CHAP. I.

Sect. 1. MAny things conducing to the well-being of a re­gularly formalized Church may be and are in their kind alterable, which yet (as Mr. Calvin observes, nec subinde, nec temerè, nec levibus de causis) should not be altered. Considered precisely in themselves they may, but if the reasons of their Constitution be regarded, they are, practicè & morali­ter, unchangeable. These terms are borrowed from a great Jesuit, yet made use of by several reformed Di­vines in several important instances, and approved by them for this reason, because the first reason of their origi­nation is moral and perpetual. Those of this nature being not merely occa­sional [Page 3] temporary Proviso's, which of­ten vary, either upon some sudden un­expected emergent, or for the avoi­dance of some greater evil, but were ordained for the great end of Christian Society, and in the ordination foun­ded on the general rules of the Gospel. Whereupon with the Greeks they pas­sed as [...], Divine Constituti­ons for their serviceableness to the great Concerns of publick Religion; with the Latins, as Divina Magisteria, Di­vinae Dispositiones, & Divinae Sanctio­nes, quae publicâ Lege celebrantur, quas universa Ecclesia suscipit. Mr. Calvin saith of them, Sic sunt humanae ut si­mul sunt divinae, which (if I understand aright) hath this clear sense, They are humane in their composition, but di­vine in their foundation, and reason of their Constitution.

Sect. 2. To attempt a second Re­formation will be a great reproach to our first Reformers, who confessedly were men of great learning, piety and zeal. For if they failed in their under­taking either through ignorance, osci­tancy or interest, it will be readily [Page 4] concluded they designed onely a Change, and endeavoured an innova­tion, which at once blasts their repu­tation, and justifies all the imputations of their Romish Adversaries, who im­peached them of novelty and Schism; And if we set upon a new refined Re­formation, as their former charge will hardly be evaded, so with difficulty will we solve their latter Objections, viz. Protestants have no Principles, or, which is as bad, are so given to change they will not stand to their principles; whereas if we maintain the Reformati­on to be onely a Reduction of affairs to the primitive Apostolical and Catho­lick order and state, we do not onely thereby render a second Reformation unpracticable, but also invalidate all the Romish contumelies and calumnies. This was the avowed profession of our first Reformers, they would onely re­trieve the Primitive Christianity, and settle this Church according to the Ca­tholick Pattern, concluding all other methods of Reformation to be irrational and schismatical. Bishop Jewel in his famous Apology, p. 176, 177. fully de­clares it, Accessimus quantum potuimus, [Page 5] asserting the whole and every main part to be Apostolical and consonant to the judgment and practice of the ancient Catholick Bishops and Fathers. This Apology not onely Peter Martyr in his Epistle prefixed to it, but also the learned Divines of Tigur, Bullinger, Gualther, Wolphius, &c. have so highly approved, that they resolved, no Book extant in the Protestant cause was com­parable to it. Other eminent Trans­marine Divines might be mentioned, yea a Jesuit in his Pamphlet against Mr. Chillingworth hath confessed, that of all other courses in the Reformation that which the English followed was the most effectual for the establishment of our Religion against the Romish Church. The more shame for a pre­sumptuous Ignoramus publickly to re­monstrate, We might as easily persuade the modish Ladies of Court and City to Queen Elizabeth's Ruffs, as to gain him and his rabble to be content with her Settlement of Religion.

Sect. 3. This Church being thus Reformed, and restored to its primitive strength and splendour, to move for a [Page 6] second Reformation dissonant there­from is in effect to renounce the Com­munion of the Primitive Catholick Church; with which all successive Churches ought to hold (as near as possibly they can) a perfect correspon­dence, and where this cannot be ob­tained, by reason of some cross circum­stances to reflect upon it as an infeli­city. The reason hereof is obvious; for the primitive and successive Chur­ches are but one Body, having the same dependencies upon, and relation to the one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism; and the Catholick visible Church and every regularly constitu­ted particular Church is an organized Body, having several Members for se­veral Offices, all which conspire for unity, that there be no Schism in the Body, which certainly would happen, if successive Churches observe not the same Laws and retain not the same Government, which the primitive maintained: For that which maketh the Church one, is the unity of these; and that which distinguisheth one Bo­dy or Society from another is the di­versity of Laws and Government, and [Page 7] so long as the same Laws and the same Government are in force, the Body is still the same. Now as Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, and to day, and for ever, so is his Church, which at first was embodied into an indetermi­nable Society. For the Scripture as­sures us the Church is a Body, and that Body whereof Christ is the Head, Col. 1. 18, 24. Eph. 4. 11, 12, 15, 16. which we profess to be Catholick, not onely in respect of persons and place, but also of time; The Catholicism whereof not onely includeth variety of places, and multitudes of men, but is to be extended to universality of suc­cession. Now evident it is, that all Bodies Corporate, whether aggregate (such as the Church is) or sole, by their succession are immortal as long as they retain the same fundamental Laws, and remain under the first settled Go­vernment. If therefore we condescend to a new Reformation distinct from the first Settlement or opposite thereto, we design a schismatical separation from the primitive Catholick Church, if we put it in execution we fall under the same condemnation we sentence a­gainst [Page 8] the Romanists; this being the common Protestant Apology, We have departed from Rome no farther, than she hath from the ancient Church and her self; and if there were no other reason for this our secession (as there is, viz. That we embraced Christiani­ty before S. Peter planted a Church there, and when the Western apart­ment was set out by the Fathers, this of ours had the honour of being one of the Seven Diocesan or Patriarchal Churches, as well as Rome) yet even this would justifie our Separation, be­cause it was our duty, to reunite our selves to the Catholick Church, all se­veral Churches being but, partes simu­lares, homogeneal parts of the whole. Whereupon it followeth that that Church which keeps closest to the primitive Catholick Pattern, and holds the nearest alliance with it, is the pu­rest, and that several Churches having such a relation to, and dependence up­on it, neither particular persons, nor particular Churches, are to act as divi­ded Bodies by themselves (which is the ground of all Schism) but are to teach, and to be taught, and to doe all other [Page 9] Christian duties as parts conjoyned to the whole, and as Members of the same indeterminable Society.

Sect. 4. Suppose we should yield to another project of Reformation, the issue will be confusion and desolation; for if we may conclude their intenti­ons from their former practices and present principles, the design is to o­ver-rule or abolish all, their way was to strike at all, root and branch; and now they are for removing the Laws. Their course of regulation is to rase the Walls of the City if they can, if not to undermine them. Down with the Church of England is the Popish Plot, and the direct way to this, is to divide it: All the Papist Pot Cannons and Sophisms could never batter or shake our Jerusalem till some of the Citizens thereof made breaches in it; Nay the Romanists never made an ap­proach upon it, till the Puritans had made an assault, these gave the other both the opportunity and encourage­ment to attack it. Tush (say the Popelings) let us levell this, the Mush­rome Sectaries will either fall in the [Page 10] ruines of it, or else into our hands; they have been very serviceable Tools to us in all our attempts, and no doubt will be so on to the end, if ever we ef­fect it, and then we know how to en­gage their tender Consciences, let it but appear to them (which we will not fail to doe) they can gain by the barter, they (forsooth) have a new light, a new dispensation of Provi­dence, and they must wait on Provi­dence and follow that light.

Sect. 5. What will the consequence of this work be, if it go on? Is it to remove what is established before we resolve where to fix? This were cer­tainly mad work to demolish old Struc­tures before we have advised of the fa­shion of the new. Perhaps a model is fansied, but are all the Dissenters a­greed about it? When they had power too much, and time too long to resolve on a settled way, even then they nei­ther would or could unite, nor ever will or can. This we are sure of, none of the schismatical Parties can have their own ends, unless all be taken a­way, which crosseth their humours or [Page 11] interests; and if this be done by vio­lence or by Law, not one of ten shall have his own ends, which because they cannot obtain, their feuds will be high till one party get the full mastery, and then the Plot of Union is marred. But who shall be taken into this mo­tion to have the benefit of it? If all, nothing can follow but confusion with­out remedy, and scandal beyond an Apology; If one onely Party (which yet is unknown what it is) then the others if they dare will stand out and oppose it; if not, they will murmur and repine, and thus expostulate; Why should they be secluded Members de­barred of the privilege of Comprehen­sion? This (say they) we can say for our selves, we were drawn into the Lines of Communication by the per­suasions and solicitations of their grati­fied Partizans and Comrades, and though they say it, have as much pro­moted the good Old Cause. In this indeed we are all agreed, we shall ne­ver enjoy Liberty of Conscience till we have power to kill and take pos­session, neither likely to have Free Trade till, without any respect to Law, [Page 12] we can plunder and sequester Malig­nants, and shall we who are fully ac­corded with them be laid aside? If it be pretended the favoured will give good security for their good behaviour for the future, (whereof there is yet no evidence) we are as free as they, not doubting to affirm, we are the more sober and peaceable, in whom there is a more sweet and gratious spi­rit of love and zeal, and have been more constant to their principles than they; For we can prove many of them were active Conformists, soon after proved persecuting Presbyterians, then dough-baked Independents, and now again have tacked about, and are Co­logueing Compliers. However, if some be received into favour and others re­jected, there is plain partiality in the case, if all must be entertained, a downright unaccountable Schism fol­lows. But to wave the Persons to be comprehended, what Things must be granted them for an Union? If onely a few (unsatisfactory) alterations be tendered, the project is baffled; we should be as far from Unity as now we are, for then the clamour would [Page 13] be, our burthens are a little mitigated but not removed, our grievances are abated, but not fully satisfied, we must not leave an hoof behind us when we go out of Egypt. If many and great alterations be submitted to, then they triumph in their Conquests; they had not onely Providence on their side but reason also and argument; and then we shall hear of nothing in Pulpits, Clubbs and Coffee-houses but stories of their mighty Acts, that their Ene­mies are now under great convictions, that they are the Godly conscientious, Gods secret Ones, and the good Old Cause must needs be God's Cause.

Having premised these Considerati­ons, let us next reflect upon the mat­ters on which this motion of Reforma­tion must proceed, and first of that which is most opposed, the Govern­ment.

CHAP. II.

COncerning it, the most proper method will be to discuss these following Propositions.

• 1. That Church Government is ne­cessary.
• 2. That necessary Church Govern­ment ought to be one and the same throughout the Christian world at all times.
• 3. That one Church Government is Episcopacy, which hath pre­vailed ever since the first planta­tion of Christianity.

Sect. 1. Church Government is ne­cessary for these reasons; The Church is a Society which cannot subsist with­out it: It is a Body whose parts are compacted, each whereof hath its pro­per Office and Service, it is that Bo­dy whereof Christ is the Head, who therefore will provide for its preserva­tion and peace, by placing Governours over it, which de facto he hath done, [Page 15] 1 Cor. 12. 28. It is the House of God whereof Christ is the Lord; who hath reserved this prerogative to himself, to nominate and constitute the Stewards of his Houshold and Family, as he did, Luk. 12. 42. hence those commissiona­ted by him are called the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God. Therefore for any to exercise a power in his House who is not au­thorized by him, or to reject those powers which he hath entrusted to provide for his Family and rule his House, is a most sacrilegious invasion and presumption. This House is his Kingdom too, Matt. 13. 24, 31, 33, & 34. Temporal Monarchs, if they have occasions to absent themselves from their Dominions, will always depute and substitute such as shall take care for the preservation of their Kingdoms in peace and tranquillity; certainly we have lower thoughts of Christ than we have of an earthly Potentate, if we can conceive that he having designed and formed a Kingdom of Heaven here up­on Earth, would at his departure hence be so careless and insensible of its after state and condition, that he would not [Page 16] make sufficient provisions for its due management, stability and perpetuity; especially since we are ascertained this his Kingdom is an everlasting King­dom, to continue unto the worlds end, and he hath promised so long he will be with it, Matt. 28. ult. which he effectually ordered, Luke 22. 29. I have appointed you a Kingdom. I who have full authority, for all power is given me, Matt. 28. 18. have appoin­ted you as my Embassadours, 2 Cor. 5. 20. to transact and negotiate the af­fairs of my Kingdom in all quarters of the world, setting you on Thrones, whereby ye are impowered by Com­mission to rule under me and for me; and I have appointed all my faithfull Servants to give you double honour and be obedient unto you, 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Thess. 5. 12, 13. Heb. 13. 17. viz. I have actually conferred the prehemi­nence and dignity upon you, (not left my Kingdom at random to be ordered by contingent and infinitely variable votings, not to be new modelled 1536. when Jesuitism and Presbyterianism first peeped out, nor to be reformed to confusion in 1641. nor to receive [Page 17] amendments in 1648. and a refinement in 1680.) and made a full grant to you and your Successours for ever: what was then demised stands still in full force and virtue, even the more pru­dent and sober of the Sectaries will subscribe to this, there ought to be a Government in the Church, that it continue not as a City without Walls, or a Vineyard without a Hedge, and many of them have stood stifly for the Jus Divinum of the several opposite and contradictory Models.

