they have obliged him and his Subscription hath secured his Obedience 4. And some of them say that it is not the Priest that refuseth them for he would Baptize them with the Cross if the parent sent the Child or the Adult person came But we need not strive about the word The thing we are agreed of viz. That the Priest consenteth not to Baptize them who dare not receive it with the use of the Cross Whether this be to be called a rejecting them or denying them Baptism unless they will be so crossed we need not call for extraordinaty accurateness to judge 5. No Conformists do pretend that this use of this Image of the Cross is of divine institution But all confess that Baptism is of divine institution and that Christ hath Commanded Math. 28. 19. 20. That they that are discipled should be Baptized and that one may be a disciple of Christ without the Image of the Cross 6. Some of the Nonconformists hold their use of the Cross it self here unlawful But others that would venture to use it rather than be silenced yet fear the guilt of denying Baptism Christendom and certain salvation as the Church judgeth to all that dare not receive it or present their Children to receive it believing that murdering natural life is a less hurt than undoing souls 7. But Covenanting by deliberate subscription and declaration to do it how oft soever they fear more than the actual doing of it rarely not daring to do their part to damn the Children of all that are against Baptizing with the Cross nor all the unbaptized adult that are of that opinion XI And as they fear rejecting such as will not be so Crost from Baptism so they much fear the English use of the Cross themselves and that much more than Crossing our selves on ordinary occasions or setting up Crosses on our doors or Churches or by the high waies and yet much more than they fear such using of the Cross as Augustine de Civ Dei and other ancients mention as an open Indication to Heathens that we are not ashamed of a Crucified Christ Much less are they against civil uses of a Cross 2. The name Sacrament signifying primarily any solemnization of a Covenant by Oath and Ceremony as the sacramentum militare among the Romans especially a Covenant which engageth one in a new relation and more largely any sacred mystical Ceremony the question here is whether the Cross be not made not only a sacrament in a larger sense as ordination and Matrimony may be called sacraments but even a sacrament of the Covenant of grace or so very neer it as to have the greatest part of that sacramental nature 3. The Church Catechism defineth a Divine sacrament thus An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given to us ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof 4. That it be ordained by Christ himself is not essential to a sacrament in genere but to a sacrament of Gods making in specie as distinct from one that 's made by man as is evident in the reason of the name 5. The true nature of this Crossing is known by the Liturgy 2. And the Canon 1. The Liturgy appointeth it to be used at Baptism not as a part of our Baptism but as a thing added immediately after the words I Baptize thee c. even in our Covenanting with God 2. It thus describeth and appointeth it we receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs flock here the Priest shall make a Cross upon the forehead and do sign him with the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against sin the world and the devil and to continue Christs faithful servant and souldier unto his lives end Amen 2. The Rubrick to which we Assent and Consent referreth us to the 30th Canon as giving us the true explication thereof and the just reasons c. The Canon saith Christians signed their Children therewith when they were Christned to dedicate them by that badge to his service whose benefits bestowed on them in Baptism the name of the Cross did represent The Church of England accounteth it a lawful outward Ceremony and honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dyed on the Cross as by the words used in the Common Prayer it may appear 3. The Liturgy's Preface of Ceremonies saith that they serve to a godly discipline and are such as be apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edifyed 4 We suppose that here 1. The sign is the transient Image of the Cross used in Gods service 2. The particular service in which it is used is our Baptismal Covenanting with God 3. The thing signified by the sign it self is the Cross and passion of Christ 4. The thing signified by the Receiving of it is that we do as Covenanters profess and oblige our selves not to be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against sin the world and the Devil and to continue Christs faithful servants and souldiers to our lives end And that by this we are dedicated to God And that we take it as an honourable badge hereof 5. Note that the Minister speaketh as Gods Officer from him and doth not represent the Child nor speak as in his name that being the part assigned to the Godfathers And the thing signified by him in his using this sign is that he doth as Christs Minister dedicate him by this sign to the service of him that dyed on the Cross the name whereof represents the benefits bestowed on him in Baptism which are all the benefits of that Covenant and to oblige him to this end not to be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner as aforesaid And that this be a badge or symbol of his Christian profession 5. The great fear of the Nonconformists is lest this be a second sacrament of the Covenant of graee made by man added to Baptism or at least have most of the nature and uses of it And lest Christ will take it as an invasion of his prerogative so to use it and to make a new badge or symbol of our Christianity As the King would take it ill of one that would without him make a badge or symbol for his subjects as subjects or of the order of the Knights of the Garter as such And the rather because it is the use of an Image though transient in Gods Worship and to such high ends XII The Rubrick which we must Assent Approve and consent to saith that There shall none be admitted to the holy Communion till such time as he be confirmed
they promised it was not thâ—y but the Parents that were bound to perform 3. Or Nonconformists in this point who purposed before hand to be but the Parents Râ—pâ—esentatives and that the promise and obligation should all be devolved from them on the Parents though they knew the Church meant otherwise and that they were not bound to the Churches sense and therefore their standing to hear this is your part was no consent to take it for their part And none of all these do answer the Churches sense in their undertaking And if we are commonly baptized and made Christians in a way of false Vowing or Covenanting of such persons or of â—â—lusâ—â—y Equâ—vocation it is not well 11. We know not where Parents can procure any to undertake this Office as the Church imposeth it that credâ—â—ly signifie themselves able and willing to performâ—â— we could not do it our selves were we never so desirous Perhaps some Rich men might hire others to take their Children into their Care and Education as must be promised but who would do so for the poor yea for all the poor of England And the Nonconformists are not satisfied that it is lawful to engage any in a perfidious covenanting before God when before-hand