation and communication to particular Churches but it is immediately seated in the several particular Churches as similar parts of one political Body the Church Catholick The Church Catholick is as one universal or Oecumenical Kingdom having one supream Lord one Body of Lawâ— one Form of Government one way of Enrollment into it and subiects who have freedom throughout the whole extent thereof radically and fundamentally always and actually to be used according to their occasions and capacities but having no Terrene Universal Administrator or Vicegerent personal or collective but several administrators in the several provinces or parts thereof invested with the same kind of authority respecting the whole kingdom radically or fundamentally but to be exercised ordinarily in their own stated limits and occasionally any where else according to a due call and order Wherefore tho it be one political society yet not so as to have one terrestrial vicarious Head personal or collective having legislation and jurisdiction over the whole And indeed no terrestrial Head is capable of the Government and Christ the Supream Head and Lord being powerfully present throughout the whole by his spirit causeth that such a vicarious Head is not wanted Indeed the Apostles as such were universal officers having Apostolick authority not only radically or habitually but actually also over the whole Catholick Church in regard they were divinely inspired and immediately commissioned by Christ under him to erect his Church and to establish his religion even the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government that was to be received by all Christians But this office was but temporary in the nature and formal reason of it and so expired with their persons and was not of the essence or a constitutive part of this society § 10. The Headship of a General Council examined BY Headship over the Church in this inquiry is not meant a dominion and Desporick power over it for the Church hath no Lord but Christ nor soveraign authority over it which is the power of legislation and final decisive judgment by which men stand or fall finally for the Church hath no King but Christ I exclude Headship in any such sence as not fit to come under consideration But the Query is Whether a general Council be supream in that kind of power which resides in the Church and is only ministerial and dispensatory that is whether it hath a supream ministry or Geconomy over the Catholick Church so that all Churches and ministers have their power conveyed to them from the same not as from the Fountain which is Christ alone but as from the first receptacle thereof and are subject to its authoritative regulation and determinations and finally accountable to it for their administrations Who can affirm that an Oecumenical council rightly so named was ever in being The councils that have born that name were conventions of Bishops within the Roman Empire except some very few that were without it and those living near the confines of it Whereupon let it be considered whether the said councils were truly Oecumenical or just representatives of the Catholick Church That which is wont to be said for the affirmative is that no Bishops were excluded from the right of voting therein but from all parts of the world they might come to them as rightful members of them if they would But what if no greater number of Bishops meet upon a summons to a General council than did at the council of Trent May such a convention be called an Oecumenical council because all might come that would when so small a number came as was comparatively nothing to the number of bishops throughout the world Or can the convention of a greater number suppose as many as met in the first Nicene council be justly called a representative of the Catholick Church or carry the sence of it when it bears no more proportion to it Surely it is not their freedom of access but their actual convening at least in a proportionable number that can justly give the denomination And what if the bishops without the limits of the Roman Empire would not come to a General council called by the Mandate of the Roman Emperour especially they that lived in the remoter parts as Ethiopia and India c Were they obliged to come to a general council in case it had been summoned in another especially a remoter Empire or Dominionâ— Moreover what if they could not come which may well be supposed by reason of the restraint of their several Princes or the length of the journey or insuperable difficulties or utter incapacities Tho the most illustrious part of the Catholick Church was contained in the Roman Empire yet an assembly of the bishops thereof could no more make a representative of the Catholick Church than an assembly of the bishops of the other part of the world without them could have done if there had been such an assembly Besides the ancient General councils were usually called in the Eastern parts of the Empire and tho the bishops of those parts might convene in a considerable number yet the number from the Western parts was inconsiderable and as none comparatively to a just proportion Let it be hereupon considered whether the said councils were a just representative and did carry the sence of that part of the Catholick Church that was included in that Empire And in this consideration it is not of little moment to observe what numbers of bishops were ordinarily congregated in the many provincial assemblies and that within
neglect of other duties The Excess is more rare in natural than in instituted or positive Worship To be too religious is in some respect to be irreligious it is sometimes Sacrilegious in robbing God of his due in other kinds and at all times it wants the formal nature of True Religion Superstition is either positive in forbidden acts of Worship or negative in religious abstainings from things not forbidden as some distinguish But I conceive that in this latter kind the formale of Superstition lyes not in a negation or meer not doing but in a certain observance about not doing and a conscientious nolition § 2. Of Idolatry in general IDolatry is a species of Superstition being an excess in the object of Worship It is the giving of Worship that is proper to God to that which is not God An Idol in its most proper sence is an Image that is the likeness or resemblance of any Being more especially that which is made for the resemblance of the true or a false God It also signifies whatsoever Being visible or invisible yea or figment of the brain that is worshipped as God Moreover an Idol is not onely that which besides the true God is avowed for God but also that which hath any part or kind of Divine Honour given to it for it is thereby made interpretative another God If any incommunicable Attribute of God be given to another as Omniscience or to be the searcher of hearts that other is made another God though not simply yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or so far Idolatry may be committed by such as own no more gods than the onely living and true God for though they do not acknowledge more Gods than one yet they may give his incommunicable honour to that which they confess to be no God To pray to any Creature for that benefit which God onely can do for us as to give Rain or fair Weather is Divine Worship and Idolatry §. 3. Of Latria and Dulia AS for the famous distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will consider it first according to the Words then according to the Sence that is given thereof by those that use it As for the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used onely for worship given to God Deut. 28.48 Levit. 23.7 Nor is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used onely for worship given to Creatures Acts 20.19 Rom. 12.11 1 Thes 1.9 Latria is a Word that generally signifies all Service and dulia signifies Service in a stricter way to wit of those that are not sui juris but absolutely at the disposing of him whom they serve As for the sense of this distinction given by the Users Latria is that worship whereby the object is acknowledged to be the first beginning and the ultimate end of all and dulia is that wherein the object is not acknowledged so to be This their way of distinguishing doth not make two kinds of worship either in the outward acts which are the same in latria and dulia even among the Papists except Sacrifice onely or in the Internal acts of the Will to wit Love Fear Trust c. which may be the same in both and through Superstition may be greater in their dulia than latria but onely in an intellectual apprehension which the vulgar are not apt to mind Moreover when the object is not apprehended to be the first Cause and last End that is the Supreme God nothing hinders but it may have that kind of Worship given to it which is due to him onely as to Pray to it to Swear by it to burn Incense to dedicate Temples and Altars and to make Vows to it The Worship which Cornelius was about to give to Peter and which John was about to give to the Angel from a transport of Mind was more than was due to Creatures yet Cornelius did not think Peter nor John the Angel to be the first Cause and last End Nor did the Devil move our Saviour so to acknowledge him when he would have had him fall down and Worship him yet he rejected his motion as seeking the worship due to God onely yea and that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 4.8 §. 4. Of Idolatry serious and dissembled SErious Idolatry is when the mind gives the honour due to God or any part thereof to a Being that is not God and when the using of the External signs of that honour proceeds from the intention of the mind to honour it thereby In all serious or undissembled Idolatry there is ignorance or error about the object or the act of Worship First about the object either the thing worshipped is taken to be God when it is not God or it is taken to have some Attribute of God which it hath not or to injoy some Prerogative of God which it doth not In the Two later cases the thing is worshipped though not simply yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God Secondly About the act of Worship 1. When the worship given to that which is not God is not taken to be Divine Worship when indeed it is such 2. When the Worship taken to be Divine is not taken to be applyed to the object when indeed it is applyed Dissembled Idolatry is meerly External when an External Sign of Honour due to God alone is given to that which is not God without the intention of the mind to honour it thereby Every outward act that is ordinarily used for signification of Divine Honour is not of it self as Physically considered a signification thereof and consequently not Idolatry But whensoever such an act is knowingly and voluntarily done at such time and place and in such circumstances as make it to be taken for a signification of Divine Honour it is imputed to him that doth it for a signification thereof Though it be true That that which is not a sign of Internal Honour is not Worship nevertheless he that doth not internally honour may give the outward sign of doing it He doth really give the sign of such honour though but a feigned one and so is really guilty of Idolatry though but dissembled He doth really make shew of giving that honour to another which is due to God onely and professedly owns another object of Divine worship and so far an other God And though it be not Mental yet it is Corporal Idolatry as an Atheist or impious person doth not Internally Honour God but contemn him yet doing those things which are External Signs thereof he doth Externally worship God §. 5. Of adoration given to the Host THat the Papists give Divine Worship to the Host is by themselves acknowledged and it is no small part of their Religion The Council of Trent determines That the same Divine Worship which we give to God himself is to be given to the most Holy Sacrament And by the Holy Sacrament they mean the Body of Christ under the accidents of the Bread This according