Sect. 2. It being now proved that Church Government is necessary both in respect of the appointment of its Head, and from the constitution and nature of that Body, it will necessarily follow that that necessary Government be al­ways one and the same, because the Head and the Body is always one and the same. If once we admit several contradistinguished Governments we must grant several Heads and several Bodies. It can never be proved from Scripture God will approve several Go­vernments in his Church, or that he hath permitted any degrees or orders [Page 18] of men to alter that which was from the beginning. This is one of the great crimes we charge upon the Pope, that he hath altered the Government of the Church, which will appear to be unjust if the Government thereof be ambulatory and ad placitum. Article what we can against him on this score, if there be no one perpetual determi­nate Government, he will easily abate the impeachment; for he will clear himself by this, that he being a Tem­poral Prince, as well as an Ecclesiasti­cal Prelate, hath power upon reasons of State and Discipline to alter the Po­lity of the Church, if God hath not fixed a constant unvariable Form; For if it be arbitrary and precarious, why should any Kingdom or State deny that power to him which they assume and usurp themselves? In a well-ordered Kingdom, he is not onely a Traitour who disclaims the jus Regnandi of his natural Liege Lord and Prince, but he also, who, without any authority de­rived from him, or contrary to his pleasure, shall presume to exercise any of his Regalities, or powers annexed to and inherent in the Crown; so they [Page 19] who will readily grant Christ to be Head of the Church, yet withall pre­tend a power to form another Govern­ment than that which he observed, and ordered in his Church, are formal Schismaticks, and Traitours to Christ the King of Kings. This is obvious if we reject the authority of the Church, we renounce Christ's authority, and if we levell and cashier the Catholick Government, we schismatically divide and so far separate from the Catholick Church; which receives that denomi­nation not onely in respect of that Faith, which is universally professed, but also of the Government, which hath been and is universally observed. It is true there are many particular Churches in the Catholick, which are distinct locally and in a foreign ac­count, but really and morally are one­ly one, because they all and each of them adhere to the one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism, and retain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace. For this distinction is not in essentials, or integrating requisites, but onely happens to them upon an extrinsecal and adventitious account, inasmuch as [Page 20] it doth not spring from any diversity or contrariety in Faith, Sacraments or Government, but doth onely accrue to them from the diversity of several Kingdoms, independent one from ano­ther, into which these are incorporated. It is true there was some distinction of Churches before the Kingdoms of the earth were Christian, yet this arose upon an accidental respect from the re­spective Plantations. There is an an­cient Tradition which is probable, that every Apostle had his peculiar circuit appointed by Christ, whereupon they, some sooner some later, dispersed them­selves into Twelve several Regions and parts in the world to fix their Planta­tions: if this be admitted, they were necessitated to suit their Rules and in­troduce such Customs as were most proper for the inhabitants and posses­sours of their several Assignments; this then will afford a probable reason of that variation of Orders and Customs in the Jewish and Gentile Plantations, who were of different tempers and principles, whom the Apostles would endeavour to please, as S. Paul witnes­seth of himself, 1 Cor. 9. 19. 20. Now [Page 21] though hereupon several circumstan­tial observations were taken up in se­veral places and Provinces; yet still the same Faith and the same Govern­ment in the main was maintained. The Conclusion then is, all the Chur­ches of Christ, Primitive or Successive, have but one Lord, one Head, one King, are but all one Body, one House, one Kingdom; therefore they all, de jure, are under one Government, which what it is, is next to be considered.

Sect. 3. That one necessary Go­vernment is Episcopacy or Prelacy, which because it hath prevailed in the Catholick Church ever since the first plantation of Christianity, is therefore undoubtedly Apostolical, and if so, then certainly Divine. To demon­strate this, the method will be to pro­duce the Evidences in order.

Num. 1. Prelacy was founded ori­ginally in the person of Christ, as the true Messiah; It was foretold, Isa. 9. 6. the Government should be on his shoul­ders, and this to be perpetual, v. 7. and this he founded in an imparity of [Page 22] Ecclesiastical Officers, settling two di­stinct Orders for Church Ministeries, the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples, which were not empty Ti­tles, but had distinct Offices, the for­mer not onely invested with dignities above the other, but with power over them; as appears by the Election of Matthias. Now Christ was entrusted with the Keys, Isa. 22. 22. and honou­red with the Sceptre, Psal. 45. 6. God committing the Government to him as the great Shepherd and Bishop of our Souls, 1 Pet. 2. 25. having the Key of David, Rev. 3. 7. This he ordered by an immutable Law, which neither could expire or be repealed. For all power was given to him both in Hea­ven and Earth, Matt. 28. 18. a power not onely to protect but to rule the Church, not onely to rule the Consci­ences of its Members, but externally to order and administer it, as a publick Society, a power to rule in himself, or by Proxy and Delegates, therefore it follows in the exhibition thereof, that charge, Go ye, &c. v. 19. without de­murr or dispute; For I have the power to commission you, and do command [Page 23] you to execute it; I have received it from my Father thus to exercise that power, and empower you, and to it I was solemnly consecrated by the des­cent of the Holy Ghost, as S. Luke ex­presseth it, Act. 10. 38. God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power, which at least im­ports thus much: As by the ceremony of anointing, God promoted persons to high Dignities and Offices; so Christ was regularly advanced to his prelati­cal Function, to be the first and chief Bishop in the Christian Church, from whose fulness all others were to receive grace for grace.

Num. 2. Christ having performed this Office in person, took care that after his Ascension into Heaven, the holy Apostles should succeed him, whom he separated for this Office, and over and above authorised them to depute and substitute others to keep the succession of Rulers. This he con­signed and passed over to them, Luk. 22. 29. I appoint you a Kingdom, as my Father hath appointed me; Ac­cordingly at the octaves of his Resur­rection [Page 24] he both confirmed them, Joh. 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me, even so I send you, and also consecra­ted them by that solemn Form ever since observed in the Catholick Church either in terms or words equivalent, ( Receive ye the Holy Ghost.) This fully conserred on them the habitual power which actually they were not licensed to exercise till (as he was) they were authorized by the descent of the Holy Ghost, and endued with power, Luk. 24. 49. which happened soon after his Ascension, Eph. 4. 11. when he took off this suspension, and at Pentecost sent the promise of the Fa­ther upon them, the Comforter, Joh. 15. 26. the Holy Ghost, Act. 1. 8. And so they were baptized with the Holy Ghost, and with Fire which sate upon each of them, Act. 2. 3. that every of them might be a respective Plenipo­tentiary in the Administration of his Kingdom. This sitting of the Fire up­on each of them as it destroyeth the Erastian Supposition (for the Apostles were neither Civilians nor common Lawyers, or Statesmen) so it prejudg­eth both the Papal and Presbyterian [Page 25] pretensions. The Papal, because it sate not upon one, (S. Peter) which might have entitled him to a Jurisdiction o­ver the rest, but upon each of them, that what power one of them had, all and each of them had. For before, Christ had warranted to them twelve Thrones, for every Apostle one, Matt. 19. 28. as Camero hath observed, that every one might enjoy the same entire authority and supremacy. The Pres­byterian, because it sate not upon all as fellow Collegues or Common-coun­cil-men, but as so many single Persons, not that they could not, or did not for a time act jointly, but that it sate up­on all and every of them; so that the power was granted to them jointly and severally, whereupon when they took their circuits to their several a­partments, they severally exercised their Function and Office. Bullinger's conjecture is, We have no Canonical Records of the Government of the Church but in the Acts of the Apostles, where the Platform is described and exemplified in the person of S. Paul, from whose example and practice we are to conclude how the rest of the [Page 26] Apostles first planted and then gover­ned the Church, Bul. part. 2. Epit. Tempor. & rerum Tab. 6. de Apostal. &c. But evident it is S. Paul acted as a single person without any dependence upon all or any of the Twelve. Therefore (if this observation hold) all the rest planted and governed severally; if this fail, the state and condition of their employment will enforce it: For if they depended, after the College was broken up, upon any one or the whole Community, they could not effectu­ally have executed their Commission, because upon every exigent, especially when they removed from one Pro­vince to another, they must have had the consent of that one, or the whole to license and authorize them, which was utterly impossible to obtain. For they then being dispersed into several Regions of great distance one from a­nother, they must give up their work till at every occasion they had received orders, whether to undertake and how to manage it. Very few or none of them knew where to find S. Peter, if they did, they had no Post-office to transmit and return expresses; and the [Page 27] College after it was dissolved, never assembled again. Impossible therefore it was for them to execute their Com­mission validly under those circumstan­ces, unless each of them had been a Plenipotentiary by the tenour thereof.

Num. 3. As Christ invested the A­postles with this power in a due subor­dination to himself, so they in virtue of his investiture were to constitute others to succeed them in the principals there­of. Confessedly the Apostolical Office was to reside in the Church for ever. So J. O. Independ. Catech. p. 119. and the ordained by them were of the same Order with them; so Wàlo, p. 43, 44, & 144. upon which account the title of Apostles was allowed in Scripture to many of those whom the Apostles had separated for the work of the Mini­stery. Calvin speaks faintly to the point on 1 Cor. 4. 9. Tales interdum vo­cat Apostolos, malo tamen, &c. yet at last he comes off more frankly, telling us plainly who those ( us Apostles last) were, Qui in ordinem Apostolicum post Christi Resurrectionem asciti fuerunt. As Apollo Sylvanus Pisc. &c. is very li­beral, [Page 28] S. Paul gave them this title, Eo quod eodem munere fungerentur. Saint James was ordained Bishop of Jerusa­lem by the Apostles in the nineteenth of Tiberius (saith Blondel in Chron. p. 43.) the next year after Christ's As­cension by his account, which, in his censure of the Pontifical Epistles, he affirms from all antiquity: and Walo, p. 20. assures us he was none of the Twelve, yet he is called an Apostle, Gal. 1. 19. which Blondel, Apol. pro sent. Hier. p. 50. thus confirms; Saint Matthew the Apostle was a Bishop, and Saint James the Bishop was called an Apostle, the Apostles as Governours over their Plantations were called Bi­shops; and Bishops with respect to the ministerial Mission were called Apo­stles. Timothy and Titus (saith Walo, p. 44.) were styled Apostles, but in very truth were Bishops by the same right, and of the same order, that those are of this day, who govern the Church, and have authority over Presbyters. This he undertakes to prove, p. 62. Bishops hold the chief degree in Eccle­siastical Order, as heretofore they did who were called Apostles, but the A­postles [Page 29] and the Presbyter-Bishops were of a distinct Order, as he labours to assert from Act. 15. 6. 22, 23. in these words, Tunc dicebatur in Conciliis ex utroque ordine compositis, &c. Then it was said of the Council moulded up of both Orders, that of the Apostles, and that of the Presbyters, id. p. 269. This he seconds with an observation from the Greek Interpreters, p. 26, 27. who concluded the Apostles were of an high­er dignity than the Presbyters, fairly resolving with them they were several Orders, p. 269. and that Ordination could not be common to both, p. 229. Cast all this together, viz. The Order of the Apostles was of higher digni­ty than that of Presbyters, the Apo­stles then were in truth Bishops, these Bishops had command over the Pres­byters, they were distinct Orders, all this in the Age of the Apostles, and that Ordination could not be common to both, the result will be, there was then a disparity in Church Officers; the identity of Name will not conclude an identity in Office; Presbyters were under the Jurisdiction of Bishops, to them, and them onely Ordination ap­pertained, [Page 30] which is to assert from Scrip­ture Diocesan Bishops in the Prelatists sense. Calvin and Beza acknowledge there is a Subordination of many Mi­nisters to one President by Divine ap­pointment, hoc fert natura, &c. This we have from nature, the disposition of men requires it. So Cal. l. 4. Inst. c. 6. sect. 8. It was, it is, and ever will be necessary, ex Ordinatione Dei per­petua, by the perpetual Ordinance of God there be one President. So Beza, defen. p. 153. But hath this President any power? yea a double power, first, regendae communis actionis jus, to go­vern the common action, summon Presbyters, appoint time and place, and propose matters, &c. The second is by authority to execute what is de­creed by common consent, Cal. l. 4. Inst. c. 4. sect. 2. But is he not capable of a standing power? yea, he may re­ceive a farther latitude from the posi­tive Laws of men, who, without any violation of Divine Ordinance, may settle it on one man for his life; For either in the days of the Apostles or immediately after, the Episcopal Office became elective and perpetual to one [Page 31] man. Quod certè reprehendi nec potest, nec debet, Bez. defens. p. 141. & inde. But is not the application hereof mere­ly humane? No, not wholly, huma­num, non simpliciter tamen sed, &c. I may call it humane, not simply but comparatively, without any injury to the Fathers, or so many Churches. In good time! The consectary of this (if I mistake not) is, to reject this Presi­dentiary-power, as such, is repugnant to God's Ordinance, to reject it upon the form of application is an injury to the Fathers and many Churches; It is necessary from nature and the Divine Institution, and the fixing of it in one person for life, to distinct acts and pur­poses, is Apostolical either in the Apo­stles Age, or immediately thereupon, and is Catholick ever since. Very right, for the conceit of a successive annual Presidency held by turns, is both novel, never any Church for 1500 years received it, and also parti­cular, those who after did, are so few, that 500 for one have opposed it. All antiquity hath avouched several per­sons whose names are found in the Scriptures to have been Bishops. These [Page 32] names following are in the Scripture, and Ancients of undoubted credit have averred them for Bishops, as,