they have no credible signification of any purpose to perform it Nay when the Parent resolveth to educate his own Child and not to trust him to the Provision or care of others 12. The Minister Covenanting to use the form in the Book of Common Prayer prescribed in administration of the Sacraments and no other Can. 36. No Parent may speak a word in the name of his own Child nor to enter him there into the Covenant of God nor profess that he offereth him to Baptism by virtue of and in confidence in the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their Generations Nor to promise himself what the Godfathers are to promise The words also of the Can. 29. are these No Parent shall be urged to be PRESENT nor be admitted to answer as Godfather for his own Child Nor any Godfather or Godmother shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech than by the Book of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf 13. It is the Godfathers work also by the Liturgy to take care that the Child be brought to the Bishop to be confirmed by him in the manner of the Church of England as soon as he can say the Creed Lords Prayer and ten Commandments and be further instructed in the Church Catechism which Godfathers use not at all to perform nor do the Parents use to expect it Nor doth one Child of a multitude understand what the Baptismal Covenant is of many a year after they have learned to say the said Catechism 14. That the Godfathers stand not there as the Representers of the Parents is evident according to the sense of the Church because the Parent himself is not suffered to do it or speak one covenanting word nor must be urged to be present nor are they to speak in the Parents name in any of their undertakings Nor is there the least intimation that the Church taketh the Sponsor for the Parents Representative 15. The Parents are to be admonished not to defer the Baptism of their Children longer than the first or second Sunday unless upon a great and reasonable cause to be approved by the Curate whether they can get understanding credible Godfathers or not These are the Matters of Fact Here note 1. That there is no Controversie between the Conformists and Nonconformists whether Christians Infants should be baptized 2. Nor whether a Conformists baptizing be valid 3. Nor whether the Parents presence be absolutely necessary and another may not speak in his name 4. Nor whether Adopters or any Proprieters may not covenant for the Child 5. Nor whether the old Sponsors be lawful who 1. Witnessed the credibility of the Parent 2. And undertook the Christian Education of the Child if the Parents should either die or apostatize The Nonconformists are against no such Sponsors though they think that their Children have right to Baptism without such 6. Nor do they deny that Baptism in the Parish Churches is valid and lawful as to the Parents and Godfathers if they do but agree on the Nonconformists way that the Sponsors shall but represent the Parents and that they be not bound by the contrary judgment of the Authors of the Liturgy to the contrary But the questions are 1. Whether a Christians Child whose Parents have no way forfeited their credit have not right to Baptism without other Godfathers 2. Whether the Parent should not solemnly enter his own Child into the Covenant of God as well as in times of Circumcision And whether any Parent should be forbidden it viz. to appear and speak as the Representer of the Child or Undertaker for him and Promiser of his Education 3. Whether that Child must profess by another that He Himself Believeth Renounceth Repenteth and Desireth Baptism And it be not rather to be prosessed that he is the seed of a Believing Penitent Parent whose Will is as his Will and is under God's Promise I will he thy God and the God of thy seed 4. Whether a Christian Parent may consent to the persidious undertaking of any Godfathers who give him not the least reason to believe that they intend that provision for the Children which they undertake Or else may let his Child be unbaptized till he can get such a credible Undertaker which is never like to be with most or many 5. Whether the Children of Heathens or Infidels or Atheists have right to Baptism upon the presentation of any Godfather who never adopteth them or taketh them for his own nor giveth any credible notice that he really intendeth to educate those Children as pro forma he seemeth to undertake Or whether such Children are truly said to believe because the Godfather or Minister or Congregation or Diocess or Nation or Catholick Church believe III. The Nonconformists are not of one mind about receiving the Lords Supper Kneeling Many judge it Lawful though neither necessary nor most eligible were they free some judge it also most eligible And some judge it as things stand unlawful Their reasons are 1. In doubtful cases duty lieth on the surest side But this to them is a doubtful case on one side and to imitate Christs institution by such sitting as men use to do at meat is certainly Lawful 2. Because they think this Kneeling violateth the reasons of the second Commandment being used where by whole Countries of Papists round about us and many among us it signifieth Bread-Worship or Idolatry by the same Action at the same season used For they suppose that the second Commandment forbiddeth Images as being External Corporal Idolatry and Symbolizing scandalously with Idolators though the mind intend the worshiping of the true God alone And such they think this kneeling is and that it encourageth the
the Kingdom of Heaven 12. Therefore either we consent to pronounce almost all such to be saved at a time when our words take the deepest impression or else more exceptions must be made 13. Some say that the Excommunicable are included in the Excommunicated But the Canon and the express words of the Liturgy and the Churches abhorrence that the Priest shall be Judge do so notoriously confute this bold assertion that by such stretches almost any thing may be said or sworn and it shall not be known by authority when or how far any Subject is obliged by Covenants or Oaths XVIII The Liturgy requireth that such ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof at all times of their Ministration shall be retained and in use as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the 2d Tear of Ed. 6. 2. The Canon of the same Church expoundeth their meaning cap. 58. Thus every Minister saying the publick prayers or Ministring the Sacraments or other rites of the Church shall wear a decent and comely Surplice c. 3. We suppose in the 2d of King Ed. 6. The Cope Alb and other vestments were in use which seem forbidden by the Common-Prayer Book in the 5th and 6th of Ed. 6. 