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
You have heard brethren as well in your private examination as in the exhortation and holy lessons taken out of the Gospel and the writings of the Apostles of what dignity and how great importance this Office is whereto ye are called that is to say The Messengers the Watchmen the pastors and stewards of the Lord to teach to premonish to feed to provide for the Lords Family I acknowledg the passages here alledged are taken out of the old Book of Ordinanion that was established in this Church till the late alteration made Anno 1662. If those Alterations signifie another meaning about the several Holy Orders than what was signified in the Old Book then the sense of the Church of England in these times differs from the sense of the same Church in all times preceding the said Alterations But if they signifie no other meaning than what was signified in the old Book my Citations are of force to shew what is the sense of this Church as well of the present as of the former times about this matter And let this be further considered That the form of ordaining a Bishop according to the Church of England imports not the conferring of a higher power or an authorizing to any special work more than to what the Presbyter is authorized The old form was Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee by imposition of hands for God hath not given us the spirit of fea◠but of power and of love and of soberness What is there in this form of words that might not be used to a Presbyter at his ordination Or what is there in it expressive of more power than what belongs to a Presbyter The new form since the late alteration is Receive the Holy Ghost for the work and office of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed to thee by imposition of our hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen And remember that thou stir up the grace of God that is given thee by this imposition of our hands f r God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power and of love and of soberness And what is there in this form that is expressive of any office power that the Presbyter hath not unless these words for the work and office of a bishop Now both the name and work and office of a bishop belongs to the Scripture-presbyter who is of divine institution and the presbyter to whom it doth not belong is but a humane creature or an ordinance of man § 7. Of the present Diocesan Bishop A Diocesan Bishop according to the hierarchical state is a Bishop of the lowest degree having under him Parish-Ministers that are Presbyters or Priests but not accounted Bishops and by divine right claiming to himself alone the Episcopal Authority over all the Parish Churches and Ministers within his Diocess which may contain a hundred two hundred five hundred or a thousand parishes For an Episcopacy of this kind I discern no Scripture-Warrant nor Divine Right Every particular Church should have its proper pastor or Bishop and particular Churches with their proper pastors are so evidently of divine right that some eminently learned men in the Church of England have declared their judgment that no form of Church-Government besides the mere pastoral office and Church-Assemblies is prescribed in the Word of God but may be various according to the various condition and occasion of several Churches But if it be said that parochial Congregations are not Churches but only parts of the Diocess which is the lowest political Church I desire proof from Scripture that such Congregations as our parishes having their proper presbyter or presbyters invested with the power of the keys are not Churches properly so called The reason of demanding this proof is because the Scripture is a perfect rule for the essential constitution of Churches though the accidents thereto belonging may be regulated by humane prudence And it is most evident in Scripture that a particular congregation of Christians having their proper pastor or pastors presbyter or presbyters are Churches properly so called and a parochial Minister I conceive to be a pastor presbyter or elder according to the Scripture Moreover if a Diocess containing many hundred or perhaps a thousand parishes as it doth in England do constitute but one particular Church and the parishes be not properly to be accounted Churches but only so many parts of that one diocesan Church why may not ten thousand yea ten times ten thousand parishes be likewise accounted but one particular church and brought under one man as the sole bishop or pastor thereof Nor do I discern how it is possible for one man to do the work of a bishop towards so many parishes which is to oversee all the flock to preach to them all to baptize and confirm all that are to be baptized and confirmed to administer the Lords Supper to all to bless the congregation publickly and privately to admonish all as their need requires to excommunicate the impenitent to absolve the penitent and that upon knowledg of their particular estate for all these are pastoral or episcopal acts And let it here be noted that I speak of the work of a bishop infimi gradus or under whom there are no subordinate bishops If such a Diocesan bishop saith it sufficeth that he perform all this to the flock by others namely by the parish ministers as his Curates and by other officers his substitutes It is answered 1. The pastoral Authority is a personal trust 2. He is to shew his commission from Christ the prince of pastors to do his work by others for I am now enquiring what is of divine and not of humane Right 3. None but a bishop can do the proper work of a bishop and consequently the presbyters by whom the Diocesan doth his work either are bishops or their act is an usurpation and a nullity It is matter of divine Right only that is here considered As for the humane Rights of a Diocesan bishop to wit his dignity and his jurisdiction under the King as Supreme and to which he is intituled by the Law of the Land I intermeddle not therewith § 8. Of a Bishop or Bishops THE Divine Right of a bishop infimi gradus Ruling over many churches as their sole hishop or pastor hath been considered and now it is to be considered Whether there be of divine institution such a spiritual officer as hath the oversight of Bishops or is a Bishop of Bishops The Diocesan Bishop is really of this kind tho he will not own it for he is a bishop of Presbyters who are really bishops if they be that kind of Presbyters that the Scripture mentions But if the Presbyters which in the hierarchical state are subject to the Diocesan Bishop be of another kind they are not of Christs institution What hath been already said
against the Episcopacy of a bishop infimi gradus over many Churches makes not against the right of an overseer of other bishops such as Titus must needs be if he were indeed bishop of Crete which contained a hundred Cities and where bishops or elders were ordained in every City If either Scripture or Prudence guided by Scripture be for such an office I oppose it not Now a bishop of bishops may be taken in a twofold notion either for one of a higher order that is to say of an office specifically different from the subordinate bishops or for one of a higher degree only in the same order I suppose our Archbishops of Provinces do not own the former notion of a bishop of bishops but the latter only But the bishop of a Diocess is de facto that which the Archbishop of a Province doth not own namely a bishop of bishops in a different order from the Presbyters of his Diocess who have been already proved from Scripture to be bishops Hereupon the present inquiry is Whether the Word of God doth warrant the office of a bishop of bishops in either of the said notions And in this inquiry I shall consider what kind of Government the Apostles had over the Pastors or Elders of particular Churches 2. The Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus much alledged by the Hierarchical Divines 3. The preeminence of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia◠Apoc. 1. and 2. § 9. The BISHOPS Plen of being the Apostles Successors in their Governing-Power examined THO the Apostles in respect of that in them which was common to other officers call themselves Presbyters and Ministers but never bishops yet it is asserted by the asserters of Prelacy that bishops superior to Presbyters are the Apostles successors and thereupon have a governing-power over Presbyters Wherefore the Apostles governing-power and the said bishops right of succession thereunto is necessarily to be considered As touching this claimed succession in the governing power the defenders of prelacy say that Presbyters qua Presbyters succeed the Apostles in the office of governing But the Scripture doth not warrant this dividing of the office of teaching and governing And if the division cannot be proved in case there be a succession it must be into the whole and not into a part and so the Presbyters must succeed as well in ruling as in teaching Besides it hath been already proved that an authoritative Teacher of the Church is qua talis a Ruler The Apostles had no successors in their special office of Apostleship For not only the unction or qualification of an Apostle but also the intire Apostolick office as in its formal state or specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons It was an office by immediate Vocation from Christ without the intervention of man by election or ordination for the authentick promulgation of the Christian Doctrine and the erecting of the Christian Church throughout the World