1. James, sirnamed the Just, to have been Bishop of Jerusalem, we have Blondel's Testimony for this from an­tiquity.

2. Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, the Post-scripts (which Beza saith were to be seen in all the Manuscripts he could meet with) of the Epistles directed to him, which if authentick, strongly prove this; if they be suspec­ted, these great names will make it good, Epiph. Hier. Chrys. Aug. Doroth. in Synop. who lived in Dioclesian's time. Euseb. l. 3. Eccl. Hist. c. 4. to whose authorities Bucer. in 4. ad Ephes. Pel­lican. in 1 Tim. 1. Zwinglius de Eccles. and Walo, as before is cited, have sub­scribed; but that which fully clears it, is, that the Fathers assembled in Coun­cil at Chalcedon have witnessed that untill their time twenty seven Bishops had successively sate at Ephesus from Timothy; where it was granted so ma­ny there were, though it was dispu­ted whether all of them in that time [Page 33] were ordained at Ephesus, or some of them ordained at Constantinople.

3. Titus was Bishop, Prelate of Crete, as the Scripture declareth, Tit. 1. where the two claimed Prela­tical powers are found to be settled on him; that of Ordination, vers. 5. in every City of that Territory or Regi­on, and that of Jurisdiction in the same verse, to set in order the things that are wanting or left undone, as we translate the words, but [...], may rightly be rendred, Correct things out of order; which supposeth a power to censure, and reform irregularities. The voice of Antiquity is clear here, Theod. Hier. Chrys. the Scholiast, &c. of both of them we have good warran­ty for their authority over the Clergy. S. Paul, 1 Tim. 1. 3. besought Timothy to send out a prohibition against false teachers, and he commanded Titus sharply to rebuke vain talkers and de­ceivers, and if they will prate on, to stop their mouths, and to silence them, Titus 1. 11, 12, 13.

4. Onesimus spoken of, Col. 4. 9. and Philem. 10. was from a Servant to S. Paul advanced to be Deacon, Hier. [Page 34] advers. er. Joh. Hier. and from a Dea­con to be Bishop, Euseb. l. 3. c. 30.

5. Linus, mentioned 2 Tim. 4. 21. and Clemens, Phil. 4. 3. were Bishops of Rome by universal Tradition. Diodate upon these words [ my yoke-fellow and fellow-labourer] notes, The Apostle here speaks to the chief Pastour, who was to reade the Epistles directed to him in the publick Assembly, Bidel. Exerc. in Ign. Ep. c. 3. is very clear. Cle­mens after the death of Linus and Cletus, being the onely survivor, alone retai­ned the name of Bishop, all others be­ing styled barely Presbyters, for which he assigns these reasons; First, for that he alone remained of all the fellow-la-bourers with the Apostles; Secondly, because the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters then prevailed. This was in the Apostles times, for Clemens was Bishop of Rome, an. 94. as Gualt. rec­kons in his Chronol. when Simon the Canaanite was living, as Bulling. thinks in his Annot. in Tab. 6. certainly S. John was, for he died not till an. 102. the ninth and last year of Clemens.

6. Simeon, named, Act. 15. 14. (af­ter his Kinsman James the Brother of [Page 35] our Lord was martyred) consecrated his Successour at Jerusalem, an. 63, or 64. Euseb. l. 3. c. 10. and 16. so that for full eleven years he was of an infe­riour Order, for so many passed after the mention of him in the Acts.

7. Dionysius spoken of, Act. 17. 24. was the first Bishop of Athens, Euseb. l. 3. c. 4.

To these may be added Archippus Bishop of Coloss; Apollo of Corinth; Epaphroditus of Philippi; Tychicus of Chalcedon; Sylvanus, Sosthenes, &c. but it will be sufficient to review the Cata­logue of the four Patriarchal Sees.

1. After James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, fourteen of the Circumcisi­on succeeded him, Euseb. l. 4. 5. where­of Justus was the last, who died an. 131. which is full twenty years before Blondel's Ara.

2. At Antioch, after S. Peter, Euo­dius was Bishop till an. 98, then Igna­tius till an. 108; after him Cornelius, who died before 140.

3. Eight successive Bishops sate at Rome till 140. in which year Higinus was consecrated Antonini Pii Tertio.

[Page 36]4. At Alexandria five are accounted from S. Mark, the last whereof, Eu­manes, was ordained, an. 134.

Num. 4. That all these had the same power which is now claimed by Bishops is evident from Rev. 1. 20. where, as the seven Angels of the Asi­an Churches are distinguished from the Churches, so every of those Angels had a power of Jurisdiction in their respec­tive Churches to redress abuses. For why should they be particularly taxed for scandals and irregularities therein if they had no power to reform and re­medy them? It seems too severe to charge neglects on them, who have no power to take cognizance of crimes and to correct them. That those Asi­an Churches were fixed and determi­nate, distinct Churches, the Presbyte­rians cannot deny, who affirm they were governed by Presbyters; for that must needs be a determinate Body which is governed by one or by many. The Independents shift (we find here a Congregational Church wherein were many Congregations, many Mi­nisters, many Believers, many Pastours) [Page 37] is frivolous; for there might, and ma­ny such there were, yet these might be and were under one President over them in Chief; for such as these many are to be found in our Cities where there are Bishops to rule them, and it is evident that those Prefects were and did exercise authority over both Laity and Clergy, from the rule given to Timothy by S. Paul before alledged. John Frigivile of Gaunt writ his Reform. Pol. an. 1593 wherein he avers, p. 64, &c. Q. Elizabeth maintained the Go­vernment and State of the Clergy in England as God had ordained in the Law, and confirmed in the Gospel; for said he, p. 14. Though the Apostles were equal among themselves concer­ning authority, yet no sooner was the Church encreased but different degrees began: S. Paul charged Timothy (who was Bishop of one of those Seven Chur­ches) not to admit an accusation against a Priest; therefore he might admit or reject an accusation against a Priest, and therefore he had Jurisdiction even over a Priest. Dr. Raynolds's Confe­rence with Hart, p. 535. thus states it, In the Church at Ephesus were sundry [Page 38] Elders and Pastours to guide it, yet a­mong those sundry there was one Chief, whom our Saviour calleth the Angel of the Church, (here then is our Sa­viour's approbation for the Chiefty of the Order) and this is he, whom, af­terwards in the Primitive Church, the Fathers called Bishop.

Num. 5. The Apostles having or­dained Bishops to succeed them in the Government of the Church, they who were so ordained were thereby autho­rized to ordain others, and so on to the end of the world, Matt. 28. ult. which in the judgment of the best In­terpreters imports, Though the Apo­stles continued not in their Persons, yet should in their Successours. That there should be such a Succession is concluded from Scripture, Act. 1. 20. must one be ordained to take Judas his Bishoprick, which by Divine disposi­tion fell upon Matthias, who (as Eu­seb. reports l. 2. c. 1.) was of the Seventy, an inferiour because a distin­guished Rank to that of the Apostles, which seems probable from v. 21. it being the employment of the Seventy [Page 39] to accompany and attend them. Saint Paul appointed Timothy to depute faith­full persons to officiate in the Church, 2 Tim. 2. 2. yea so great care had the Apostles for a Succession, that, as Cle­mens reports, they Note, Lift, or Catalogue of approved men who should succeed the present Bishops in each Church.

Num. 6. In the Apostles times, cer­tainly immediately after, there were three Orders in the Church, not as Calvin (who first conjured up Lay-Elders to be his officious Agitatours) recites them, nor as Mr. Dallee conjec­tures, but as they are accounted in the Church of England, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. Indeed it is very likely there was first but one Order, the A­postolical or Episcopal, the Apostles or Bishops, discharging all Church Admi­nistration and Offices. But they ha­ving a power entire in themselves and radically, they were enabled to derive and communicate what they thought fit for the necessities of the Church to others: Accordingly the Church in­creasing, as it is recorded in the Acts, [Page 40] the Order of Deacons was instituted, who were not empowered onely to collect, receive and distribute Alms to the necessities of the poor, but to high­er Ecclesiastical Offices. For we find Philip both preached and baptized. Acts 8. 35, 38. That this Philip was not the Apostle, but the Deacon; Cal­vin thinketh so, because he supposeth the Apostles were not then removed from Jerusalem; Gualter is positive from the Testimony of Epiph. de Sim. &c. and all ancient Writers. Certainly Saint Cypr. ad jub. is clear; A Philippo Diacono, quem iidem Apo­stoli (Petrus scil. & Johannes) mise­rant, baptizati erant. Beza, recko­ning the Pastoral Offices and duties, adds, Sub quibus, &c. under which we comprehend the Administration of Sa­craments and the blessing of Marriage, from the perpetual use of the Church, in which particulars, the Deacons of­ten supplied the place of the Pastours, so he, Confess. c. 5. Aphor. 25. This he attempts to prove from Joh. 4. 2. 1 Cor. 1. 14. with him concurrs Bull. Fleming. Magdab. who all received it from Just. Mar. Ambr. Hter. Aug. the Greek Par. [Page 41] and Tert. who is most express, Dandi quidem, &c. The chief Priest, that is, the Bishop hath the first right of admi­nistring Baptism, then the Presbyters and Deacons. How long these two Orders continued in the Church is not fully resolved; Some conceive from Act. 14. 23. about an. 49. Claudii Sep­timo, the third Order, that of Pres­byter was superinduced; others con­jecture not so early: however Cities and their Territories submitting to the Sceptre of Christ, Presbyters were con­stituted before all the Apostles died, yet the Bishops still reserved the pow­er of Ordination, and by consequence of Jurisdiction, as in the Greek Chruch even to this day. Bishops alone Or­dain, as Arcud. de Concord. l. 6. c. 4. sect. Igitur, observes. Indeed in the Latin Church Presbyters did lay on hands with the Bishop at the Ordina­tion of a Presbyter, yet this was ob­served, not for its validity, but for its solemnity and attestation. For the A­frican Fathers who ordered it, ascribed the entire power to the Bishop, Cod. Afric. c. 55. 80. and even at Rome be­sore S. John's death Presbyters were [Page 42] settled in several Parishes by Enaristus. Caron. p. 44. and therefore we may be­lieve before that the same was done in earlier converted Churches. Mr. Toung in his Notes on S. Clem. 1. Ep. ad Cor. out of a Book which Mr. Petty brought from Greece hath this Sentence, S. Pe­ter was in Britain, [...], settled Churches by laying hands on Bishops, Priests and Deacons. It will not be amiss to superadd how far the Waldenses concurred in judg­ment upon this case with the Church of England, which we find Parsons third part of the Three Conversions of England, cap. 3. p. 44. who relates from Ʋrspurg. Trithem. Antomin. and others that they onely approved three Eccle­siastical Orders (at which his tender Conscience was moved) viz. That of Deaconship, Priesthood and Bishops; which is very probable, for the Fratres Bohemi, to continue a succession of Bi­shops, sent twelve men to the Walden­ses in Austria to be ordained Bishops by their Bishops, which was accor­dingly done, and Corranus, a Spaniard, one of the Waldenses flying thence in­to [Page 43] England was retained a Preacher at the Temple, and dedicated a Dialogue to the Lawyers there, an. 1574. in the close whereof he maketh a confessi­on of his Faith, where he declares his judgment herein, I hold (saith he) there be divers Orders of Ministers in the Church of God, viz. Some are Dea­cons, some Priests, some Bishops, to whom the instruction of the People and the care of Religion is committed. This we are sure of, S. Bernard complains heavily many Bishops were of their Communi­on. This was the primitive Establish­ment, Conc. Cart. 3. and 4. Chal. Act. 1. for which reason Nazian. in Vita Basil. enforms us, that he rose to his Bishoprick [...], By the order and rule of spiritual ascent, one degree after ano­ther: So S. Hier. writes of Nepot. in Ep. Fit Clericus & per solitos gradus, &c.