4. The Conformists agree not of the sense of this Rubrick 1. Whether all these are hereby reduced or not 2. Whether it forbid all Ministers to officiate without a Surplice or only Command the use of it without an implyed penalty But the words and the forecited Canons shew that the Church intended an exclusion of all that will not use it And we must subscribe to administer in no other form 5. The Nonconformists differ about the Surplice some taking it to be Lawful and others to be unlawful But they Commonly hold that Preaching Christs Gospel is commanded by God and that Ministers by their ordination are obliged to do the work of that Office and that Surplices are not commanded by God and therefore if a man mistakingly should take the use of the Surplice to be sinful he should not therefore be ejected and silenced And therefore they dare not declare Approbation and Consent to the Rubrick or subscribed form in the Canon which implyeth this restraint XIX The Damnatory sentences in the Creed called Athanasius's are to be Assented Approved and Consented to 2. If they referred but to the Doctrine of the Trinity and not to the particulars of that explication it would not be excepted against But some R. Reverend Conformists do profess that those sentences are untrue and not to be approved 3. But such think that the Churches meaning is not to require us to Assent or Approve them as true but only to Consent to use them And they prove it because the same Church requireth us to Read the Books of Tobit c. which have palpable untruths and not to believe them to be true 4. But that reason seemeth null and vain 1. Because the Apocrypha is no part of the Book to which we must Profess Assent Approbation and Consent nor to which by the Canon we must ex animo subscribe that there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God But Athanasius's Creed with those damnatory sentences are part of that Book Indeed the Liturgy requireth us to read those Apocryphal untruths but they are no part of the Book 2. And it being not the sense of the Liturgy but of a Statute of Parliament which we here doubt of it seemeth insufficient if not impertinent to tell us what is taken for the sense of the Church for the doubt is What is the sense of the Parliament which we can no otherwise know but by the plain words till they will otherwise declare their meaning 5. And indeed if the passages in Tobit which some Reverend Bishops call Lies about the Angel's saying that he was the Son of Ananias of the Tribe of Napthali and the fishes driving away all Devils that they shall never return were but to be read we know not how to approve of that Law Calendar or Rubrick that commandeth such reading of them But yet that is much less than the Assent required to Athanasius's Creed which yet we take save those damnatory sentences to be the best explication of the Mystery of the sacred Trinity which in so short a summe is extant in the Church XX. The Liturgy saith All Priests and Deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer either privately or openly not being let by sickness or some other urgent cause And the Curate that ministreth in every parish-Parish-Church or Chapel being at home and not being otherwise reasonably hindred shall say the same in the parish-Parish-Church or Chapel where he ministreth c. 2. The Conformists agree not of the sense of this some think that the ordinary incommodities of such a commanded use may pass as those hinderances or urgent causes mentioned in the exceptions But the more plain and ingenuous dealers hold that the urgent causes and hinderances here mentioned must be somewhat extraordinary and not any thing which is the usual case of most Ministers 3. Cathedrals and some other Churches have many Priests and Deacons of whom one only can daily ossiciate in publick And many are Chaplains in such mens houses as will have other free prayers used And most Ministers have great and necessary work to do which must all be left undone while the Common Prayer is said over by them twice a day They have Sermons to study many Books to read that they may be furnished with necessary knowledge for their work They have abundance of ignorant parishioners to instruct exhort or comfort They have the sick to visit the dead to bury the Sacraments to administer families to govern instruct and provide for And many find free prayer from the immediate sense of their case and wants to be so profitable to them that they cannot spare it All which and more require the the strictest improvement of every minute of their time And if the Liturgy be read over by every Priest and Deacon twice a day it is certain that much of these aforesaid must be omitted And it is a great part of our Christian duty when two good things come together to choose that which hic et nunc is the greater to choose the lesser then being a sin 4. Therefore the Nonconformists dare not Assent Approve and Consent to the tying of every Priest and Deacon ordinarily to read over the Liturgy twice every day And they are the more averse to such Approbation by seeing so very few Conformists Comparatively to practice this themselves which sheweth that they take it to be unlawful seeing it is their judgement that our Rulers must be obeyed in all things which are lawful to be so done And if they that make such declarations of Approbation think it unlawful ordinarily to keep them we may doubt whether it be lawful so to make them as is required of us 5.
Christians but not a Political Church which we now define If they are not joyned with a Pastor that hath all the foresaid Powers of Teaching Ruling by the Word and Keys and going before them in Worship and if they consent not to his relation as such they may make a School or an Oratory but not a proper particular Church simpliciter so called but only a Church secundum quid or as to some part for an Essential part is wanting But it is not the defect of Exercise that unchurcheth them while there is the Power and that consented to for Men cannot be Pastors or Churches against their wills Sect. V. 3. As all Christians grant that the Apostles had a general Commission to call Infidels to Christ and to plant Churches with their particular Pastors as aforesaid and to take care that their Pastor and they do the duties not compelling them by their Sword but by the Word so we are far from denying that yet some Ministers of Christ may and should seek the conversion of Infidels and plant Churches of the converted ordaining Pastors over them by their consent and taking due care by their grave advise that such Churches walk in the obedience of Christ as far as they can procure it And such Seniors which have so planted these Churches and Pastors by Gods blessing on their labours should be much reverenced by the Churches which they have planted and their just advise exhortations and admonitions should be heard by the People and the Pastors whom they ordained and all their juniors And though the Apostles have no successours in their extraordinaries yet that some should in this ordinary work succeed them we deny not because 1. We find that it is a work still necessary to be done 2. And others as well as Apostles did it in those times as Silas Luke Apollo Timothy Titus c. and since all such as have planted the Gospel among Infidels 3. Because Christ promised to be with them that did this work to the end of the world Mat. 28. 