which is built on the foundation of their Doctrine and for the governing of all churches wherever they came and it eminently contained all the power of ordinary bishops and pastors The continuation of teaching and governing in the Church doth no more prove that the office of teaching and governing in the Apostles was quoad formale an ordinary office than that the office of teaching and governing in Christ himself was so But their teaching and governing was by immediate call and authentick and uncontrolable and therefore extraordinary And I do not know that the bishops say they are Apostles tho they say they are the successors of the Apostles Moreover in proper speaking the ordinary bishops or elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were not succedaneous to them but contemporary with them from the first planting of churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power And the bishops or elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops or elders and can rightfully claim no more power than they had Nevertheless let the Apostles governing power be inquired into as also what interest the bishops of the Hierarchical state have therein And in this query it is to be considered That the Presbyters whom the Apostles ordained and governed were bishops both in name and thing and consequently their example of ordaining and ruling such Presbyters is not rightly alledged to prove that bishops as their successors have an appropriated power of ordaining and ruling Presbyters of an inferior order which in Scripture times were not in being Further it is to be considered Whether the said governing-power were only a supereminent authority which they had as Apostles and infallible and to whom the last appeals in matters of religion were to be made or an ordinary governing power over the Churches and the bishops or elders thereof I conceive it most rational to take it in the former sense For we find that the ordinary stated government of particular Churches was in the particular Bishops or Elders and we find not that any of the Apostles did take away the same from them or that it was superceded by their presence or that they reserved to themselves a negative voice in the government of the Churches Now if their governing power were only the said supereminent Apostolick authority they had no successors therein and tho teaching and ruling be of standing necessity and consequently of perpetual duration in the Church yet there is no standing necessity of that teaching and ruling as taken formally in that extraordinary state and manner as before expressed But if they exercised an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and bishops to be continued by succession such kind of Bishops over whom that power was exercised cannot claim a right of succession into the same but they must be officers of an higher orb Consequently if the Hierarchical Bishops claim the right of succession to the Apostles in their governing-power they must needs be of a higher orb than the first Bishops of particular Churches over whom that power was exercised And if this Hypothesis of the Apostles having an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and Bishops do sufficiently prove the right of the succession of Bishops of a higher orb in the same power I shall not oppose it But only I take notice that these higher Bishops are not of the same kind with those first bishops that were under that governing power and of which we read in Scripture That the Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops was not consistent with their Apostolick office being a general charge extending to the Church universal That any Apostle did appropriate a Diocess to himself and challenge the sole Episcopal authority therein cannot be proved The several Apostles for the better carrying on of the work of their office did make choice of several regions more especially to exercise their function in There was an agreement that Peter should go to the Circumcision and Paul to the Uncircumcision But as
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
are not immediately inspired of God have sufficiently certain evidence in reason to the discerning and chusing of infallible guides that are immediately inspired § 15. Whether Infallibility admit of degrees and in what respect EVery truth is equally impossible to be false for all things that imply a contradiction are equally because utterly impossible All are alike infallible in that wherein they are infallible and therein they cannot be more infallible because therein it is utterly impossible that they should be deceived and so it cannot be more impossible than it is already Nevertheless there are different degrees of evidence for being infallible in such or such a matter Likewise there are different degrees of clear apprehension of being infallible and so the sure knowledg of being infallible admits of degrees That knowledg that is sufficiently certain may be advanced to be abundantly certain and that which is abundant may be advanced to yet more abundant Whereupon I conclude that though infallibility in its formal reason admits of no degrees yet there are different degrees of the evidence and the clear apprehension thereof Moreover infallibility is in a more noble and perfect state in one subject than in another And so the infallibility of a superior intellect as that of Angels is in a more perfect and excellent than the hypothetical and the unlimited than the limited In the same subject infallibility may be in a more perfect state at one time than another according to the rising or falling of the evidence thereof § 16. Of the Infallibility of Sense THAT which is agreeable to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be false and that which is repugnant to sence rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true For that the one should be false and that the other should be true implies a contradiction supposing the sensitive faculty to be true And if the sensitive faculties be not true it infers that impious and absurd opinion that God cannot or will not govern the material world but by falshood The Popish opinion of Transubstantiation is no deception of the sense but of the understanding for they that have persuaded themselves to believe it do not say they see or tast or feel Christs body and blood but acknowledg what they see feel and tast to be the accidents of the bread and wine which they say remains after Transubstantion Wherefore the imposing is not upon the senses but upon the understanding which ought to judg by sense of matters that are the proper objects of sense § 17. Of Infallibility of Reason IF Sense may be the subject of Infallibility why may not the Understanding be so which is a more excellent Faculty in the kind of perception or knowledg If the Understanding be the subject of Certainty why not also of infallibility in that limited sense as hath been before explained The proper object of Certainty is not that which may or may not be but that which must be or which is known to be such An indubitable Certainty is acknowledged and from an indubitable Certainty properly so called I think a good inference is made unto an infallible Certainty To be indubitable in a matter is to be sure that I am not therein deceived And I cannot rationally be sure that I am not deceived unless I am sure that it cannot be that the thing be otherwise than I apprehend And if I am sure that it cannot be otherwise than I apprehend I am as to that particular infallible Because men in their most confident persuasions are commonly deceived by prejudice from passion interest education and the like it follows not that none can be secure from deception that is to know that it cannot be that they should be deceived in such or such a matter Certainly an impartial and unbiassed judgment may be found § 18. Logical Physical Moral and Theological Conclusisions as well as Mathematical admit of demonstrative Evidence UPON the foregoing enquiries I judg it very disadvantageous to the cause of Religion to speak as some do of a lower evidence for it than demonstration and such as the matter is capable of whereas I suppose there is not surer and clearer Evidence for any thing than for true Religion Not only Mathematical but Logical Physical Moral and Theological Conclusions admit of demonstrative evidence Whereas some say the existence of God is not Mathematically demonstrable because only Mathematical matter admits such kind of evidence if it be meant of that special evidence that is in the Mathematicks it is nothing to the purpose but if it be meant of evidence in general as demonstrative as Mathematical evidence it is false for this Truth admits the clearest and strictest demonstration This Proposition That God is is demonstrative in the strictest sense by a demonstration a posteriori viz of the necessary cause from the effect it being evident that the existence of God is absolutely necessary to the existence of the World for that we cannot attribute the being of the Phanomena or visible things in the world to any other cause than such a Being as we conceive God to be but we must offer violence to our own faculties This Proposition That every word of God shall be fulfilled according to the true and full intent of it is demonstrative in the strictest sense a priori from the veracity of God it being as evident that God is true as that he is As the Existence so the Attributes of God have demonstrative Evidence unless you had rather call them indemonstrable principles as having the greatest self-evidence From the Essence and Attributes of God and mans dependance on him and relation to him Moral and Theological Truths of demonstrative evidence are inferred as touching Gods moral law the good of conformity and the evil of inconformity thereunto and a just retribution to men according to that difference § 19. Of the infallible knowledg of the truth of the Christian Religion and Divine Authority of the Scripture UPON the grounds here laid as the Existence and Attributes of God and mans dependance on him and relation to him and his obligations thence arising may be demonstrated so also that the Christian Religion and the Holy Scriptures are of God as the Author and that the contrary would involve a contradiction And I take this to have been demonstrated by learned men and need not here be largely insisted on Only I shall set down a little of that much that hath been written by Mr. Baxter We may infallibly know the Christian Doctrine to be of God by his unimitable image or impression which is upon it supposing the truth of the historical part Likewise the truth of the historical part namely that this doctrine was delivered by Christ and his Apostles and that those things were done by him and them which the Scriptures mention we may know infallibly The Apostles and other first witnesses knew it infallibly themselves by their present sense and reason with the concomitance of