Num. 7. If S. Augustine's known and generally approved rule be admit­ted, then the Order of Bishops is truly Apostolical, because maintained in all Apostolical Chruches, before any ge­neral Council had determined it; And [Page 44] Tert. his Sorites will make it good, which was, that is truest which is first; that is first which was from the begin­ning; that was from the beginning which was from the Apostles; that was from the Apostles which was in­violably and religiously observed in all Apostolical Churches: Calvin speaks fairly to the case, and so doth Beza too, (if their words may be taken who have tricks to eat them in) the former saith, the Bishops of the anci­ent Church made many Canons with that circumspection they had nothing almost contrary to the word of God in their whole Oeconomy, l. 4. Instit. c. 1. sect. 14. but more fully thus, they did not frame any other form of Government in the Church than that which God prescribed in his word. The latter averreth, what was then done was done optimo Zelo; if so, then they did it from warranty either from the Scripture or universal Tradition. S. Hierome himself once said, it was an Apostolical Tradition, and when he said it was a Custome, he proved it a good one, because ordered for a good end, as a safe remedy against Schism; [Page 45] and an Apostolical Custome, because taken in the Apostles times, when one said, I am of Paul, &c. which happe­ned an. 58. The disparity of Bishops and Priests was so religiously maintai­ned in the primitive Church, that the Fathers in the Council of Chalc. Act. 1. adjudged it sacrilege to bring down a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter, and the Doctrine of parity was con­demned as flat Heresie in Aerius, be­cause he positively affirmed that there was but [...], &c. one Order, one Honour, one Dignity, in the Priest­hood. Dr. Crack Defens. Eccl. Anglic. contra Arch. Spal. p. 242, 243. Bishops then as they were settled in matricibus Ecclesiis, the Apostolical mother Chur­ches, so have been continued in all suc­cessive Ages without any considerable opposition for 1500 years, which is so strong and cogent an argument to some who have not been over-fond of Episcopacy, they have resolved it un­answerable, since, the Order hath been canvassed by some, yet is still retained either in the Name, or Thing in all the Eastern and Southern Churches; generally in the Western and Northern, [Page 46] reformed and others, unless in two or three petty Associations in comparison of the rest, where by reason of some cross circumstances it cannot be obtai­ned, though highly approved and much affected by most of their learned men, never disowned or abominated by any but those whose zeal for the good Old Cause is immoderate, S. Augustine's ex­pression, insolentissima insania, insolent madness.

Num. 8. If these Structures be built upon the Foundation of the Apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner Stone, the Fabrick is as firm as Mount Sion which may not be remo­ved. For if the Apostles did settle Bi­shops in their several Plantations, and these such as the Prelatists plead for, then that is the one necessary Govern­ment to be retained in the Church. For the Apostles being inspired by the Holy Ghost, they did then act and order the Church according to his di­rections. Amesius himself resolves, what is Apostolical Stands by Divine Right, his words are, Med. Theol, l. 2. c. 15. n. 28. The Apostles were acted [Page 47] by the Divine Spirit no less in their Institutions than in the very Doctrine of the Gospel propounded by word or writing. This he delivers to assert the Divine Authority and unalterableness of the Lord's day, and will therefore hold here. For if Episcopacy stand in the Church by the same authority that the Lord's day doth, which Dr. Ham­mond hath fully proved, then it hath the same Divine Authority for its Esta­blishment. This King James saw, and so, Premonition, p. 44. is very positive, That Bishops ought to be in the Church I always maintained as an Apostolical Order, and so the Ordinance of God. The Dissenters, who allow of Church Government as such, have often decla­red what concerns the rule of Govern­ment in the Church by Officers ap­pointed by Christ is unchangeable. Now that the Bishops are those Officers hath been evidenced from Scripture Rules and Precedents, and confirmed by the suffrage of a cloud of Witnesses, who as they accord in their Testimo­nies, so were faithfull unto death; some whereof were the chosen Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection; some were im­mediate [Page 48] Successours to those ordained by the Apostles; others of the highest reputation in the Church, for testifiers of Catholick Tradition; all of them had, and still have such credit in the Christian world, that their attestation hath ever since been reverenced and accepted in momentous matters of Re­ligion, such as the religious observati­on of the Lord's day, the number and integrity of the Canonical Books of holy Scripture, the Baptism of In­fants, &c. Episcopacy at least stands upon the same grounds with these, if these upon the true measures of Piety and Religion be not alterable, neither is it. The most learned of the Dissenters have been forced to use the same proofs for these which we do for Episcopacy, when they have not done so, they have been baffled in a good cause, as hereafter may be exemplified. The Conclusion then is, to attempt a Refor­mation of Episcopacy by its extermi­nation is contrary to the sure and stan­ding Rules of Christianity.

CHAP. III.

THIS is farther to be discussed in point of prudence, whether the change or standing thereof will conduce more to the publick interest, which may be dispatched by these ob­servations.

SECT. 1. They who to the dimi­nution or abolition of Episcopacy, have or would set up new models of Church Government, are either the Erastians, the Presbyterians, the Independents or the Pontificians. The three former were hatched since an. 1510. the last was long of hammering, but was ne­ver rightly cast till Julius the Second moulded it at Lateran, and of a crackt piece made it whole. Now every of these will prefer Episcopacy, caeteris paribus, before any of the other Plat­forms but their own espoused Darling, which they would have all to accept, because complying with and favouring their wordly designs and interests. But ask seriously any of the more observing [Page 50] and understanding men, which of the Claimers they would rather incline to, provided they could not possibly pro­cure their own to bear the sway, they will fairly take to Episcopacy.

Num. 1. The Erastians will by no means joyn with the Pontificians, be­cause they challenge and usurp a pow­er to take cognizance in causes merely Civil, in ordine ad spiritualia: Not with the Presbyterians, because they also claim the same, sub formalitate Scandali, both of them maintain the power both of make and confirm Ec­clesiastical Laws as originally and ra­dically in their supreme Judicatures; the Civil Magistrate is onely to exe­cute them, which he must doe upon their Significavit's and Writs of Requi­sition at his peril, otherwise he shall be clogged with their Sentences of Ex­communication. Nor do they much fansie the Independents, because they will not endure the Civil Magistrate to interpose in Church matters, nor have the least stroke in externals of Religion. As for the Bishops, though it be a grievance that they sometimes [Page 51] meddle in matters of a mixt nature, yet because they know, that what they act in these cases is by authority deri­ved from the Civil Magistrate, accor­ding to the known standing Laws, they esteem Episcopacy as the most safe and expedient form; and so Bishops may stand for the present, till they can by rebellion grasp again all Civil and Ec­clesiastical power in their clutches.

Num. 2. Independents utterly dis­like both Erastians and Pontificians, and though they can associate with the Presbyterians at present, yet they hold no good opinion of them. In a Book entituled, Saint John Baptist, they heavily declaim against them, saying, They had established a Dagon in Christ's Throne, had stinted the whole wor­ship of God, &c. at last it came to this, they had rather the French King, yea the Great Turk should rule over them. In a Book called, The Arraignment of Persecution, they declared, If ever the Presbyterians rule in chief, an higher persecuting spirit would be found in them than they had felt from the Bi­shops: J. O. hath excellently decyphe­red these. [Page 52] Num. 3. The Presbyterians grin at them all. Beza is as angry at Erastus, Socinus and Morellius, as the Pope; Mr. Henderson's tender Conscience started at the thought of them. The Books are commonly to be had, where­in they oft and sadly complained, all that they could expect for their expen­ces of Bloud and Treasure (none of their own) was to be recompensed with greater grievances, and more dangerous licentiousness (which is too true) than they ever mourned for (which is very false, for most of them were colloguing compliers) under the Government of King and Bishops. At last they cried out, Matters were come to that pass, they had exchanged a bad Religion for none at all. See Excom. Excom. p. 18. & inde. And Edwards his Gangrene.

Num. 4. The Papists of all men had the advantage, but the more so­ber considering men among them, have expressed, That all their purcha­ses of Proselytes were no compensati­on for those miseries they had sustai­ned, [Page 53] and still feared from the Junto's, and that they were much more happy under the former Government which secured their civil Liberties and Birth­rights.

SECT. 2. But let it be for once pre­sumed, that each of those Models had somewhat good, yet withall recollect that the Constitution of this Church is of so excellent a mixture with the choi­cest ingredients, that it will effect those great ends so much pretended by them more strongly and obligingly, if it may attain its just value and respect. For,

Num. 1. The Erastians are to be commended for their pretended care and endeavours that the power of the Civil Magistrate be not infringed by any Ecclesiastical Usurpation. So far good, if they were not possessed, or rather pretend onely to be, with fears and jealousies, that this Church appro­ved some principle to the diminution of the Civil Power, which what it is none can with any colour of reason conjecture, unless this be it, that whilst [Page 54] she fully renders to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; she is still cautious to reserve to God the things that are God's. Erastus the first Founder of that Order had no prejudice against any thing determined in this Church upon that score, if we respect either the motives which induced him to quarrel the Allobrogian Model, or the Arguments he framed against it.

CHAP. IV.

THE next thing canvassed in this Church, is the constituted Wor­ship of God by Liturgy with Ceremo­nies and Holy-days.

SECT. 1. If it can be evinced, that prescribed Forms were used in the Three first Centuries, it will follow in the judgment of all unprejudiced per­sons they are still to be practised and imposed.

Num. 1. Our Lord and Saviour prescribed a Form to his Disciples, Matt. 6. 9. [...], &c. not onely for the Matter but very Form; for this [...], &c. is the same with that, Numb. 6. 23. according to the Septua­gint, which did not respect onely the Substance but the Words as they were dictated. S. Luke makes it clear, When ye pray, say. Verba & recitationem certam praescribit, saith Melanch. he gave them an Express, saith Diod. long before them S. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. [Page 86] Christ consulting the salvation of his people delivered them, Etiam orandi Formam; and before him Tert. de Or. c. 1, 9. Novam, &c. he ordered a new Form of Prayer; and before them both in Trajan's Reign, the Christians ordi­narily used it, as our Greg. observ'd from Lucian. The Context will con­firm the interpretation, for it is gene­rally received, the Jewish Teachers did compose Forms for their Disciples. S. John Baptist did, whereupon Christ's Disciples moved him also for a Form, Luk. 11. 1. that thereby they might be owned for such. In compliance where­to our Saviour granted their Petition, yet with that caution to decline no­velty, that he took much of it from the Jewish Euchologue, as not onely our Greg. hath noted, but Drusius also and Capellus: plain it is from the man­ner of its composure, it was not deli­vered as a Directory, but as a Liturgy, not onely as a Rule to form our Prayers by, but a form to pray in: good rea­sons also there are to persuade us, not­withstanding the silence of the Scrip­ture, that the Disciples constantly so used it; for it was a Symbol of their [Page 87] Discipleship, not unto them as com­mon Jews, who onely used the Church Ritual, but as Christ's retainers, whose privilege and honour it was to have a Form of his setting; they under this relation moved him for a Form, in or­der to its observation, and to discrimi­nate them from other Jews or Disciples of other Masters.