21. But whether such men be of a different office or order from the junior Pastors whether any true Presbyter that hath ability opportunity and invitation may not do the same work with Infidels and by his success and seniority may not so ordain Pastors over the Churches which he gathered and have an answerable right to reverence and regard from those that he so planteth and ordaineth are controversies which we presume not now to decide And we cannot prove that this maketh a distinct form of a Church no not in the Apostles time and case For we cannot prove that they distributed the Countrys into Provinces or Dioceses peculiar to each Apostle and had any Churches which they supposed to be peculiarly under this or that Apostles Government so as that any of the rest might not with Apostolical power have come resided preacht and governed in the same No Scripture tells us of such limits Provinces Nay the Scripture tells us that many of them were as Apostles at once in the same places As at Jerusalem oft Paul and John had Apostolical power at Ephesus Peter and Paul as is commonly held at Rome And its probable that as Christ sent forth his disciples by two and two so the Apostles went in company as Paul and Barnabas did so that such appropriate settlement of Provincial or Diocesan Churches we cannot see proved though such a Generall Ministry is easily proved and we doubt not but by consent they might have distributed their Provinces had they seen cause and that actually they did so distribute their labours as their work and ends required But if they had become proper Provincial Bishops over several Districts or Provinces it seemeth strange to us that no history telleth us which were the twelve or thirteen Provinces and how limited and that they continued not longer and that instead of three Patriarchs first and four after and five next we had not twelve or thirteen Apostles or Patriarchs seated over all the world with their known divisions And that men seek not now to reduce the Churches to this Primitive State rather than to the said Imperial Constitution and rather to subject us all to the Apostolical Seats than to five Patriarchs in the dominions of another Prince and now mostly subject to an Infidel Yea it is strange to us that the first Seat Rome should derive its pretended power from two Apostles as if our Church might have two Bishops and the second Alexandria from Saint Mark who was no Apostle and the third Antioch from the same Apostle that Rome did as if one Bishop might have two such Dioceses and the fourth Ierusalem from St. James commonly said to be no Apostle and the last which became the second or the first from no Apostle nor make any such pretence if thirteen Apostolick Provinces were then known But we easily acknowledge that as Apostles having planted many Churches staid a while in each when they had setled it and some time visited it again so they are by some historians called the first Bishops of those Churches being indeed the transient Governours of them In which sense one Church might at once have two or many Bishops and one Bishop many Churches and he be Bishop of one Church this week who was Bishop of another where he came the next Sect. VI. Christian Community prepared to be a Polity and a Christian family and a Christian Kingdom we doubt not may all prove their Divine Right And if any will call these Churches let us agree of the definition and we will not strive about the name Sect. VII We know not of any proof that ever was produced that many Churches of the first Rank must of duty make one fixed greater compound Church by Association whether Classical Diocesan Provincial Patriarchal or National and that God hath instituted any such Form And we find the greatest defenders of Prelacy affirming that Classes Provincial Patriarchal and National Churches are but humane institutions of which more anon Sect. VIII We find no proof that ever God determined the Churches should necessarily be individuated by Parish-bounds or limits of ground and that men in the same limits might not have divers Bishops and be of divers particular Churches Sect. IX We never saw any satisfactory proof that ever Christ or his Apostles did institute any particular Church taken in a Political sense as organized and not meerly for a Community without a Bishop or Pastor who had the power of Teaching them Ruling them by the Word and Power of the Church-Keys and leading them in publick Worship Sect. X. Nor did we ever see it proved that any one Church of this first Rank which was not an Association of Churches consisted in Scripture-times of many much less many score or hundred such fixed Churches or Congregations Or that any one Bishop of the first Rank that was not an Apostle or a Bishop of Bishops of whom we now speak
favos Marcionitae Ecclesias saith Tertullian XLIV 12. If any persons shall pretend to have the power of Governing the Churches and Inferior Pastors as their Bishops who are obtruded on those Churches without the Election or consent of the people or Inferior Pastors and these Bishops shall by Lawes or mandates forbid such Assembling Preaching or Worship as otherwise would be Lawful and a duty It is no Schism to disobey such Laws or mandates as such Nor do such disobey their Pastors they being truly no Bishops of theirs till they do consent however in some cases the advantages of some imposed persons may make it an act of Prudence and so a duty to consent as is aforesaid It was no Schism for the people of Antioch Alexandria Cesarea Constantinople c to refuse Ecclesiastical obedience to the ill Bishops set over them by the Emperour to whom they did not consent But the Schism was theirs who complied with the imposed Usurpers Here it must be noted that Church history hath constrained all that understand it to confess both Papists Greeks and Protestants that the ordination of Bishops and Presbyters was in the power of the Bishops and the Election in the power of the people not only the first 300 years under heathen Emperours but for many hundred years after under Christian Emperours and Princes 2. That this was taken for their right given them by God To cite more proofs for this would expose us to the readers censure as unnecessary tediousness Many Papists largely prove it As doth David Blondel beyond exception de jure plebis in regimine Ecclesiastico with more 3. That yet we here plead not for the necessity of so much as the peoples election as it signifieth the first nomination of the person but only for the necessity of consent either explicitly or implicitly exprest If the senior Pastors have the first nomination or if it be the Magistrate or Patrons as with us we quarrel not against it if the flock do but consent Parents may Chuse Husbands and Wives for their Children but they are not such at all till mutual consent XLV 13. The consent of a few of the Church is not the consent of the Church Nor is it Schism for the Major part to differ from their choice or determinations as such In Government the will of the Sovereign is the publick will But in contracts and consent of a Community where Unity is the thing intended and voting the means the Major part is denominatively the society unless they have made others their trustees or delegates in Electing Consenting themselves to what they do such societies are not denominated from the Minor or a small part as contradistinct from the rest If a Diocess have a thousand or 600 or 300 Parish Pastors and a hundred thousand or a million of people or 50000 or 20000 as you will suppose and if only a dozen or twenty Presbyters and a thousand people or none chuse the Bishop this is not the Election or consent of the Diocesan Church Nor is it Schism for 20000 to go against the votes of 2000. XLVI 14. If Bishops that have no better a foundation of their relative power over that particular flock shall impose inferior Pastors or Presbyters on the Parish-Churches command the peoples acceptance obedience the people are not bound to accept and obey them by any authority that is in that command as such Nor is it Schism to disobey it no more than it is treason to reject the