supernatural help in remembring and attesting it The first Churches received the Testimony from the first witnesses upon naturally certain and infallible evidence it being impossible that those witnesses could by combination deceive the world in such matters of fact in the very age and place when and where the things are pretended to be done and said And these Churches had the concomitance of supernatural attestation in themselves by the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost and by miracles wrought by them The Christians or Churches of the next age received the testimony from those of the first with a greater evidence of natural infallible Certainty for that the Doctrine was delivered to them in the records of sacred Scripture and both the miracles and reporters were more numerous and they were dispersed over much of the world and with these also was the supernatural evidence of miracles We of the present age receive it insallibly from the Churches of all precedent ages successively to this day by the same way with greater advantages in some respects and with lesser in others not upon the Churches bare authority but the natural Cerainty of the infallible tradition of the Holy Scriptures or records of this religion and of the perpetual exercise thereof according to those records in all essential points wherein it was naturally impossible for the precedent ages to impose falshoods upon the subsequent And this rational evidence of the Churches tradition was in conjunction with the histories of heathens and the concessions of the Churches enemies infidels and hereticks all which did acknowledg the verity of the matters of fact There is natural evidence of the impossibility that all the witnesses and reporters being so many of such condition and in such circumstances should agree to deceive and never be detected for there is no possible sufficient cause that so many thousand believers and reporters in so many several countries throughout the world should be deceived or be herein mad or sensless and that those many thousands should be able in these matters unanimously to agree to deceive more than themselves into a belief of the same untruth in the very time and place where the things were said to be done And no sufficient cause can be given but that some among so many malicious enemies should have detected the deceit especially considering the numbers of Apostates and the contentions of Heriticks Besides all this there is a succession of the same spirit of Wisdom and Goodness which was in the Apostles and their hearers continued to this day and is wrought by their Doctrine § 20. Of the infallible Knowledg of the Sense of Scripture AS we may be infallibly certain of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scripture so likewise of the sence of the Scripture at least in points fundamental or essential to the Christian Religion and that without an infallible Teacher We may certainly know that an interpretation of Scripture repugnant to the common reason of mankind and to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true if we can certainly know any thing is impossible to be true and consequently we may infallibly know it The sence of Scripture in many things and those most material to Christian faith and life is so evident from the plain open and ample expression thereof that he that runs may read it if his understanding be notoriously prejudiced And if we cannot know the said sense to be necessarily true we can know nothing to be so and so we are at uncertainty for every thing It will surely be granted by all that we may as certainly know the sense of Scripture in things plainy and amply expressed as the sense of any other writings as for instance of the Writings of Euclide in the definitions and axioms in which men are universally agreed If any say the words in which the said definitions and axiomes are expressed may possibly bear another sense it is answered That they may absolutely considered because words which have their sense ad placitum and from common use being absolutely considered may have a divers sense from what they have by common use but those words being respectively considered as setled by use cannot possibly bear another sense unless we imagine the greatest absurdity imaginable in the Writer Besides they that pretend the possibility of another sense I suppose do mean sense and not nonsense And how a divers sense of all those words in Euclide that is not pure nonsense should arise out of the same words and so conjoined is by me incomprehensible But if the possibility of the thing be comprehensible or so great an absurdity be imaginable in a Writer led only by a humane spirit it is not imaginable in Writers divinely inspired That the Holy Ghost should write unintelligibly and wholly diversly from the common use of words in things absolutely necessary to salvation is impossible If an infallible Teacher be necessary to give the sense of Scripture in all things and no other sense than what is so given can be safely rested in then either the right sense of that infallible Teachers words if he be at a distance cannot be known but by some other present infallible Teacher or else that pretended infallible Teacher is more able or more willing to ascertain us of his meaning than the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture To speak of seeking the meaning of Scripture from the sense that the Catholick Church hath thereof is but vain talk For first the Catholick church never yet hath and never is like to come together till the day of judgment to declare their sense of the things in question nor have they written it in any book or number of books 2. Never did any true Representative of the Catholick Church or any thing like it as yet come together or any way declare what is their sense of the Scripture and the things in question nor is ever like to do 3. Tho it be granted that the Catholick Church cannot err in the essentials of Christian Religion as indeed no true member thereof can for it would involve a contradiction yet there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that a great if not the greater part of the Catholick Church may err in the integrals much more in the accidentals of Religion yea there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that the whole Catholick Church may err at least per vices in the several parts thereof some in one thing some in another And all this is testified by experience in the great diversities of opinions about these things in the several parts of the Catholick Church yea and by the difference of judgment and practise of the larger parts thereof even from those among us who hold this principle of the necessity of standing to their judgment Wherefore shall we think that God puts men upon such dissiculties yea impossibilities of finding out the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures at least in the main points of
experience consider we whether a man may and ought to have a Certainty therein and of what sort it is On the one hand doubtless it is not such a Certainty as expels all fear of carefulness On the other hand it is doubtless such a Certainty at least as expels anxiety and is sufficient to settle the peace of conscience And I think in this both Papists and Protestants do agree There is a Certainty that expels all apprehension that the contrary may be true whereof this is an instance That there were such persons as Alexander the Great and Julius Cesar and this hath gained the name of moral Certainty tho I think it may be called natural as grounded on naturally certain evidence And that a man may have such a Certainty of his unfeigned faith is held by Protestants in general and some Papists Nevertheless the Papists in general grant not this kind but only a lower kind of Certainty hereof which they call conjectural yet they tell us that it is certainty truly so called that it expels fluctuation and suspence and brings peace and joy and security and withal they say that the Just believe indeed that they are not herein deceived but not that they cannot be deceived But how this lower kind can be certainty properly so called I see not For an apprehension that the thing is otherwise than I think excludes all Certainty properly or strictly so called The above said moral Certainty of justification or being in the state of Grace is not attained by all justified persons and where it is attained it is not ordinarily continued without interruption nor ordinarily in the same degree because justified persons even the best of them do not continue without interruption in the same degree of faith and holiness on the internal sense whereof this Certainty depends THE TRUE STATE Of The ANCIENT EPISCOPACY § 1 What was anciently a Bishops Church THE Name Church is the first and only Scripture-name properly belonging to a Bishops charge In the beginning of Christianity Bishops or Pastors had their Churches in Cities or Towns And commonly the Converts of the Adjacent Villages were by reason of their paucity taken in as parts of the City Congregation and all made but one particular Church the members whereof had local Communion with each other Accordingly the name of city applied to a Bishops charge could be but extrinsecal it being not the name of the thing it self but only of the place where it was congregate The name of Parish came next in use for the said charge And this name is still in use for a particular Church or Congregation which hath its proper and immediate Bishop or Pastor The word Diocess as relating to a Bishop was unknown for several ages of Christianity but afterwards it was borrowed from civil use and applied to the Church A Diocess was one of the larger divisions of the Roman Empire and comprehended several Provinces Accordingly when it was first applied to the Church it was used for the same circuit and as a Province was the charge of a Metropolitan who had many Bishops under him so a Diocess was the charge of a Patriarch who had many Metropolitans under him And according to this sence there was a Canon made to forbid the running for ordination without the Diocess that is without or beyond the foresaid patriarchal circuit But the use of the word for the charge of such a Bishop as had no Bishops but only Presbyters under him came up in latter times From the first and only Scripture-name properly belonging to a Bishops charge it is inferred that a Bishop and a particular Church are correlates A particular Church as such hath its own proper Bishop and a Bishop as such hath his particular Church as his proper and immediate charge The bishops Church was anciently but one society