Num. 2. Our Saviour himself prac­tised composed Forms, Matt. 26. 30. which Cam. assures us was the solemn customary Hymn which concluded the Supper; and it is the more probable, because the Disciples joyned with Christ in it, which they could not have done, unless they had been well acquainted with it. Again he used the same pray­er thrice, Matt. 26. 44. so upon his complaint upon the Cross he used the words of David, Psal. 22. 1. and when he gave up the Ghost, Luk. 23. 46. he took a Form from, Psal. 31. 7.

Num. 3. We have the Presidents of S. Peter and S. John attending the or­dinary service, Acts 3. 1. which the circumstances of time and place do [Page 88] evince; for if they neglected the daily Service, or used any other, they would have given an offence to the Jews, whose conversion they endeavoured; this is confirmed from that observati­on of learned men, that the first Chri­stians accommodated all their Offices to the Jewish Ritual, and revived the moral Service of God practised in the Jewish Church, which was always by a determinate Form, saith Capel. from Maim. Syn. Crit. in Loc. and appears from Luk. 1. 10. compared with Rev. 8. 4. for at the time of Incense they had three Forms called, Emeth, Gnabo­ah and Shemshalom, because they be­gan with these words; Lightf. Desc. of the Temple Service: Mr. Selden in his Notes on Eut. p. 41. from Maim. relates, The Jews were permitted to have their voluntary prayers, yet not on the Sabbath and Feast days, nor with the solemn appointed Sacrifices, because prescribed Prayers were then to be observed, but onely at the Free­will Offerings, and then too with these restrictions, they should not be extem­porary, but prepared Prayers, nor were they permitted to the whole [Page 89] Congregation which was tied up to the daily Offices. Those places of Saint Paul, Eph. 3. 19. Col. 3. 16. are a plain reference to the Jewish practice, for there he useth those three Greek words by which the Septuagint renders the three Hebrew Mismorim, Tehillath or Rabbinice (as Buxt.) Tehillim and Shi­rim: Diod. interprets this Text by re­ference to Psal. 55. 17. as others to Dan. 6. 10.

Num. 4. Primitive practice is de­duced,

1. From Acts 13. 2. where the Church is said to be solemnly at her Liturgy, ministring, not to the people by Alms or other acts of Charity, but to God in the acts of his Worship, in publick Prayers and other parts of the Evange­lical Ministery, saith Diod. This is a­greeable to that Text, Acts 2. 42. which in Mr. Calvin's judgment delineates the true state of the Church, treating of publick Prayers. And to that, Acts 4. 24. when the hundred and twenty Converts prayed unanimously and u­niformly, there were no dissenters a­mongst them, nor mutes, all joyned [Page 90] and all in one Form, and this a set Form as it is set down in the Text.

2. From 1 Cor. 11. 5. every man and woman, &c. This at first sight is obvious, all of both Sexes prayed and prophesied; and from the Context this was done in the publick Assemblies when the Church met, v. 20. and this according to an Apostolical Tradition, which S. Paul charged them to keep, v. 2. (But what then is this praying and prophesying?)

1. This praying here is not by an extemporary faculty or volubility of language, it may be questioned whe­ther that was then in use, for if when S. Paul, Rom. 12. Gal. 5. Eph. 4. 1 Cor. 12. enumerated the gifts of the Spirit he gave a full Catalogue thereof, then this pretended gift is begged, because no such is mentioned in that Company; that of praying by the Spirit, 1 Cor. 14. 15. was praying in an unknown Tongue, v. 14. which required an in­terpreter; however this be, those gifts were not common to all Believers, nei­ther was any of them communicated to select persons for popularity and ostentation, but for profit and edifica­tion; [Page 91] yea, their proper purpose was to prevent that licentiousness that was taken from the pretence thereof, and even to restrain arbitrary prayers, and to confine the gifted to such suggesti­ons as the holy Spirit dictated to them; this is evident, the Apostle censures some of the pretenders for clashing one with another, 1 Cor. 14. 21. it was ne­ver heard that the Spirit was given to any to pray upon their own heads, or according to their own lusts, interests and passions; but supposing there were such a gift, yet it was not to be used at every meeting; for if an Interpreter were wanting at any such meeting, then all they had to doe was either to resort to the Common Prayers or to break up and be gone: neither lastly was this gift given promiscuously to all of all Sexes, it being pretended as a peculiar to the Minister, or some inspi­red person endowed therewith, there­fore praying here must be praying in the Church, v. 20. 22. by the Churches prayers according to the order and cu­stome thereof, 1 Cor. 14. 40. and then the meaning is, Every man or woman meeting at the Church or observing [Page 92] the customary constituted devotions ought to be thus habited and thus to demean themselves.

2. By Prophesying here we are not to understand prediction of future e­vents, nor the gift of interpreting what was spoken by the gift of Tongues, 1 Cor. 14. v. 2, 3. nor for speaking to men for edification, 1 Cor. 12. 29. all are not Prophets; nor is it to be taken passively, as some imagine, for hearing a Prophecy, for then every one that hears a Prophecy is a Prophet; and by the same reason, every one that hears a Sermon is a Preacher; and a reason ought to be rendred why praying should not be interpreted passively as well as prophesying, but the notion here is the same with that of, 1 Sam. 10. 5. 1 Chron. 25. 1. Luk. 1. 67. for singing Psalms and Hymns, so the sense is perspicuous ( viz.) Let every man and woman singing and praising God in the Church, appear in such ha­bits as are suitable to their Sex. This should not seem odd to them who al­low all to sing, but silence the whole Congregation in the act of Prayer, be­cause in such singing the Psalms which [Page 93] are used contain in them prayers, sup­plications, intercessions and thanksgi­vings; but others are verily persuaded that all both men and women have joynt interest in the publick Service of God with the officiating Ministers, who as they are for order's sake to di­rect and lead the Congregation, so all assembled have their parts to act. A bare corporal presence is mockery and dalliance, an Eye or Ear service will never be accepted as the reasonable service of God. Thus it hath been from the beginning (which is our Sa­viour's way of arguing, Matt. 19. 8.) ever since men called upon the name of the Lord; for thus it was practised in the Patriarchal ages, as our Greg. hath exemplified, p. 120, 121. Under the Law examples are numerous, Ex. 15. 1. 1 Chron. 15. 36. and 29. 20. 2 Chron. 6. 29. the manner is descri­bed, Ez. 3. 10, 11. and the practice proved, Psal. 34. 3. and 107. 8, 15, 21, 31. Mr. Selden observes, the Eighteen composed Prayers by Ezra began with that, Psal. 51. 15. O Lord open thou our Lips, to which the People answe­red, And our mouths shall shew forth [Page 94] thy praise, the very Form retained in S. James his Liturgy, which is very much for its credit, and in ours soon after the beginning. S. Paul urgeth it as a Gospel duty, Rom. 15. 6. to glori­fie God, not with distracted or divided minds, but, with one mind, not that of the Minister onely, but of all as one in consort, for that form v. 11. (viz.) Praise ye the Lord, was the Peoples Hallelujah: our Saviour with the Dis­ciples sung the great one, on which Musculus observes, Ipse ita praelocutus est ut verba illius fuerunt excepta & vicissim reddita; just as the people with us, repeat the Confession, Lord's Pray­er, &c. S. Paul reports the unlearned had his Amen to give in at the Eucha­rist, but probably he did more in the other Offices, if we believe Just. Mart. Apol. 2. sub fin. [...], &c. where he distinguisheth between the joynt Prayers of Priest and People, and those peculiar and proper to the Mini­ster, his part lay in those Offices which solely depended on the power of the Keys, as Absolution, Consecration of the Elements and Benediction; the rest which had no such relation were [Page 95] common both to Minister and People, who were to accompany him (as it is expressed in the introduction to our Liturgy) with an humble voice, Cum disciplina & modestis precibus, as Saint Cypr. Or. Dom. and as Ter. de Or. c. 13. Sonos etiam vocis subjectos, &c. both of them commending a modest sub­miss rehearsal of the Prayers with the Minister who speaks them out audibly, and both of them condemning the ob­streperous bold vociferations of rude men, who observed no decorum, where­of it seems such there were at that time. Yet for once let it be supposed, the People onely expressed Amen at the Minister's prayer, this could not be ra­tionally done to an extempore effusion; because they could not doe it with un­derstanding, this they could not be­cause they were not acquainted with the Schediast's sense, for whilst the un­derstanding is in labour rightly to ap­prehend what he means, no rational judgment can be passed till after some pause and deliberation upon what is de­livered, and whilst its thus employed, the Schediast in his post haste is so far gone, that either he cannot attend to [Page 96] what he next delivereth, or he is at a loss of what he hath delivered, and then all that he can doe is either to fall to his study or take all upon an impli­cit Faith; which if he do, he must say Amen to contradictions, absurdities and wickedness. This is one foul piece of Popery, to put all devotion on the Priest, for when 1 Cor. 14. is urged against the Papists for their prayers in an unknown Tongue, the best answer that is given by their Controvertists and Commentatours is, Populus est par­ticeps omnium precum quas pro omni­bus fundit Sacerdos; for that the Priest speaketh not to Men but to God, and the ministerial Office would be dange­rously invaded, if the people be per­mitted to utter any thing more than a bare Amen.

SECT. 2. The Testimonies of the Second Century will be revered by all sober men, as that of Enaristus, who ordered that Marriage should be solem­nized with the prayers of the Church; that of Clemens, Ep. 1. ad Cor. We ought to doe all things according to order, at set hours to frequent and solemnize the [Page 97] oblation and Liturgy, answerable to S. Paul's [...], that of Just. Mart. as before, We all arise to common pray­er: Ignat. in Ep. ad Magn. Telesphorus, an. 139. ordained that at publick pray­ers, the people should sing that Hymn, viz. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord, &c. Soter. an. 164. that when the Priest said, The Lord be with you, the People should answer, And with thy Spirit: Scaliger de Emend. Tem. l. 7. tells us of an anci­ent Liturgy he had lying by him of Ignatius his composing, as he is under­stood by a learned man.

SECT. 3. For the Third Century Tertul. is express, as is before noted; so is S. Cypr. who profeffeth, Publica nobis, &c. We have publick Common Prayer, and that the people may be devout at it, the Priest prepares their minds with this Preface, Sursum corda, Lift up your hearts, whereto they an­swer, We lift them up to the Lord, O­rigen. l. 6. cont. Cels. reports the Chri­stians used constituted prescribed pray­ers, one Form whereof he mentions in terms; Hom. 11. in Jer. we frequently say in our prayers; O Almighty God, [Page 98] give us a part with the Prophets, &c. and we have a remarkable story of his great affection for them, which lies thus, apud Eus. l. 6. c. 3. Leonides his Father being beheaded by the Empe­rour Severus, and his Estate confisca­ted, Origen, not being then full eigh­teen years old, he with his Mother and six other Brethren were left to the wide world. It pleased God a noble Lady entertained and supplied him, who also had retained one Marcus, an Antiochi­an, whom she respected for his famed faculty in extempore praying, in which she was delighted; whereupon at her house frequent meetings were had, to which not onely the Hereticks (the Non-conformists) but many of our own Conformists resorted, yet for all the favours Origen received from her, he would never be persuaded to be pre­sent at their Conventicles, because from his Childhood (it seems his Parents were religious true Sons of the Church) he had observed [...], the Order of the Church, and perfectly hated all Doctrines of errours. Hippo­lytus writ his Orat. de Consum. Mundi, about an. 220. wherein he saith, Ad [Page 99] Antichristi tempora, &c. in the last times of Antichrist, the holy Houses shall be like Cottages, [...], Liturgy shall be extinguished, &c. This was fully put in execution by our late Bandities upon the pretence of the feared (though most knavishly) and suspected introduction of Tyranny and Popery.