Usurper of a Kingdom XLVII 15. whilest such obtruded Parish Pastors have no consent of the flock explicite or implicite that Parish is no Parish Church in the proper Political Organized sense as we now speak of a Church as constituted by the Governing and Governed parts For that which wanteth an essential part wanteth the Essence And therefore it is no Schism to pronounce it no such Church and to deny it the Communion proper to such a Church Though yet as the word Church doth signifie an ungoverned Society in potentia proxima to receive Government they may be improperly called a Church as they are in a vacancy XLVIII 16. If they that make a Diocess the lowest proper Church which hath a Bishop and none under him and a Parish to be but a part of the Diocesan Church and no proper Church of it self as having no Episcopus Gregis shall accuse those as separating from the Church who separate not from the Bishop and keep to any Parish in the Diocess they contradict themselves Though such forsake many Presbyters and Parishes XLIX 17. If Princes or Prelates shall unjustly silence or depose so great a number of faithful Pastors or Preachers as shall leave people destitute of a necessary Preaching and Pastoral help it is no Schism but a great duty for such Ministers to preach and pastorally guide such people otherwise by the same reason one man might put down Christianity in an Empire at his pleasure or dissolve the Churches L. If it be said that it 's true if he put down all but not if he silence but a minor part We answer that the reason is the same to those to whom the Ministry is necessary if he put down Ministers to them The supply of the Churches e. g. in one City of a Kingdom is no supply to the other Cities And if a Parish have 10000 or 30000 or 50000 or 60000 souls it s no supply to all the rest if 3000 of these have the benefit of a Preacher and Pastor The same power which may deny a Pastor to ten parts of a Parish may deny him to the eleventh part that is to all So if competent Pastors be set over half the Parishes in a Kingdom and the other half hath incompetent men or if nine parts of a Kingdom were competently supplied and but the tenth part had not such to whom the people may lawfully commit the Pastoral Care of their souls it is no Schism but a duty for those that are destitute to get the best supply they can and it is no Schism but a duty for faithful Ministers though forbidden by superiours to perform their Office to such people that desire it Their General Ordination with the peoples Necessity and Consent added to God's General Commands to all his Ministers to be faithful and diligent are a sufficient obliging Call to such Ministration without the will of prohibiting Superiours yea against it For 1. Else it were at the will of a man whether souls shall be saved or damned for how shall they believe unless they hear and how shall they hear without a Preacher and whether Christ shall have a Church and God be publickly worshiped or not 2. Our Ordination consecrateth us to our Office during life And it is Sacriledge and Covenant-breaking with God to cast it off and alienate our selves 3. God hath described the Office and the Work in his Word and charged his servants to give the children their bread in due
If God ask us why we did not teach our families visit the sick instruct ignorant neighbours study better for to discharge our Ministerial work that we might be men of knowledge and such like the doubt is whether it will pass for a good answer to say we had not time because we must twice a day read the Common-Prayer XXI Assenting Approving and Consenting to all things even to all forms orders c. includeth the order of the Liturgy Two Rules of the order of Prayer are commonly acknowledged 1. The nature and order of the matter to be expressed 2. The Lords Prayer us a directory delivered by Christ 2. The Nonconformists that think that for the main there is nothing but good contained in most of the Prayers of the Liturgy yet think that they are greatly disordered and defective neither formed according to the order of matter nor of the Lords Prayer but like an immethodical Sermon which is unsuitable to the high subjects and honourable work of holy worship 3. They have oft offered whenever it will be well taken to give in a Catalogue of the disorders and defects of the Liturgy Which yet they think it lawful to use in obedience or for unity or when no better may be used But not to approve of such disorder as we do not approve of the failings of any of our own duties though we are daily guilty of them unwillingly XXII The Preface to the Book of Ordination saith that It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these ORDERS in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons as several OFFICES which are repeated oft in the Collects at Ordination To this all must Assent and Consent 2. Some of us are conscious that we have diligently read the holy Scriptures and ancient Authors and yet three ORDERS and OFFICES are not evident to us 3. We have great reason to believe that Calvin Beza and many more Reformers Blondell Salmatius Robert Parker Gersom Bucer Calderwood Cartwright John Reynolds Ames Ainsworth and multitudes of such Protestants did diligently read both Scriptures and Ancients As also Dr. Sâ—illingfleet Bishop Edw. Reynolds and many such who thought that Scripture instituted no particular forms of Government As also Armachanus and many other Papists who think that Bishops and Priests do not differ ordine but gradu which the R. Reverend Archbishop Usher ordinarily professed We cannot assert that none of these diligently read Scripture or ancient Authors 4. But especially when we find that even the ancient Church of England was of another mind as is legible in the Canons of Aelfrick to Wulfine in Spelman pag. 573. 576. which conclude that in the old large sense there were but seven Ecclesiastical Orders or Degrees and that the Bishops and Presbyters are not two but one Hand pluris interest inter Missalem Presbyterum Episcopum quam quod Episcopus constitutus sit ad ordinationes conferendas ad visitandum seu inspiciendum curandumque ea quae ad Deum pertinent quod nimiae crederetur multitudini si omnis Presbyter hoc idem faceret Ambo siquidem UNUM tenent EUNDEMQUE ORDINEM quamvis dignior sit illa pars Episcopi 18. Non est alius ORDO constitutus in Ecclesiasticis Ministeriis c. Et Leg. Canuti p. 551. Pastores vocamus Episcopos Sacerdotes quorum partes sunt eruditione at que doctrina gregem Domini speculari ac desendere c. 5. And Dr. Stillingsleet hath proved by sufficient evidence that the same was the judgment of Archbishop Cranmer and other Reformers of the Church of England And it is the judgment of some of our Bishops and Conformists now All which we speak not to shew which side we think to be in the right but that the state of the question is Whether we can assent to this as true and approve and consent that it be used as is appointed That it 's evident to all men diligently reading c. that de facto there were three ORDERS and Offices from the Apostles times XXIII The ordering of Priests requireth the Bishop to speak to the people at the Ordination of Priests calling them to come forth in the name of God and shew what crime or impediment they know in the persons to be ordained c. In imitation of the ancient Churches when the Congregation over which they were set had their voice in his