Ecclesiastical which might and did personally meet together at once or by turns for Worship and Discipline under the same immediate Pastors which appears by the proofs here following 1. All the members thereof even men servants and maid-servants as well as others might and should be known by name to the bishop Ignat. Ep. to Policarp Id. ad Trall In the Panegyrick of Paulinus Bishop of Tyre Euseb lib. 10. cap. 4. It is said 'T is the work of a bishop to be intimately acquainted with the minds and states of every one of the flock when by experience and time he hath made inquiry into every one of them 2. One Church had but one Altar and consequently but one stated assembly for full Communion Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph To the Presbyters and Deacons my fellow servants If one bishop must here be taken numerically so must one altar The Apostles Canons c. 5.32 make it appear there was but one altar and one bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons in a church Also Council Antiochen c. 5. Hereupon Mr. Mede saith that before diocesses were divided into parishes they had not only one altar in one church or dominicum but one altar to a church taking church for the company or corporation of the faithful united under one bishop or pastor and that was in the city or place where the bishop had his Sea or Residence Add hereunto that to set up another altar was accounted a note of schism 3. Each single church had its proper and immediate bishop Ignat ad Philad as before to every church one altar one bishop He shews also that without a bishop the state of a church exists not Ep. ad Smyrn Wheresoever the bishop appears there is the church as wheresoever Jesus Christ appears there is the Catholick church A particular church was then no larger than that where the bishop appeared Id. ad Trall The bishop is a type of the highest father and the Presbyters are as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God and the bond of Apostolical concord Ib. Be subject to the bishop likewise to the presbyters and deacons This shews that the bishop and presbyters were together in one and the same particular church and jointly took the immediate charge of the flock 4. Some of the Ancients testifie that the Apostles placed only bishops without presbyters in some churches Epiphan Heres 65. 5. Concerning the largeness of a bishops church let that instance of Gregory Thaumaturgus be considered He was made bishop of Neocaesarea when he had but seventeen Christians afterwards when many were converted at Comana a small town that was near he did not make it a part of his own diocess but ordained Alexander the Collier a right worthy person to be their bishop And they were of no greater number than what met to chuse him and hear him preach 6. The ordinary work of a bishop shews that it was but one single church that he had charge of Justin Martyr setting forth the manner of the church assemblies tells us that the President himself preached gave thanks administred the Eucharist and exercised discipline Tertullian
of the Empire it is said to be unusual That presbyters may ordain see Anselm on 1 Tim. 4.14 also Bucer Script Anglic. p. 254 255 259 291. The Lollards and Wickliefists in England held and practised ordination by meer presbyters Walsingham Hist Ang. An. 1389. so did the Lutheran protestants Bugenhagius Pomeranus a presbyter of Wittenberg ordained the Protestant bishops of Denmark in the presence of the King and Senate in the chief Church at Hafnia See Melchior Adam in the Life of Bugenhagius and Chytraeus Saxon Chronicle l. 14 15 16 17. Forbes in his Irenicum l. 2. c. 11. saith that presbyters have a share with bishops in the imposition of hands not only as consenting to the ordination but as ordainers with the bishop by a power received from the Lord and as praying for grace to be confer'd on the persons ordained by them and the bishop That the Ancients did argue from the power of baptizing to the power of ordaining is evident out of the Master lib. 4. distinct 25. 4. Presbyters with Bishops laid on hands for Restoring the excommunicate and blessing the people Cyprian Epist 12. Nor can any return to communion unless hands be laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy Vid. also Ep. 9. 46. Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Erasm Edit To the presbyters and deacons against some presbyters who had given the peace of the Church rashly to some of the lapsed with the knowledg of the Bishop In lesser offences sinners after a just time of penance and confession receive Right of Communication by the imposition of hands of the Bishop and Clergy Clemens Alexandrin paedag p. 248. speaking against women wearing other hair than their own saith On whom doth the presbyter lay hands whom doth he bless Not on the woman adorn'd but on anothers Hair and thereby on anothers Head § 8. Testimonies in reference to the Bishops Plea of being the Apostles Successors FOR the diversity of order between a bishop and a presbyter it is alledged That bishops are the Apostles successors which presbyters are not To this it is answered 1. The ancient Fathers make presbyters as well as bishops the successors of the Apostles Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 43 44. We must obey the presbyters that are in the Church even those that have succession from the Apostles who have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father with the succession of Episcopacy Here presbyters are said to have succession from the Apostles and to have succession of Episcopacy This cannot be evaded by saying he intended it only of presbyters of a superior order which are bishops for this is to beg the question and in this Father there is no footstep of any order of presbyters but what are bishops Cyprian l. 3. Ep. 9. The Deacons must remember that the Lord chose Apostles that is bishops and Praepositi but after the ascension of the Lord the Apostles made deacons to themselves as Ministers of their Episcopacy and the Church Now in the names of Bishops and Praepositi the presbyters are included as I have before made manifest And it is plain that in this place all in the sacred Ministry above Deacons are included in those names and called Apostles Jerome in his Epistle to Heliodor speaks in general that Clericks are said to sucreed the Apostolical degree The late form of Ordination in the Church of England viz. Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained and be thou a faithful dispenser c. is for the former part the very form of words used by our Saviour to his Apostles to express their Pastoral Authority and fully proves that the office of a presbyter is Pastoral and of the same nature with that which was ordinary in the Apostles and in which they had successors 2. Some conceive there is no proper succession to the Apostles whose office as to its formal state and specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons And in proper speaking the ordinary Bishops or Elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were contemporary with them in the first planting of the Churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power which the Apostles did not supercede by their presence tho it were under the regulation of their supereminent authority and the Bishops or Elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops Bellarmine l. 4. de Pontif. c. 25. saith That bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles because the Apostles being not ordinary but extraordinary Pastors have no successors and that the Pope of Rome properly succeeds Peter not as an Apostle but as an ordinary pastor of the whole church 3. Whereas some say That the Order of bishops began in the Apostles and the order of presbyters in the seventy disciples it is answered 1. As concerning the bishops order when the Fathers speak of Apostles or Evangelists long residing in one church they did by way of similitude call them bishops thereof Reynolds against Hart saith That the Fathers when they term an Apostle the bishop of this or that City mean in a general way that he did attend that Church for the time and supply that room in preaching which the bishop afterwards did And not only the Apostles but itinerant Ministers or Evangelists were in such a general sence bishops of the places where they came Paul staid at or about Ephesus three years Acts 20.31 yet he was not bishop there in the strict and proper sense of the word James was either no bishop of Jerusalem or no Apostle but as many think another James 2. As concerning the order of inferior presbyters said to be instituted in the seventy disciples it is spoken without proof and against Reason Spalatensis saith those seventy had but a temporary commission and therefore that he cannot affirm that Presbyterial Order was directly and immediately instituted in them de Rep. Eccles l. 2. c. 3. n. 4. Saravia acknowledgeth that the seventy disciples were Evangelists de Minist Evang. grad c. 4. § 9. Testimonies concerning the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus 1. TImothy was not a fixed bishop His travels we find upon sacred Record When Paul went from Beraea to Athens he left Silas and Timothy behind him Acts 17.14 Afterwards they coming to Paul at Athens Paul sent Timothy thence to Thessalonica to confirm the Christians there 1 Thes 3.6 An. C. 47. Thence he returned to Athens again and Paul sent him and Silas thence into Macedonia Acts 18.5 and thence they returned to Paul at Corinth An. 48. Afterwards they travel to Ephesus whence Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia Acts 19.22 whither Paul went after them An. 51. from Macedonia they with divers brethren journied into Asia Acts 20.4 and come to Miletum where Paul sent to Ephesus to call the elders of the Church An. 53. Then Paul did
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