SECT. 4. We produce good reasons, as well as good rules and great autho­rities, for set Forms.

1. An arbitrary form by a new set of words may perhaps affect and work strangely upon the sensitive Soul, as the frantick feats of the Turkish Dervi­ses do on those miserable deluded peo­ple; phrases and variety of them with cadencies, affected tones and gestures, wry mouths and twinkling eyes, with much sweat and noise, may raise the humours and passions into disorder, but they can never prevail with a ra­tional considering man to gain his e­steem, unless it be to pity them or smile at them. That which they e­steem as a gift is rather an art by the dilatation of the animal spirits, which [Page 100] are much pleased and raised by a de­light in novelty and variety, and oft puts the Soul into strange heats and fancies.

2. To borrow three from Mr. Cal­vin, Ep. 87.

1. A determinate Form from which Ministers are not to vary in their Of­fices, is usefull as an help to the weak­ness of some; he might have said of the many, yea the most, if not all.

2. It is a Testimony of the Chur­ches consent and unity; he might have added of her conformity with the Ca­tholick Church.

3. It is a way to stop the desultori­ous levity of those who are for new things; Mr. Baxter will help him here, who in his Disp. of Lit. Prop. 10. in his great experience, acknowledgeth, the constant disuse of set Forms is apt to breed a giddiness in Religion, and it may make men Hypocrites, who shall delude themselves with fancies, that they delight in God, when it is but in those novelties and varieties of expression. Indeed extempore prayers are strong delusions in several respects, For,

[Page 101]1. The most prudent and cunning sort of the pretenders to this faculty use study and premeditation, which they conceive necessary to pray seaso­nably, yet here lies the cheat, they would have their herd to take their composed Forms as issues of their sud­den conceptions. A great man of the Faction freely imparted his mind here­in to a Friend, saying, He had so ma­ny Forms lying by him, most of which being committed to memory, by the interchangeable use of them, he was thought by the people always to pray without premeditation, Engl. Reprover, p. 153. This is just si vuli populus decipi decipiatur, a Puritan pia fraus.

2. The Zealots of the Sect honour an honest unpremeditated prayer with the title of Spiritual, by way of propriety, in opposition to set Forms for ordinary use, pretending the Spirit immediate­ly suggests the expressions. Thus Am­brose in his experiences published with Licence from Herle once Prolocutor of their Assembly, Angier, Johnson and Waite, Provincials in the Class in Lan­cashire upon a private Fast observed, Jan. 6. 1642. held it forth, The Lord [Page 102] gave some that exercised that day the very spirit and power of prayer, to the ravishment of the hearers; surely it was the Spirit spake in them, which they resolved from Zach. 12. 10. Rom. 8. 26. This is a Jesuitical Cheat, as it is reported by Maffeus, elevante spi­ritu, &c. that the Spirit would raise Ignatius at his prayers four cubits from the earth.

3. The great Sticklers for the good old Cause so highly extoll extempore conceptions, that they own them as the best evidences of their Party and Piety; first idolizing that which in some is mere natural, in others an ar­tificial habit of Enthusiasm, as Casau­bon hath evidenced, c. 4. next, idoli­zing the persons pretending to it, who have been very monsters of men; such as Achitophel who (as the Rabbins re­late) prayed every day thrice, and e­very time had a conceived Oration; such as Basilides the great Duke of Muscovy, and Oliver, two most bloudy Villains and Tyrants; such as the bla­sphemous Hacket here in England, and the vile Wretch were in Scotland; the horrid execrable Regicides, and the [Page 103] whole litter of our late Mammon Re­bels and Renegadoes.

SECT. 5. It is confessed by the most knowing men of the Party, that impo­sed stated Forms were in common prac­tice in the Fourth Century, which is an Argument they were so from the beginning. For the Fathers of that Age, being persons eminent for piety and sincerity in the Christian professi­on, would not innovate, and being al­so men of excellent accomplishments would easily have observed what was most proper for the discharge of their Function. Had they believed that low­sie Fancy, that the modification of pub­lick Worship by personal abilities was the formal act of the ministerial Office, as the cutting of Cloath into such a shape by his own skill is the formal ministration of a Taylor, as an Anony­mus, p. 79. of his Survey, mechanical­ly held forth; they doubtless would have made use of their great personal abilities in their publick administrati­ons, which confessedly they did not, and it is certain they would not doe so, because they conceived themselves o­bliged [Page 104] to retain the ancient Forms in veneration to those pious persons who composed and injoyned them for pub­lick use. The Third Council at Car­thage, c. 3. resolved, Quascunque, &c. Whatsoever prayers any shall transcribe for themselves, let them be taken out of a Copy before in use. S. Basil. de Sp. Sanct. c. 27. refers to the solemn words of prayer observed before his time in the benediction at the Eucharist. Saint Chrys. Hom. 2. in 2. ad Cor. exemplifies a Form which had long before been constituted in the Church. In Ireland S. Patrick brought a Liturgy which he received from Germanus and Lupus, ori­ginally taken from S. Mark. Archbi­shop Ʋsher, in his Discourse of the Re­ligion professed by the ancient Irish, affirmeth, he had seen it set down in an ancient Fragment well nigh nine hundred years since, remaining now in the Library of Sir Robert Cotton. That every exception against those Liturgies of Saint James, &c. that they were supposititious, is an argu­ment that such there had been; for if they were corrupted, something was pure; if somewhat was supposi­titious [Page 105] in them, somewhat also was ge­nuine.

One trifling objection against our Liturgy, which serves to amuse the Vulgar, is not to be neglected. It is this, The first Reformers industriously contrived the Common Prayer Book, to endear the Papists to its use.

This in the judgment of wise men is to commend them, Zanch. in Phil. 4. 8. thought the gratification of bad men in those things wherein we do not offend God, to be a duty. Amyral. de Secess. ab Eccl. Rom. p. 225. highly ap­proves this course, atque hic commemo­rare, &c. we are here to consider with what wisedom and moderation the French and Genevian Churches contri­ved their publick Forms of Prayer. They are so far from handling any controversial matters therein, that the Pontificians themselves scruple not to use them; and, which is scarce to be believed, but that the matter of fact is notorious, they have picked out of them certain Prayers, which they have inserted into their Manuals for the use of the people in their native Language. The objectors might have remembred, [Page 106] that Book took with the Romanists for full ten years of Q. Elizabeth's Reign; probably had longer, but that their dear Friends the Puritans, had distur­bed the peace of the Church, which gave the Pope an opportunity to dis­patch his Emissaries, and ever since both Parties have bandied against it.

The Consectaries of the premisses are, stated Liturgy from Scripture, with the practice of the primitive Chri­stians, and continued in the Catholick Church, is the best service of God; and our Liturgy being perfectly con­formed thereto, is to be retained. It was then no vanity or presumption in Archbishop Cranmer to engage against all opposers thereof, if he was permit­ted to take Peter Martyr with three or four more for his assistants, he would prove there was nothing therein con­tained, but what was agreeable with the holy Scriptures, and primitive An­tiquity. Bishop Jewel had great rea­son to assert, Accessimus, &c. We came as near as possibly we could to the Or­der used in the Apostles times, Apol. par. 5. c. 15. divis. 8. and more fully, par. 6. c. 16. divis. 1. We came as near [Page 107] as possible we could to the Church of the Apostles, and of the old Catholick Bishops and Fathers, and have directed according to their customs and ordi­nances, not onely our Doctrine, but also the Sacraments and form of Com­mon Prayer; so false and absurd is that fancy, that our Liturgy is formed out of the Roman Missal, that so far as it is Popish is nothing else but a bombast of corrupt additionals patched to it.

CHAP. V.

THE next Charge against the Re­formation is, that Ceremonies are retained and enjoyned.

SECT. 1. That circumstances may be determined the Assemblers have re­solved, Pref. to the Direc. p. 7. viz. They endeavoured to hold forth such things as were of Divine Institution, and to set forth other things according to the rules of Christian prudence, a­greeable to the general rules of God's word: and some of these other things [Page 108] are Ceremonies; for a determination of the posture of the Body in Divine Ser­vice is one which they pass, when they order the people to sit at the Table; and in the Office of Marriage, they will and require the Man to take the Woman by the right hand, &c. which they accompt a Ceremony, or else their immediately subsequent clause is non­sense, viz. Then without any farther Ceremony, &c. The Platform drawer, c. 10, 11. 8. is peremptory, Nefas est, &c. It is wickedness to oppose the judgment of Rulers, sine sufficienti & ponderosa causa; to explain which he declares, then it is a sufficient and weighty cause, when at least there is violenta praesumptio a violent presump­tion in the judgment of truly wise men, that the Superiours have not swerved from the truth. But the Catechism maker, an old Trader in Subtilties, goes more cunningly to work: This is his artifice, p. 61, 62. Whatsoever is of circumstance in the manner of per­formance of religious Worship, not ca­pable of especial determination, as e­merging or arising onely occasionally upon the doing of what is appointed, [Page 109] at this or that time, in this or that place, or the like, is left to moral pru­dence. Now he immediately subjoyns, but the addition of Ceremonies, not necessarily belonging neither to the In­stitutions of Christ, nor unto those cir­cumstances whose disposal falls under the rules of moral prudence, neither doth nor can add any thing to the due order of Gospel Worship. This last Clause is but the opinion of a few mushrome Sectaries, which is over­ruled by the judgment of the Catho­lick Church and all wise men. It is remarkable, when the Aberdeen Doc­tours proved from the Confessions of the Reformed Churches and judgment of some learned men, that more than bare circumstances of actions were left to the determination of the Church, and plainly told them, their stirring about Ceremonies was a scandal to o­ther Reformed Churches, Demand. 13. The Three Apostles of the Covenant, Henderson, Dickson and Cant, fairly slipped by this in their first return, but being once more pressed, they frankly confessed the charge, saying, We deny not but Divines both ancient [Page 110] and modern, are against us concerning the lawfulness of the things controver­ted, p. 22. all absolutely either allow­ing or judging them tolerable, p. 28. For we scarce know any without his Majesty's Dominions that peremptori­ly condemn them as unlawfull: and at last were driven to this feeble slurr to uphold all their innovations and rebel­lious actions, viz. They had seen the day of the Lord's power in the Land. But if it be possible to be an Oedipus to this Sphinx, we are to watch the mo­tions and refuges of this Fox.

1. What doth he mean by his occa­sional emergents, either his circum­stances be they, if so, then he must reconcile himself to his Brethren, who allow them to be natural or inseparable accidents and adjuncts, not occasional­ly, but constantly attending all exter­nal actions; or else his occasional e­mergents, are some, pro hic & nunc, necessaries, that is, when occasion is offered, for religious Worship, such circumstances and the like are necessa­rily to be adhibited: for the last clause, viz. But the superaddition, &c. being an exception to the foregoing it must [Page 111] signifie this or nothing, viz. That Ce­remonies are not necessarily belonging, but circumstances do necessarily be­long, &c. For,

2. He seems to distinguish these not onely in expression, but putting them in a different letter. Let this be gran­ted that they are distinguishable, yet the distinction is onely modal; for when a circumstance is actually appli­ed to any Act, then it falls under the notion of a Ceremony, that which is a circumstance in the general ab­stracted consideration, becomes a Cere­mony by the particular usage and ap­plication. Time, place, and the like, that is, habit and gesture, are cir­cumstances, but this time or place, this or that habit and gesture, by the special determination of the indefinite adjuncts to observation are Ceremonies. But herein the Doctour kept a-loof from the contest, for the matter in de­bate is, first, Whether religious Wor­ship ought to be performed with solem­nity and reverence? And if so, then Whether Ceremonies be not proper for its Solemnity?

[Page 112]3. What the things and matters are which he coucheth under his [and the like] Was he afraid of an &c. which his Partisans had so shrewdly clubbed? yet his [and the like] is as like an &c. as one Egg can be to ano­ther. If habit and gesture fall under his [and the like] he must wear the Surplice and kneel when he is ordered, which because they agree not with his chiverell Conscience, he puts us off with an obscure insignificant [and the like.] But if he be reserved, Brother Rutherforth coughs out, reckons ha­bit and gesture with and among his six physical circumstances; which if they be, then according to his rule, they fall under the rules of moral pru­dence.