election or reception 2. The doubt is whether such a solemn invitation as in God's name be not too vain to be Assented and Approved and Consented to in a Church where the people over whom he is set never use to be present nor invited to it nor have any notice of it or any call to meddle therein being usually many miles and often many score miles distant nor any other people called to that work and rarely any people there that have any knowledge of the man and his conversation XXIV The Ordaining of Priests and the Consecration of Bishops both use these words as concerning the Office Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and work of a Priest of a Bishop c. 2. It is not doubted but that the Holy Ghost must set Pastors over the Flocks 1. By qualifying men for the Office and making them desirous of it Both Grace Ability and Willingness are of him 2. By giving the Ordainers a discerning skill to know whom to ordain 3. By giving the flock a discerning and a willing mind We yet know not of any other Collation of the Holy Ghost which Ordination can make Nor know we that in any of these senses these words can be well understood For 1. Grace Gifts and Willingness are the dispositio recipient is presupposed we see not how it can be lawful to ordain him that seemeth not before to have them what else are they examined about Nor know we that God hath given any power to the Ordainers now by the laying on of hands to make an ungodly man godly or an unlearned or ignorant man to be learned or wise or a man of ill utterance to have a better tongue or an unwilling man to be willing The Apostles had a miraculous power of giving the Holy Ghost for extraordinary works and for abilities suddenly infused and they did it we never knew of any in our age that did it and therefore suppose that they have no promise or power so to do 2. And to give a discerning skill to the Ordainers 3. Or to give a discerning or willing mind to the people are neither of them a giving the Holy Ghost to the Priest The doubt is whether this be not an abuse of the words which Christ himself or his Apostles used and so not to be assented to approved and consented to 3. Yet is it not denyed but that Ministerial Authority is given by the ordainers as Ministers Deliverers or Investers But Authority is not the Holy Ghost so called 4. Nor
and cruellest enemy and to render him uncapable of ever probably profiting them by his Ministry any more and consequently greatly to promote their damnation and make them almost hopeless as to recovery And if by this terrour they tell the Chancellour that they Repent how little satisfaction is that to the Minister that never saw himself any signs of their repentance 8. The doubt is then whether the use of this Rubrick may be Approved and Consented to 9. Especially considering that all the Parish who receive not thrice a year of which Easter must be one for them all must be presented to the said ordinary and also all that come not to Church By which means divers Parishes about London must have some 10000 some 20000 some 30000 some 40000 or 50000 that have no room in the Church all presented if this Law were executed XXX We have reason to doubt whether the Act of Uniformity it self be not part of the Books which we must subscribe Assent and Consent to because it is so said in the Book it self The Contents of the Book are first named in general and then this Act named among the Contents Either it is part of the Contents or it is not if it be not we must not assent and consent to that falshood that it is If it be O far be it from us that believe a God a Judgment and a life to come and the sacred Scriptures to Assent and Consent to that Act with all its penalties silencing and ruining such as conform not One of us that was oft with the great wise just Lord Chief Justice Hales hath heard him lamenting the Schisms and discords of the Clergy seriously say that There was no right way to heal us but by a New Act of Uniformity And hath his late Writings against laying Concord or Religion upon mens unnecessary additions And the Reporter taketh not himself to be wiser than him nor meet to Assent and Consent to such a Law considering the experience of these seventeen years and the consequents on mens divided and exasperated minds upon the Congregations upon Ministers and Families and upon the state and security of the Christian Religion and the Protestant Cause c. As to them that say that the Act nameth the Book as distinct from it self we answer 1. So do the Titles of Acts of Parliament name the Act it self as distinct from the Title and yet we suppose that Title part of the Act. 2. The Book nameth the Act as part of its Contents as is aforesaid If we should by mistake think some of these passages to be unlawful that are not or to have a worse sense than indeed they have let these things be considered 1. We judge as well as we are able and whatever sense another takes them in we that so understand them cannot take them 2. We judge of the sense by the plain words the force and stretch is not by us but by those that conform and contradict our sense 3. The Law-givers will not otherwise expound their own words after 17 years waiting for it under Compulsive Executions Certainly if they would have us understand their words contrary to common use they would rather tell us so after seventeen years time than ruine us and forbear so easie a means to heal the Churches 4. Some of us so highly value the excellent Praelections of Bishop Sanderson de juramento and his judgment against taking and expounding Oaths and consequently professions and promises in a stretched or a doubtful sense and his Counsel to refuse them when the sense is doubtful if the Rulers or Imposers will not expound them though they should bid us take them in our own sense with much more which he hath excellently said to such purposes that we thankfully acknowledge that he hath much helpt for to fortifie us against the guilt of perjury and falshood and prophaning the holy name of God and deceiving our Governours by equivocations and false expositions and scandalously tempting others to perjury lying or such other sins We take an understanding serious and if it may be publick owning of the Baptismal Covenant in age to be of so great moment to the reviting of true Christianity and the honour of Baptism and cure of Anabaptism that it greatly grieveth us that we must despair of its effectual practise when we meet with few that seem not to approve it The words of a very Learned and Great Conformist Mr Elder field of Baptism pag. 48. marg We think worthy our recital Upon score of like reason saith he whereto and for such after tryal may have been taken up in the Christian Church that examination which did sift the constancy or rather consistency of those that had been taken in young to their presumed grounds that if they wavered they might be known and discharged or if they remained constant they might by imposition of hands receive what the Commoner name of that Ceremony did import of their faith at least a sign of Confirmation Vasquez hath from Erasmus in the Preface to his Paraphrase on the Gospels a word of most wholsom grave and prudent advise that those who were Baptized young when they begin to write man should be examined an ratum habeant id quod in Catechismo ipsorum nomine promissum Quod si ratum non habeant ab Ecclisiae jurisdictione liberos manere in 