for the encrease of the wealth power and splendor of bishops and other chief Clergy-men or for any political considerations the essential form of a bishops church constituted by the Apostles who were immediately commissioned from Christ should be changed from a single Congregation or Society of which the bishop took the personal oversight to a diocess consisting of many yea commonly of many hundred stared congregations having each of them their proper presbyter and all of them but one bishop to whom it is impossible to take the personal oversight of the souls therein and to perform towards them all the duties which were the ordinary work of the ancient bishop 2. Whether the office of a bishop or elder of one single church instituted by the Holy Ghost should be changed into mother essentially different office viz. of a bishop of many yea many hundred single churches each whereof have their proper pastors or presbyters who according to the Scripture are the same with bishops 3. Whether the office of presbyter or elder of divine institution who according to the Scripture is truly and properly a bishop should be changed into an office essentially different viz. of a presbyter who is no bishop but only the bishops subject substitute or Curate And whether the said office should be statedly bereaved of the power of discipline which is essential to it 4. Whether the office of a bishop which is a trust given by Christ to be personally discharged by him that receives it should be executed by delegation to a Lay-man yea or to a Clergy-man who is held to be no bishop 5. Whether the ancient government of the Church by a bishop in conjunction with his presbyters should be changed into a government by the bishop alone and by his Chancellor and Officials whose authority is derived from him Concessions concerning Episcopacy I Hold it lawful and expedient that the elders or pastors of a particular Church should statedly defer to one that is ablest among them a guiding power over them in ordination and discipline and other church affairs I hold it not unfit that this person should for distinctions sake have the title of bishop given him tho he be not of an essentially different order from the rest of the pastors but only of a superior degree in the same holy Order Some Nonconformists think upon probable grounds that tâ—â—â—e should be a general sort of bishops who should take care of â—â—he common government of particular churches and the bisâ—â—ps thereof and that they should have a chief hand in the ordaining and placing and displacing of the pastors or bishops of particular churches And from this I dissent not A Consideration of the present state of Conformity in the Church of England IN considering the terms of Conformity now injoined I am not forgetsul of the reverence due to Rulers I do not herein presume to judg their publick acts but I only exercise a judgment of discretion about my own act in reference to their injunctions which surely they will not disallow To consider the lawfulness of those things of which an unfeigned approbation is required is an unquestionable duty If I should profess what I believe not or practice what I allow not my sin were heinous and inexcusable The Reasons of my dissent are here expressed as inoffensively as can be done by me who am to shew that it is not nothing for which I have quitted the station which I formerly held in the Church I have no reason nor will to lay a heavier yoke upon my self than the Law doth or to set such bars in my own way as the Law doth not I therefore admit that more restrained sense of the Declaration which is thought by many to make the enjoined terms more easie I am concerned to take notice of smaller as well as greater matters because as well the one as the other are alike to be owned Tho I would not differ with the Church about little things yet I may not profess an allowance of any little thing which I believe is not allowable I desire to proceed in this enquiry with good judgment and to do nothing weakly but however it be I had rather be thought to be injudicious and overscrupulous in making objections than want a sufficient clearness in a business of this nature I take no pleasure in making objections against the book of Common prayer but I do it by constraint that I may give an account of that Nonconformity to which by an irresistible force of Conscience I am necessitated If all things contained and prescribed in the said book be right and good I heartily wish that I and all men were convinced of it I joyn with the Congregation in the use of the Liturgy and I acknowledg that by joyning in it I declare my consent to the use of it as in the main an allowable form of Worship But this doth not as I suppose signifie my allowing of all things therein contained Of the Declaration of unfeigned Assent and Consent required by the Act of Vniformity THE true intent of this Declaration is to be considered By the form of words wherein it is expressed it seems to signifie no less than assent to and approbation of the whole and of every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer c. so that no man can make this Declaration that is not satisfied of the truth of every thing contained and the lawfulness and allowableness of every thing prescribed in the said book Nothing is more evident to me than that I ought not to dissemble or lye in matters of Religion but so I do if I declare my unfeigned assent and consent to those things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy from which I really dissent But this meaning thereof is not acknowledged by many and very judicious persons among the Conformists They grant indeed that the words will not only bear this sense but would seem to incline to it if the meaning of them were not evidently limited by the Law it self and that in the very clause wherein it doth impose it That the Law doth expresly determine this assent to the use of the Liturgy they say is evident from these words He shall declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I A. B. do here declare c. Now by all rules of interpreting laws we are directed say they to understand what is said more generally in any law according to the limitation which the law it self gives especially if it be in express words I admit this later and more restrained sense of the Declaration as probable and in this disquisition I proceed accordingly taking the declared assent and consent as limited to the use of things Nevertheless it must necessarily extend to the use of all things contained and prescribed in the Liturgy And thereupon I judg that not only all
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
heart-subjection prayer comprehending confession of our sin and misery petition for all needful grace and mercy and praise with thanksgiving self-resignation to God and covenanting with him making vows to him swearing by his name and devoting any thing to his immediate Service All these are expressions of divine honour Of all these there may be certain external forms of positive institution and so as to those forms they may be called instituted worship Moreover the thing vowed may be instituted and ceremonial tho the vow of it self be Moral Worship The end of an Oath may be the confirmation of the truth unto men and the nearest end of a Vow to God may be some benefit to men and the matter of a Vow may be some common thing yet the Vow as to its essential form is divine Worship in a direct engagement made to God for his honour and an oath as to its essential form is divine worship in a direct acknowledging of Gods Omnipotence Omniscience infinite Holiness and taking him to witness to the truth which we attest with a voluntary subjection to his righteous judgment And the internal end of both Vow and Oath is the glorifying of God as our Supreme Lord and Judg. The external part of the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament is instituted ceremonial worship but the internal part which is the soul and spirit thereof being our solemn receiving of the grace of the Covenant given us of God in Christ and our solemn engaging to God according to the tenor of that Covenant is a most important and main part of divine service and is worship Moral Natural § 10. Of particular acts which are Natural Ceremonial Worship KNeeling bowing of the body prostration lifting up of the hands and eyes to heaven in worshipping God are in one respect worship it self and in another respect but circumstances of Worship They are acts of external Worship as they are natural expressions of the internal And they may be accounted and called circumstances of Worship being considered as subservient appurtenances to the more substantial parts of Worship to which they are sometimes necessarily conjoined and from which remaining intire and compleat notwithstanding they may at other times be spared These things being naturally laudable but not naturally necessary are necessary to be used when conveniently they may and not otherwise Some have called the aforesaid and such like external acts natural Ceremonies and they are called Natural because Nature it self teacheth men to use them without any Divine or Humane institution and a rational man by the meer light of Nature is directed to use them yet men are by nature directed to things not without government of counsel and discretion For in these things Nature is in part determined and limited by the custom of several Ages and Countreys and by the difference of several cases The posture of Standing in the acts of solemn professions and engagements made to God as in declaring our assent to the Articles of the Christian Faith and consent to the Covenant of Grace also in acts of solemn Praise and Thanksgiving as in the repeating of Laudatory Hymns is such an outward expression of our internal devotion as is very consentaneous to Nature and so an outward act of Worship § 11. Of External acts which by custom of the Age or Countrey express devotion in Worship MEN say That Custom is a second Nature And some external acts that are grounded on Custom are as significant and expressive at least before men as those that are natural and the neglect of them would be very incongruous and scandalous Of this kind is the uncovering of the head in the Male Sex by putting off the Hat c. and in the Worship of God it is an act or part of worship for it is done directly to his honour and is immediately expressive of heart reverence towards him Yet I grant that all reverential acts about Gods Worship are not acts of worship but some are only adjuncts thereof as shall be shewed No Ceremonial act either natural or customary is necessary to be observed where natural infirmity or other necessity makes it inconvenient § 12. Of External acts which by divine Institution or the general custom of Nations express Divine Honour THE erecting of Altars offering of Sacrifice and burning of incense are by the custom of mankind accounted Divine Honours And they were such acknowledgments as God did in the Law appropriate to himself Therefore these acts are properly divine worship to whatsoever object they are directed Yea tho there be not an intention of acknowledging a Deity in the object or person to whom they are directed yet they are external Divine Worship or a giving of that external honour which is appropriated to the Deity The dedicating of Temples and consecrating of places to any being may be of ambiguous interpretation First it may betoken the setting apart a place as sacred to that being to which it is set apart and the place of its worship and special residence and benign influence upon mortals and in this sense it is an act of divine worship and in this sense I suppose the Papists have dedicated Churches and Chappels