4. How comes it to pass that his circumstances are not capable of spe­cial determination? Certainly God could (if in his infinite wisedom he had thought fit) have prescribed the intire manner, (as once he did) as well as the duty; therefore time, place and the like, are capable of special deter­mination, with the occasional emer­gents, viz. The monthly Wednesday [Page 113] Fast, and the annual Thanksgiving on the third of September: and he could have ordered who should have carried on the work of the days, J. O. for one, and Smect. for the other end, and made them a Directory to order them how to preach and pray; he could have ap­pointed the habit and gesture as well as place, S. Paul's as well as Margaret's Westminster; if then the circumstances of time and place be, so the like form, habit and gestures are left to moral prudence.

5. What is his moral prudence? Here we are in the dark, till the illu­minato do in good earnest declare, whether his prudence be a peculiar of some Set of gifted men, or the whole Set of secret Ones, or of some few De­magogues, who with their seditious Oratours, drive on their particular in­terests by gratifying the lusts of their charmed herds, and have rare pick­locks for their Purses and Consciences. Or whether it be the publick and the Legal Governours of the Church, or the private prudence of every indivi­dual Christian; if the former, then what is pleaded, is obtained; if the [Page 114] latter, then why may not the publick judgment interpose in those things, on which private discretion and Consci­ence may resolve? Doubtless particu­lar persons, or such as are arbitrarily associated at the most, have onely a private capacity, and all wise men and good have heretofore been of this per­suasion; that publick persons are most proper to be entrusted with the ma­nagement of publick concerns, both because God hath committed it to them▪ 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, 3. and also be­cause what a Christian may safely doe upon the dictates of his Conscience, he may warrantably doe when enjoy­ned by publick authority. This they practise in a plain matter of fact, An Oath is generally confessed by them to be a part of religious worship; But publick authority hath prescribed its form of administration, and appointed significant Ceremonies at the taking thereof. Here I demand whether an Oath thus formed and circumstantia­ted can be lawfully taken or no? If not, how comes it to pass that these men, in any instance wherein their temporal interests are concerned, are [Page 115] free to it? If they can, and doe, why may not the same authority determine the circumstantials of the Second and Fourth Commandment as well as of the Third? Are they not equally Pre­cepts of Divine Worship? And why may not the same require our confor­mity to their Constitutions in the ad­juncts of religious Worship, as well as command and enforce submission to their Acts for the modifying, limiting and enlarging the duties of the Second Table? Is not holy Text as much a rule of perfection for the Offices of Ju­stice and Charity, as for religious Du­ties? Is not Christ the Lawgiver to both? And can there be a fairer ac­knowledgment of the plenitude of his power, than that by Commission he hath settled and delegated his Officers here on earth to make rules for the ho­nest and honorary performance of what he hath indispensably commanded? What therefore they by their Legan­tine power duly executed do order, is ordered by him. Quod quis per a­lium, &c. he that heareth you, hea­reth me.

SECT. 2. Ceremonies thus stated are in some degree necessary (as we usually call ornamentals in an House necessaries) because such is the exi­gence of all external actions, that with­out them they cannot be solemnly per­formed, which in all religious affairs, as well as civil transactions, ought to be respected. All Societies have their ceremonial Observations as well as fun­damental Constitutions, to which they have so great respect, that they suspect these to be sore shaken, when the o­ther are removed; and the Catholick Church hath ever thought Ceremonies so subservient to the decent, regular and reverend performance of Christian Institutions, that without them the Service could not receive nor retain its due value and esteem. In the Christi­an Community, Unity and Uniformity are commanded duties, and all Christi­ans have hitherto believed Ceremonies are the best fences and securities for them, and such as add much lustre and honour to exercises of Religion. How great a part of the judicial Law was Ceremonial? not onely by types and figures of good things to come, which [Page 117] as carnal Ordinances were to expire when the fulness of time came, but ap­pendants and attendants of those good duties then enjoyned, which are not abrogated by Christ. That Text, Matt. 5. 17. respects not one division of the Law, but every part, so that the whole remains in force to receive its perfecti­on by the Gospel. The moral Law, though nulled in its presumed ability to justification, which the grace of Jesus Christ supplieth, yet liveth as a rule of obedience. The judicial stands still in its full strength in matters of common equity, though as to those Laws which peculiarly respected the Jewish State its rigour is abated, to supply which God hath given to supreme Powers authority to enact such Decrees as are conducible to the great ends of Govern­ment. The Ceremonial, as it consi­sted of weak and beggarly rudiments is determined, yet it holds as a directo­ry to the Church for significa­tion; For one great end thereof was to teach us to serve God regularly and re­verently; Amesius, Med. Theol. l. 2. c. 15. n. 16. confesses, Institutions merely Ce­remonial do yet contain in them a ge­neral [Page 118] equity, and do yet teach us that certain fitting days (therefore fitting Rites by parity of reason) be assigned for God's publick Worship, Substantia Legis Ceremonialis est perpetua, Zanch. de Relig. Observ. c. 15. Aphor. 4. J. Frig. p. 9. of his Ref. Pol. thus expresseth it in reference to the whole; There is no abrogation, well there may be some derogation; which he hath borrowed from the Canonists and Casuists, who thus distinguish, Derogatur Legi cùm pars detrahitur; abrogatur cùm prorsus tollïtur, Barth. Fum. Tit. Abrog. and he thus explains it; A derogation doth but expound an Edict, as we see the Gospel derogateth from the Law by taking away the Letter, and requiring it be taken after the Spirit, now the spirit of the Law is the equity thereof, but the letter is the rigour of the words. We have a Saying, the reason of the Law is its soul; and every sense affixed contrary to the reason of its en­acting is unreasonable. Now as in se­veral Statutes of Repeal, some useless or prejudicial things are nulled, but what conduceth to good ends is by cautious proviso's strengthened; so the [Page 119] Mosaical Law in those things which were burthensome and inconvenient, is quite out of all, but those that are no way derogatory to the Discipline of Christ and his easie yoke, and which are very agreeable with the Constitu­tion of Christian Society, and commu­nity have their full virtue. It was the observation of Melancthon, that the fourth Commandment was Morale prae­ceptum de Ceremoniali, which (if I un­derstand him aright) the ultimost rea­son of the Law is moral, but what is specially commanded is Ceremonial, and if so, then plainly it is moral, that some things should be Ceremonial: And because Ceremonies have been by all almost adjudged serviceable to the common interchangeable good of Reli­gion, therefore they are not to be estee­med trivial or superfluous; for nothing is so which is a concurring good mean to a good end, or hath a social good end in good resolutions.

SECT. 3. If the quarrel be at their significancy, certainly the more signi­ficant they are, the more expedient al­so they are, and the Church hath good [Page 120] authority to expedients, for what is both lawfull and laudable is in that de­gree necessary; and if S. Paul thought it incumbent on every single Christian, to provide things honest in the sight of all men, Phil. 4. 8. then much more is the Church bound to take care in that respect for her self and her members. Now these honest things which are to be provided are such as in the appro­bation of all wise men, whether good or bad, are grave, venerable, attractive and obliging, and such are our Cere­monies; which are experimented to be wholsome preservatives of the golden mean betwixt nakedness and vanity, veneration and superstition, gaudiness and rudeness, and therefore of the kind of those honest things; But S. Paul is yet more particular, seeming to put significant Ceremonies, sub Praecepto, 1 Tim. 2. 8. I will therefore (I appoint it by Apostolical authority, saith Diod.) that men lift up holy hands, by this Ceremony (saith he) to express the devotion of the heart; Pisc. seconds him, the lifting up the hands (says he) is a sign of the elevation of the heart, with this proviso, not that this gesture [Page 121] is so necessary, that we are indispensa­bly tyed to it; For we find the Publi­can used it not, but smote upon his Breast, yet therein he was a true Con­formist, who observed an uncomman­ded significant rite according to the then received custome, if Dr. Light­foot's warranty be good, that in Christ's time they prayed with their hands laid on their breasts, the right hand being placed on the left, [Prostration was no commanded Rite, yet approved, 2 Chron. 7. 3.] All these had their pro­per significations, that of lifting up the hands, an expression both of our faith and confidence in God, and of inno­cency and sincerity in our selves, those of smiting the breast and prostration, notes of humility and self-denial, all of them, of reverence and submission of mind, and respectively practised first by the Jews and after by the ancient Christians, Grot. in loc. S. Paul obser­ved what he taught, Eph. 3. 14. I bow my knees, not metaphorically, but physically, to testifie (as Diod. and Pisc.) his humility in prayer. The Non-conformists themselves can, when the Fit takes them, uncover their heads, [Page 122] (which is no natural but topical usage) at their prayers, singing and commu­nicating, which they either refer to some present sensible object, and then they are as idolatrous as they fansie the Papists to be, or else they use it as an expression of some moral duty, which is to observe a significant Ceremony: All who have approved Ceremonies (and all have done so but this petty peddling Tribe) have the rather ap­proved them for their significancy, and many who have liked these, have snuffed at the Romish for their dul­ness.

SECT. 4. There being no fault in Ceremonies, nor their Significancy, there can be none in their Imposition, both because what is lawfull and lau­dable may, & pro hic & nunc, ought to be imposed; and also if Superiours have authority it lies in this kind of things, because the observation of these depends on their authority; what is certainly divine, whether Superiours enjoyn it or not, we are to doe for God's sake; what is humane, when required by Superiours, we are to per­form [Page 123] for their sakes, who have received such authority from God, what they exact in duties standing by divine Law natural, or positive, is onely ministe­rial, what in others is judicial. But if significant Ceremonies be due expedi­ents in the publick worship of God, then for order and uniformity therein, it is necessary they be settled in a fixed determinate state, because if this be not observed, the ends for which they are expedient are not attainable. For as they will not reach the ends of de­cency and edification, unless they be significant, and by their significancy expedient, so will they not procure unity and uniformity unless they be determined, and by virtue of this de­termination unanimously and uniform­ly observed. If then it be requisite there be a stated order, this must be drawn either by God or Man. It is acknowledged by all hands, that mat­ters of this nature are left by God to humane prudence, the order then must be from Man. But if from Man, then either from an agreement of the People, which is not, for such lives not long, and so we must begin again; and as the [Page 124] process will be in infinitum, so it is hard to find that ever any such agree­ment hath been made; if there have, then I demand whether this agreement be obligatory or not? if not, the agree­ment is a busie nothing, the end pre­tended is no way secured; if it be, then it hath the nature of an impositi­on to that multitude so agreed, and each particular member thereof, and also the matter whatsoever it be in its kind, is resolved by that consenting imposition necessary for its use, because confessedly obliging by virtue of that conclusive agreement. Or else from some whom God hath entrusted and committed a power to order these things, which is the most natural and Scriptural way: and so if these impose there, there ariseth an obligation to observe what is imposed, because there are express commands for obedience to them in the word of God, so that a scrupulosity arising from a mixt per­suasion or doubting of the lawfulness of the matters imposed will not acquit the Conscience, because he that diso­beyeth is damned as well as he that doubteth. It is no unwarrantable [Page 125] groundless supposition, that if man had continued in the state of innocen­cy, even then a settled Government would have been provided, because that after men were multiplied upon earth they would have drawn into So­cities; but it is utterly unconceivable how the way of living in a Society could be effected without a ruling power to order it. Rivet. in Exod. 20. p. 157. brings this home to the special matter; Ritus externi, &c. External rites proper and belonging to Ecclesia­stical Polity, and for certain circum­stances in the worship of God, were no way unsuitable to that state. For which he assigns this reason, p. 152. In statu illo, &c. In that state men should have entred into Society, and being entred, Ecclesiastical Polity should have its place and use even in divine Worship. For, though in that state e­very day would have been as an holy­day, and there was nothing could have diverted man from the contemplation and worship of God, yet as, even then man, as a living Creature, might ap­portion some time for the procurement of necessaries for humane life, so as a [Page 126] sociable Creature he would submit to order in his publick religious conver­sation. This will hold the stronglier, if that Hypothesis hold, that God by a positive Law commanded the observa­tion of the Sabbath to man before he lapsed; and concluded it is that Adam, being the first Parent of mankind, did exercise this ruling power over his de­scendants, and the successive Fathers of Families, after they were multiplied, did so by the Law of Primogeniture; so that superiority and inferiority, and therefore subjection, stands by the Law of nature, otherwise the fifth Com­mandment is no part thereof.