3. p. Thom. disp 154. To. 2. c. 1. sect 2. If they did then stand to what their sureties promised for them If not they should be discarded Most necessary and of unimaginable benefit Such a scrutiny would shake off thousands of rotten hypocrites and purge the Church of many such Inside believers or professours upon whose dirty faces a little holy water was sprinkled when they knew not what it was but they no more mind the true sanctification appertaining than the Turks or Saracens who shall rise up in judgement against their washed filthiness or than those of whom St. Peter It is hapned to them according to the true proverb The dog to his vomit and the washed swine to wallow in the mire Such discipline of a wakened Reason is that the world groans for that men would become Christians O that the truth of faith and power of true Christian belief might be seen in those that knowingly put the neck in Christs yoak So far he See also Dr. Patrick of Baptism And of our selves Mr. Hanmer and Baxter have written Treatises only on this subject to shew that such true Confirmation would be the most excellent means to heal most of our enormities and divisions And shall such Jesuits as Vasquez such moderators as Erasmus and Protestant Conformists and Nonconformists all thus speak for it and yet no hope No wonder if a word or ceremony that we disagree in can make our wound so sad as we have self when that which we in words agree for and that not as a thing indifferent but so necessary cannot yet be obtained though we
perish Dead Images of all good things is but the last and most effectual means of destroying the life and real good Dead shews and Images of good are Hypocrisie sincerity is reality seriousness and life We take our Baptism to be our Christening or the summe of the Christian Religion And it is but for men to do that seriously at Age which they did in Infancy by others authorized or others for them which is the Conversion which we daily preach And it grieveth us to see what multitudes when aged never seriously think either what they did or received in their Infancy and how many hate such a life as they have vowed and yet think that they stand to their Baptismal Covenant And till the Pastors of the Church make a serious work of it to bring all their Parishes to a serious understanding and consideration of their Baptism and a serious owning it and renewing of that Covenant we cannot hope that the people will be serious Christians or that men will not think that serious Anabaptists are better than Hypocrites that contemn their Baptism SECT II. The Second Part of the Matter of Conformity THE First Part de facto being contained in the Canonical Subscription and the Declaration hath been opened The Second Part is the case of Reordination Either they that require Episcopal Ordination for all that were otherwise ordained when Bishops were put out do intend it a second Ordination or not If yea then it is a thing condemned by the ancient Churches by the Canons called the Apostles c. and by Gregory M. and others likened to Anabaptistry If not then they take such mens former Ordination to be null and consequently no Ministers to be true Ministers that are so ordained and not by Diocesans and consequently all such Churches to be no true Churches while they take the Roman Ordination to be valid To speak of the consequences of this as to the nullity of Baptizings and Consecration of the Lords Supper c. and of the taking of God's name in vain in the Office if it prove evil would be to go further than the Matter of Fact SECT XI The Third Part of Conformity THE Third Part of Conformity is the Subscribing against the obligation from the Vow To endeavour any change or alteration of Government in the Church with the Oxford Oath That we will never endeavour any alteration and the Articles for our Prelacy and the Ordination-promise and Oath of Canonical Obedience before-mentioned as to this point together 2. Even those Nonconformists that are for the lawfulness yea the need and desirableness of Bishops and Archbishops have so much against this Subscription as that to avoid prolixity we will forbear reciting the particulars any further than to tell you that while a thousand or many hundred Parish-Churches are all without any particular appropriate Bishops great Towns and Villages when in Ignatius's daies the Unity of each Church was known by having One Altar and One Bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons And Jerom defineth a Church to be Plebs unita Episcopo and consequently they are without the Discipline and Pastoral oversight of such Bishops and while all these Parishes are in the old sense become No Churches for ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia but only Parts of a Diocesan Church And while the old form of Churches Presbyters and Bishops is thus changed And while one Bishop hath now more work of Discipline besides Confirming and all his other work than an hundred of the ablest and best men can do and so such Discipline is necessarily undone And while the Case is as if the Bishop of Carthage had put down six hundred neighbour-Bishops and become the sole Bishop of all their Churches or as if all the Schools in a Diocess have but one Governing School-master who had power to judge what Scholar to receive or to refuse And while the Keys are to be exercised by Lay-men these will be unsatisfying things 3. The Conformists are not agreed of the meaning of these Subscriptions and Oaths some think that they covenant only to submit to them though they dislike them But others think that it is also to approve the Government Some think that it is only Bishops that they are bound to But others say that the word Ordinary certainly signifieth more than Bishops even Lay-Chancellours And that the forâ—cited Canon expresly nameth many others even with an catera the rest that bear Office And any alteration must needs mean more as any alteration in State sure extâ—nleth to more than not endeavouring to change Monarchy or the King himself Some say that by nâ—t endeavouring is mâ—ant only not unlawfully endeavouring but not that all endeavours are forbidden viz. not petitioning speaking when called c. Others say that if exceptions had been allowed the Law makers would have made us know it and not have spoken universally And that if you expound it of unlawful endeavours you leave all men at liberty to judge what is unlawful and all Schismaticks will take the Oath or Subscription because they hold their endeavours to extirpate Prelacy to be lawful Some say that one may endeavour in his place and calling to take the Church-Keys out of the hands of Lay-Chancellours notwithstanding this Subscription and Oath But others more ingenuously say that the very actual Government or Keys being in the hands of Lay-Chancellours if it bind us not against endeavouring to change these it binds us to nothing that can be understood And that if Subjects thus take liberty after Universal Oaths and Promises to make such exceptions they reproach the Law-makers as if in such tremendous things as these they knew not how to put their Laws in words intelligible and of common sense And they relax all such sacred bonds Some say that in not endeavouring is excepted unless the King commission or command us But others say that if the Law-givers would have had such exceptions they had wit enough to have put them in And that if you leave it to men to except from universals you cannot tell them where to stop And that the use of the Oath and Subscription is that the Church-Government be taken for unalterable SECT XII The Fourth Part of Conformity IV. THE Fourth Part of Conformity is the Subscription against the obligation of the Oath called the Solemn Vow and Covenant Corporations are constituted by Declaring that there is no obligation from it to any one without exception But Ministers must only subscribe that there is no obligation on me or on any other person from the Oath to endeavour any change or alteration of Government in the Church 2. It is none of the Controversie here 1. Whether that vow was lawfully imposed or contrived 2. Nor whether it were lawfuly taken 3. Nor whether part of the matter was unlawful But supposing all these unlawful 1. Whether all alteration of Church Government be unlawful whether it be not in the power of the King and Parliament