and other places to Saints and Angels 2. It may betoken only the setting apart of a place or house in memorial only of the created person Saint or Angel but to the honour and service of God And in this later sense the dedicating of a Church or other place to a created being is not a deferring of divine honour thereunto In like manner the dedicating of days and times to any person for invocation or any service which is usually rendred to God to be performed to that person is a giving of divine worship to him But the dedicating of days and times in memorial of some blessed person to the honour and service of God alone is no giving of divine worship to that person § 13. Of fasting wearing of Sackcloth or other vile apparel lying in ashes being barefoot and the like austerities used in Gods Worship 1. THese acts are evident expressions of Humiliation and Self-abasement and some of them are fit expressions thereof in all places and times as fasting and wearing of mean apparel and some of them but in some Ages and Countries because tho they are apt in nature to express the same yet therein nature is subject to some variety according to the different customs of times and places 2ly They are fit means of mortification some of them in all times and places as fasting some of them only in some times and places according to custom 3ly Consequently they are fit adjuncts of Divine Worship in special seasons and occasions of solemn Humiliation But 4ly These acts may become also acts of Divine Worship whether they be lawful acts thereof is another Question being used as direct means of honouring and pleasing God in abasing and displeasing self For so they are done before his Foot-stool to the exalting
would not be Some say that in the old Law the least ceremony prescribed of God was a part of Worship Which Assertion I do not now so far examine as to declare my assent or dissent But if it were so I think it was not meerly as prescribed of God but upon some further Reason For I do not see that God cannot prescribe a meer adjunct of Worship but it must thereby lose its formal state or become formally another thing viz. a matter of Worship but think it may remain in its own state a meer Adjunct still Nevertheless the observation of that divinely prescribed Adjunct may be an act of Worship so far as every act of obedience to God as such may be so called But here we speak of Worship not in so large but in the stricter sense § 17. Of sacred Signs and significant Ceremonies in Divine Worship A Sign is something more known shewing another thing less known or that which is more open discovering something more latent or at least that which doth further clear and confirm the truth of what is alike evident There are Signs natural and customary and instituted and arbitrary and stated and occasional As things signified so Signs are either Sacred or Common And as of all other things so there may be Signs of Worship And Signs immediately expressive of Worship are Worship For all external worship is a sign of the internal whether it be true or feigned And Ceremonies that signifie or express an act of Worship are ceremonial Worship But all significant Ceremonies are not Worship because they do not all signifie or express an act of Worship Among significant Ceremonies that are parts of Worship I reckon the Cross in Baptism being confessedly a sign of our dedication to Christ § 18. Of the nature of being holy and the distinctions of holiness HOliness in Creatures signifies either a quality in Angels and Men which is called the Image of God or the relation of any thing to God as appropriated to him In a general sence all things in heaven and earth are the Lords but whatsoever is his in a special sence or separated to his use is called holy As first persons either more generally devoted to him and that heartily as all the faithful and their seed or professedly as all visible Christians or else by special Office as the Priests of old and now the Ministers of the Gospel 2ly Things some by his own immediate Command others by general directions to Men and of these some are more remotely others more nearly set apart unto him Things more nearly or strictly devoted to God are Temples Utensils Lands c. which are Holy being justly related to God by lawful Separation Ministers are more holy than these because more nearly related to God Things remotely or more at large devoted to God are the Meat Drink House Lands Labours Offices c. of every one that is godly who with himself devotes all that he hath to God Indeed as every thing is sanctified of God to a Believer so every thing is sanctified by a Believer unto God But the holiness of things is ordinarily understood of things not remotely and at large and ultimately but more nearly and in a stricter sence devoted to God Some say such a state of Separation to holy uses that the thing may no more be alienated is proper holiness But others think this too narrow a description For there may be a temporary Separation as well as perpetual to holy uses as here strictly taken for those onely that more nearly respect God's Worship and Service and not for all uses ultimately respecting God's Honour in which larger sence by the Holy all things as hath been said are used to holy uses Some say That those things are not sacred that accompany Religious Worship in a way common to it with other things as Time Place Furniture c. Things used in Religious Services may be civil in their own Nature and they do not then alter their Matter or Form but onely their Subject to which they are Adjuncts To which it is answered That things considered in their own nature that is Physically are neither civil nor sacred but are either the one or the other according to their relation and application Therefore many things of the same species Physically considered may be sometimes Civil and sometimes Sacred according to their different use and relation as the same Physical act that is but civil reverence in a civil affair may be religious reverence in a religious Service They accompany Religion in a way common to it with other actions Physically but not Morally or Relatively And whereas it is said they are of the same use out of God's service as in it as there is the same use of mens eyes in reading one Book as in reading another The Answer is They are of the same use Physically but not Relatively and Morally For explaining the former Paragraph be it noted That Religion presupposeth civility and consequently holy things and actions require civil things and actions as inferior attendants thereon Religious Worship or Divine Service must needs be accompanied with many things of a meer civil import which do not thereupon alter their state from civil to sacred as the civil Habits both of Ministers and People the civil order of their sitting according to their several ranks and other civil decencies observed in holy Assemblies that still remain but meer civilities For they are not applied nor related to Religion as adjuncts to a Subject nor are referred to a holy use or end otherwise then as all things are referred ultimately to a holy end onely they are requisite to accompany Religion in their lower state of Civility Nevertheless there be many things which in civil affairs are meerly civil yet in Religious Exercises are Religious their Relative state being altered for that they are directly applied to a religious or holy use and end as bowing of the Body lifting up the Hand or the Eyes standing up being Physically the same are Sacred actions being applied to Divine worship and civil when applied to civil repects Every thing should be reverenced according to the Degree and Measure of its Holiness The Second Part of Idolatry § 1. Of Superstition in general AS there is a defect in Religion so there is an excess and this is called Superstition This excess is not in the formal reason of Religion for we cannot too much observe reverence and love God but either in the undueness of the object or the acts thereof Internal or External Excess in the undueness of the object of Religious Worship is Idolatry Excess in the Internal acts thereof lies in the inward anxiety scrupulosity or other exorbitant fancy about it The Excess in the External acts is either in the Kind or the Measure thereof in the Kind as being forbidden either in particular or in general in the measure of what for the Kind is lawful as when it is to the
be worshipped but to be used in his Worship It is not unlawful to make an image of other things besides God as of some holy man as an object or medium of our consideration exciting our minds to worship God Query Whether a Crucifix or an Historical image of Christ according to his humane body may not be used in that manner If it be lawful to have such a Picture of Christ why may we not make use of the beholding thereof to excite our devotion to him Nevertheless seeing the Second Commandment forbids the worshipping of God by a representation as a means of worship tho not worshipped I doubt whether lawfully we may have a Picture of Christ who is worshipped indeed in his whole person yet only upon the account of his divine nature as a means of the worship rendered to him Besides there is peril of idolatry and of worshipping the Picture it self For the same cause I think it dangerous to have a Crucifix or other Picture of Christ for a stated or fixed representation of him according to his humane body § 18. Of material Images and Representations not of God but of other things used in Gods Worship and of the Symbols of the Divine Presence of worshipping towards the East and bowing towards the Altar TO make such Images and Representations to be used in Divine Worship is not simply evil as appears by the brazen Serpent a temporary Ordinance for an occasion in the Wilderness and by the Cherubims on the Mercy seat a stated Ordinance for the Mosaical dispensation There were also supernatural unimitable Representations tho not of the Divine nature yet of the Divine presence as the burning bush and the appearances on Mount Sinai Divine Worship directed to such Images or Representations as to a mediate object is idolatry The Ark and the Cherubims and the Temple were not made the object of Worship A learned man writes That incurvation in way of Religion towards any Symbolical presence as to an object is flat idolatry if it be in worship of Saints Angels and Demons it is double idolatry if in the worship of the true God single I suppose it is one thing to make somewhat as for instance the Ark of the Covenant and the Mercy-seat and the Temple an object of our consideration in the Worship of God as instructing and exciting therein and another thing to make it the object of worship it self And the said Author saith That to direct our adoration towards a supernatural and unimitable transplendency