to set a Bishop in every Market Town or to take the use of the Keys from Laymen or to take down Archdeacons Officials Commissaries Surrogates c Whether all Reformation be out of the power of the King or not to be desired by the people 2. Whether that which is Lawful may not be done by the Law makers and be endeavoured by speech in Parliament or by petition by the people Especially if the King Command it 3. Whether men be not bound by a Vow to that which is Lawful much more to that Which is antecedently a duty 3. The Conformists are here disagreed among themselves some say that the Vow Bindeth not because it was unlawfully imposed But otherâ— better say that this proveth no more but that the Imposers could not bind me to take it by any authority of theirs And that if I had taken it in secret without imposition I had been bound by it Els no private Vow should bind Some say that it binds not because it was sinfully taken But others truly say that if Oaths bind not wherever men take them sinfully no wicked man should ever be bound by Oaths or Vows because they usually make them sinfully by an ill end and intention wrong motives or ill principles or manner Or at least a bad man might choose whether ever he will be obliged But all good casuists agree that if the matter be lawful the unlawful taking hinders not the obligation A man that is Baptized with ill motives or intentions is yet obliged by his Baptismal Vow Some say that it binds not because the matter it self is unlawful But it s granted that it bindeth to no unlawful matter Others therefore truly say that he that Voweth six things whereof three are sinful is not disobliged by the conjunction of these from the other three that are Lawful Els a Knave may keep himself disobliged as to all Vows by putting in some unlawful thing Some say that it binds not because we were antecedently bound to all that is good by other bonds and therefore not by this But others truly say that this is a most intollerable reason and would nullifie our Baptismal Vow and all our sacramental Vows renewed and all Covenants that ever man can make to God of any duty For Gods own Laws first bind us to every duty But for all that our own Vows Covenants and promises secondarily bind us also And a man may have many obligations to one duty Yea indeed the Covenanters ordinarily profess that they think not that a man should Vow any thing to God but what God first hath made his duty And they are against the Papists for making Religions and duties to themselves which God never made And therefore they profess that if some things in the Covenant were not their duty before they would not think that they are bound to it now And they profess that if they had never taken that Vow they had been bound to all that by it they are bound to And therefore condemning that Vow doth no whit secure the Government of the Church e. g. Lay Chancellours use of the Keys or the destruction of discipline from their Lawful endeavours to alter it And they profess that seeing the King hath power to command them Lawful things if they had Vowed any thing meerly Indifferent it would not have bound them against the Kings Commands Because it is not in subjects power by Vows to withdraw themselves from their obedience to authority Some say that the Proclamation of King Charles the first against the Covenant null'd the obligation But others truly say 1. That it could null no more than the Imposition to take it and not the obligation when it 's taken in necessary things 2. That this is nothing to all them that took it afterward and that when Charles II. had though injuriously been drawn to declare for it Some say that it binds not because men took it unwillingly But others truly say 1. that this would leave it in the power of a bad man to nullifie all Vows and contracts by saying that he did them unwillingly 2. That man hath fâ—ee will and cannot be compelled And a Vow of a thing Lawful to save ones life bindeth Men must rather die than lie 3. This would teach Subjects to say that they take all Oaths of Alegiance to the King unwillingly and therefore are not bound 4. It s true that no man that forceth another injuriously to a promise can claim to himself any right from that which was not free but procured by his own injurious violence or fraud But God wrongeth none and a Vow to God bindeth though procured by sinful force by men Some say that It was only a League and Covenant with men and not a Vow and therefore ceaseth câ—ssante occasione and by the consent of Parliamentâ— c. Ans There is no place for the belief of this objection to any that knoweth a Vow otherwise than by the name Indeed an Oath that is but an appeal to God that I will faithfully perform my Covenant with a man obligeth me not when that man hath discharged me from any obligation to him But this in question was primarily a promise or Covenant made to God which is a Vow and a League and Covenant of men with one another that they will perform it as is notorious to any man that readeth it with common understanding II. The second thing questioned about that Vow and the main is whether every Minister must or may become the judge of all other mens Consciences and obligations in three Kingdoms even of many thousands whom they never saw nor heard of and that so far as to absolve or justifie them from all obligations by that Vow to endeavour any Church reformation 2. It is here supposed 1. That though men ought to take an Oath in the sence of a Lawful Governour so far as they know it yet that they are not bound beyond the plain meaning of the words to the sense of Usurpers Therefore they know not but the King and Lords c. might take the same words in another meaning than the obtruders did intend e. g to reform according to Gods Word and the example of the best reformed Churches might signifie to them an opposition to Presbytery 2 That if men mistake the sence of the Imposers they are bound to keep an Oath in the Lawful sence in which they took it And then how knoweth every Minister in what sense every man in the three Kingdoms took it And how is he able to say that no one man of them all is obliged by it to endeavour a lawful and necessary reformation 3. And as to the former Argument that men were forced to it many of the Old Parliament are yet living and many others that then forced others to it and were not forced to it themselves 4 And if the present Parliament-men could upon what compulsion soever Vow to reform e. g. scandalous Ministers Swearing