of the divine presence is not idolatry I suppose he means that the burning bush which Moses saw and the visible glories on the Mount were only media cultus not objects thereof the presence of God shining th ough the same as a bright medium Whether a symbolical presence of God may be erected of mans devising is to be examined I think it high â—resumption and arrogance so to do For it is uncertain at least to men whether God in the times of the Gospel reside in any local limits more especially than elsewhere And from our Saviours words Joh. 4. Neither in Jerusalem nor in this mountain c. the contrary is by many supposed to be evident But if God doth chuse any local limits of his special residence more than others can any besides himself assign the same Gods special residence with his people and yet more special in the time of his worship is of another reason than his residence in certain places And this residence with his people he himself hath testified in his word and the reason of the thing is manifest Therefore to make our Temples or Altars as some call the Communion Tables to be a Shechinah or divine presence I suppose is unwarrantable as also to call the Communion Table as some have Solium Christi The lifting up of eyes and hands to heaven in prayer and praise is warrantable and comely because there God dwells in his greatest visible glory and he hath declared in his word that he hath made the Heaven his throne and the earth his footstool The ancient Churches that worshipped towards the East did not worship the East as a middle term or object and therefore were not guilty of idolatry What they meant by it I understand not any further than a mystical sense in that posture of worship as that Christ is the day spring from on high or the Sun of righteousness arising c. And as to the expediency of that custome I leave it here undetermined I believe that those among us who bow towards the Altar as they call it do not make it an object of worship Some give this account thereoâ— that it is of the same nature with putting off our hats while we are there which putting off the hat surely is no making of the Altar or place where it stands or the Building or any part thereof the object of worship but is an expression of reverence either in the worship of God or to the stated place of his worship Some may make the Altar a symbolical presence or the throne of Christ which I think to be unwarrantaable and therefore bowing towards it upon that account to be culpable Some may have only a mystical signification in it as was in the ancient usage of worshipping towards the East Some may use it only for uniformity's sake that seeing to bow to God in their entrance into the Church and going out of it is fit as they suppose therefore it is also fit to direct it the same way But the expedience of this practice I leave undetermined § 19. Of the Scandalous use of Images IT may be a stumbling-block to have such Images as others among us give unlawful worship to as in Popish Countreys to have the image of a Crucifix and the Virgin Mary and other Saints and of Angels Yea I think it better not to have them at all by reason of the peril of idolatry To place such images in Churches is a publick stumbling-blockâ— for it may be a temptation to some to worship them and to say the least they do more hurt than good The Historical use of such images in divine worship as are wont to be worshipped that is to have them for objects of remembrance and means of exciting devotion is dangerous and more especially such a use of the images of the object then worshipped as a Crucifix or other picture of Christ because it tends to pollute the mind with idolatrous imaginations or by prepossing the mind to hinder the spiritual exercise thereof which is the ordinary effect of images Any images of feigned Deities or of any powers which are a temptation to any to believe in them and worship them are unlawful To set before our own or others eyes the images of the old symbols of divine presence in the time of worship tho as objects only of remembrance and means of exciting our affection to God is dangerous § 20. Of the meer appearance of
devise and chuse that which is incongruous or less congruous much more in regard of mans propensity to Superstition and bold presumption about Religious Ordinances And de facto we find that God hath not so left the matter but taken care to appoint the Worship which he expects from men in all Ages as best knowing what is best pleasing to himself And in reason it must needs be that he hath sufficiently provided for his honour in the Worship that he hath Instituted as much as concerns or belongs to the reason and end of those kinds which he hath instituted And thereupon it is found in reason to be a presuming of our own against the Divine Wisdom either to change an Ordinance which God hath instituted for another ordinance of our own devising of the same reason and to the same intent or to add to the Divine Ordinances by way of supplement Humane Ordinances of the same reason and intent with the Divine and that either as necessary to Divine Service or only as profitable and de bene esse For so to do is plainly to derogate from the Divine Ordinances Therefore it must be concluded that there are certain Ordinances of Divine Worship which may not be left to mans discretion either to change them or to make additions to them of others of the same reason and intent either as necessary or profitable and in that regard supplemental and perfective The express Text of Scripture proves this that some additions are forbidden Deut. 4.2 Deut. 12.32 The prohibition is not meerly of adding to the Rule but of doing more than the Rule requires as the precept is not of preserving the Rule but observing what is commanded in it It is indeed against mingling the heathenish observations with Divine Institutions And it is not to be imagined that it is only a prohibition of the forgery of Divine Oracles § 4. What of divine worship may not be devised or instituted by man NOW it is to be considered what kind of Religious observations God hath reserved to his own determination and forbidden to be devised or instituted by man And these are first Such as are of the same reason with those Ordinances which God hath instituted to be observed by the universal Church to the Worlds end as to make an addition of another weekly day to the same holy intents for which the Lords day is set apart to institute any Ordinance that is of the same reason with the Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace In vain do some say That it is impossible for man to make a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace and consequently no ordinance devised of man ought to be excepted against as such For altho God only can institute a lawful and valid Sacrament of the Covenant yet man may presume to institute an ordinance that is of the same nature reason and intent with the Sacrament of divine institution tho it be unlawful and of no validity even as other divine worship may be invented by man which is not right nor effectual As touching the efficacy and profitableness of an ordinance here distinguish between an aptitude to profit in case of Gods approba ion and an actual profitableness No doubt but many things not institutâ—d of God have an aptitude to be useful but it follows not that they will be useful if ordained by men For the actual usefulness comes not from the aptitude of the thing but from Gods institution but that which is contrary to the will of God is not blessed to supernatural ends yea that which is not sanctified of God thereunto is not so bless d. Tho God can be obliged by a seal only of his own annexing to his Covenant yet it is too possible for mâ—n to pâ—â—sume so far as to institute that whereby they fancy God as sealing and â—onveying to them his grace and indeed that which can mean no less Morâ—ovâ—r in a Sacrament of the Covenant as grace on Gods part is seâ—led so self-dedication on mans part Anâ—â—n ordinance of mans devising that seals self-dedication to God upon the terms of the Covenant of Grace is at least the Moity of a Sacrament 2. No new integral part of divine worship without which the worship of God is supposed not intire but deficient in part may be invented of man For it were to invent a new part of the Christian Religion and to augment it beyond the state thereof as setled by the Author and Founder of it Here note that the accidental parts of Religion being varied or augmented or diminished make no variation addition or diminution in the Religion no more than alteration in clothes makes an alteration in the man 3. No ordinance that is of universal and perpetual use to the Church of God if it be at all of use so that it may in no place in no age be omitted may be devised of man For the devising of such an ordinance supposeth a defect in the divine ordinances of universal and perpetual use to be made up by adding other ordinances by way of supplement And it is but a presuming that those other are requisite when they are not Also if the universal Lawgiver hath reserved any thing to his own power it can be no less than the making of such Laws or Ordinances as are of universal and perpetual use And surely that he hath reserved something to himself few among us will gainsay Howbeit an arbitrary and temporary use of a Religious observance by particular men for such ends as equally concern all Christians may not be unlawful upon this account because therein Christs Legislative power is not encroached upon it being not made a Law to the Church but only a private arbitrary observation § 5. What things of or belonging to Divine Worship may be devised or instituted by man THE things set down under the former head as forbidden are such new ordinances of Worship as are co-ordinate with the divine ordinances and are in proper sense additions pretending or in themselves expressing the same nature reason end and use that the divine ordinances have and consequently importing an insufficiency in them But there are such institutions of men in subordination to the divine institutions as serve for the more convenient modifying and ordering of the same And they are not proper Additions because they are not of the same nature and use and these are unlawful All such modes of a duty as are necessary in genere and not determined in specie as when there must be a practice one way or other but whether this way or that way is not determined of God are left free to humane determination This humane determination must be regulated by the general Rules of Gods word of which there be these two chief first That all determinations be made for edification and not for destruction 2ly That all things be done decently and in order These two Rules we find expresly in Scripture and they are also of the Law