SECT. 5. What was the reason of our first Reformers retaining Ceremo­nies, is expressed in the Preface to the Common-Prayer-Book, in the Procla­mation published and prefixed to it, in the Editions thereof in King James his time, which the Lord Bacon high­ly approved; and fully cleared by our excellent Jewel, saying, Part. 2. c. 17▪ divis. 1. We keep still and do esteem Ceremonies, for that we had a desire all things in the holy Congregation [Page 127] (as S. Paul commanded) be done with comeliness and order. Vide Synops. in Josh. 22, 25, ad 30. and on Dan. 6. 10.

SECT. 6. Now if our Separatists be not pleased to receive satisfaction from the premisses, nor from the Wri­tings of many excellent men, both of this Church and other reformed Prote­stant Churches; let them consult their dearly beloved Amesius, provided they take him waking, not dreaming, when he is in his practical method, not when he is in his polemical heats, unless when he is so warmly charged by his adversary, that he is driven to give way, who if he do not determine the case in favour to the Conformists, I must confess I do not rightly under­stand him.

His first hint is in his Bell. enerv. To. 2. l. 4. c. 3. n. 9. viz. All obedience presupposeth a Precept, and it is due o­bedience in reference to God if it be any way commanded by him, as in the proposal of things determined for order, decency and edification. For then observantia superioribus est debi­ta, &c. obedience pay'd to lawfull Su­periours [Page 128] in many things not determi­ned by God, nor specially commanded (N. B.) by him to be observed by all, is acceptable to God, quatenus pendet, &c. as it is a duty of the Fifth Com­mandment.

The next is in l. 3. de consc. c. 18. q. 1. n. 4. Actiones, &c. Actions which are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, are not matters of obedience or disobedience, (considered abstractedly, as will soon appear from him) but are in their intrinsecal nature indifferent. Now all we affirm in this case is, that those actions which in their latitude and nature are indifferent, are thereby free to be determined for practice, and being once so determined by Superi­ours, it is not indifferent for private persons to cross or thwart their deter­minations, to doe or not to doe those indifferents, because the determination to practice so far abates the indifferen­cy of that middle indifferent thing, (which yet after the determination re­mains such in its kind.) If herein he doth not concur with us, I mistake, for he âdds; The common nature of the thing is indifferent to good or evil, as it is [Page 129] duly or unduly circumstantiated. Now, say I, hence it follows, that the prac­tice, according to conformity or non­conformity, in the determination of that indifferent thing, is respectively either good or bad; good by their ten­dency to good, that is, if they pro­mote the good of order, and unity, &c. evil if we do not; he goes on, p. 191. such gestures are required in prayer, which are expressive of singular humi­lity, as uncovering the head, kneeling, &c. adding, p. 124. at solemn prayer it is fit, by the elevation of the hands and eyes, to declare our faith and hope in our heavenly Father, and by ge­stures and signs to express the inward motions; whereupon he determins, these indifferents may not simply, ab­solutely and for perpetuity be com­manded, yet as they tend to good they ought, and ought to be comman­ded by those, who, authoritate pollent, are in chief authority. Therefore in his opinion, things indifferent in their nature, are good from their ap­plication and settlement in good order, and in reference to good ends; which (he farther says) needs not to be al­ways [Page 130] actual and explicit, a virtual is sufficient, and is as much as is general­ly required, which obviates that cavil of Pyrgopal. in his answer to Dr. Durel.

His third comes yet more home, Med. Theol. l. 2. c. 14. n. 23. where he grants other circumstances (as J. O. ordered) with an [and the like] but with this difference, J. O. terms them natural, which he sticks not to call the common adjuncts of religious and civil acts, but by others (whom he censures not) are called religious Rites, or Ecclesiastical Ceremonies; the neglect and contempt whereof is in some measure a kind of violation of the holiness of Religion, and cannot be separated from it, but in some manner we derogate from the majesty and dig­nity thereof. Then he gives his full judgment of them, n. 24. These are not particularly commanded in Scripture, nay, its below the majesty thereof to prescribe them, but they are left to moral prudence, n. 27. These Consti­tutions thus determined, are truly said by the best Divines to be partly divine, and partly humane; partly divine, be­cause in their highest and primary re­spect [Page 131] they depend on the will of God, commanding them in general; n. 24. partly humane, because as to their par­ticular observation they depend on hu­mane prudence; yet so, that if there be no errour in their Constitution they are to be esteemed and accepted, quasisimpliciter, and as if they were simply and absolutely divine.

To recapitulate what he hath deter-mined in the point.

There are things indifferent in their common nature and kind, these indif­ferents, when by special determination through their tendency to good they are applied thereto, are good; Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies when thus duly circumstantiated are in the account of those indifferents: these Ceremonies should be significant, expressive of re­verence and humility, of our faith and hope in God; these significant expres­sions ought to be constituted, these Constitutions are to be ordered by hu­mane prudence, this humane prudence is that of those who precide in chief, these so ordered are religiously to be observed, and to neglect or contemn them, is to derogate from the majesty [Page 132] of religious Worship, and to violate its holiness; and lastly, the observation of them is acceptable to God (say Mr. Cawdry to the contrary what he can) by virtue of the Fifth Command­ment: and so Amesius his Evidence is summed up.

SECT. 7. Those three innocent (as they are justly called) Ceremonies retained and observed in our Church, she prescribes for by long continued Custome. For,

1. The Priests should have a distinc­tive Habit, is so generally ruled, that it hath prevailed always in all places, where any Religion hath been pro­fessed. In the Patriarchal Ages, the Priests had such Garments whereof Isaac is an instance, Gen. 27. 15. vide Sis. Poli Syn. in loc. under the Law it is notorious; Calvin proveth it from Zach. 13. 4. whereupon he approveth it; in Matt. 23. 5. it is evident Christ had such a Garment, and Eus. l. 3. c. 25. relates S. John the Evangelist wore the Priest's Weed; our Greg. notes, p. 112. that in the Alcoran the Apostles are called El Havariuna, the White men, [Page 133] Viri Vestibus albis induti, as it is trans­lated, because clothed in white Appa­rel; It is probable they would imitate their Master, who did wear a long Li­nen Coat, Rev. 1. 13. this was as Mar­tin: Lex Tunica Sacerdotalis Linea, so Bull. such as the Levitical Priests u­sed, Lev. 6. 10. and Lev. 16. 4. which the Priests of the Gospel when ordered, ought to doe, saith Marbach. Professor of Divin. in Strasbourgh, which Gella­sius in Geneva durst not deny, vid. Syn. in loc. and Peter Mart. hath evidenced the practice from good authority, This was not then a Popish invention, nor is now with the Papists one of their massing or consecrated Garments.

2. The Sign of the Cross, against which the Vir Doctissimus (Parker) in Videlius hath drawn a long Charge in Folio, is for all his clatter both ancient and innocent: Mr. Perkins demon. Probl. p. 82. grants the permanent sign was accustomed about an. 300. and the transient (which is that in use with us) was for the first 300 years after Christ practised in the common concerns of life, as a significant Ceremony, just for those ends we use after Baptism, as is [Page 134] is specified in the Rubrick, and Can. 30. Tertullian often mentions the usage, so doth Saint Cyprian, as in Ser. de Laps. p. 217. Ed. Eras. frons cum signo, &c. the signed forehead; and Tract. cont. Dem. p. 149. qui renati & signo, &c. who are baptized and signed. S. Hier. Prol. in Job. secundum 70. apologizeth for himself thus, viz. What Aquila and the judaizing Hereticks, Symachus and Theodotian may undertake, that much more may I, who am a Christian, born of Christian Parents, & vexillum crucis, &c. carrying on my forehead the banner of the Cross. The custome then being ancient and innocent, be­cause observed in the best times, it ought to be retained, and for its bet­ter observation be enjoyned by autho­rity, certainly not laid aside to gratifie humorous people.

3. As for kneeling at the receiving of the holy Sacrament, though there be not so clear a constat; yet this is plain, the Ancients used the same ge­sture they did at prayer, which never was that of sitting, which neither in it self hath, nor in the esteem of the An­cients ever had any thing of reverence; [Page 135] Tert. de Orat. c. 12. protests against it, and Amesius, c. 18. de Consc. p. 191. re­jects it, because not expressive of re­verence, nor approved in Scripture. Now kneeling was the ordinary cu­stome, Euseb. l. 8. c. 5, 8. standing was at particular times and places, which they used as a significant Ceremony, yet when they stood, they bowed the body after the manner of worshipping, which is sufficiently proved by that re­ceived rule, Nemo manducat, &c. Let none communicate but he who first a­dores; so that ordinarily they kneeled when they received, and when they did not, they worshipped. The best reformed Churches use kneeling, and the best learned of those who do not, acknowledge it a gesture of humility and reverence, which, where it is con­stituted, ought to be uniformly obser­ved. The Genevians, in their Annot. on the harmony of Confessions, are well content every particular Church should use her liberty in such cases; par­ticularly they make mention of knee­ling at the Communion, and use of all such Ceremonies as now are observed by the Lutherans, Copes, Organs, &c. [Page 136] and had been used before by Papists, Annot. Sect. 14. Obs. 4. ad Confes. Bo­hem. As an upshot to this, when an English fugitive Separatist, proposed his Thesis, de Adiaphoris, at Geneva, he could not be permitted to discuss them.

The whole may be drawn up in this order.

Ceremonies are lawfull things, some of this kind are expedient, these expe­dients ought to be significant, these may and occasionally ought to be im­posed, these so imposed are to be ob­served, and those we practise caete­ris paribus are to be settled rather than any other, because thereby we honour our first Reformers, we obey our law­full Superiours, we keep up our alli­ance with other reformed Churches, sure with the chiefest and best; and which is more, we hold a firm corre­spondence with the primitive and pre­sent Catholick Church.

CHAP. VI.

AS for the observation of Holidays, the Grandees of the Sectarians seemed once willing to admit Festivals, provided they were not called Holi­days; which was nothing else in them but a silly sour singularity and morosi­ty; for more learned and much better men than they never scrupled at the name. Mr. Perkins, Demonst. Problem. p. 232. n. 6. asserts this; Holy they are, not in and for themselves, but for the holy duties then performed to God. Dr. Rivet in Ex. 20. p. 167. declares, A relative holiness belongeth to them, and they might very properly be cal­led Holidays, ratione finis, in respect to their ends and uses, being separated for holy exercises. So they were con­stituted and observed in the primitive Church. S. Chrys. Hom. in Ascen. hath assured us, The Catholick Church ob­served six recurring anniversary Solem­nities in memory of Christ's Nativity, Epiphany, Passion, Resurrection, As­cension and mission of the Holy Ghost. [Page 138] The matter of fact is notorious. In the Reign of Dioclesian, an. 294. and by the Greek Menology, on the twenty fifth of December, the Christians as­sembled to commemorate the Birth of our Lord, whereof the Emperour ha­ving received intelligence, commanded the doors of the Church to be shut, and fire set to it, which soon consumed both them and it. Julian, in an hel­lish design, joyned with the Christians in their publick Assembly on the sixth of January called the Epiphany. The Festival (for it's called by Phil. [...]) and the Fast of our Saviour's Passion was solemnly celebrated, and that from long custome, Eus. l. 2. c. 16. The dispute so early started about the time of the observation of Easter puts that beyond dispute. Just. Mart. Resp. ad Orthod. 115. speaks of its being kept [...], from the A­postles time; Euseb. [...], vid. Eus. l. 5. c. 23, 24, 25. and S. Aug. Ep. 119, ex authoritate Scripturarum, & universae Ecclesiae con­sensione. The Ancients called Ascensi­on Tessaracostae, Scal. de Emend. Temp. many are their Homilies on that day, [Page 139] Conc. Elib. c. 43. treats of Whitsuntide, as an ancient Solemnity, censuring all those who neglect it as Hereticks. The matter of fact is backed with a good reason. For if the primitive Christians were strict in the observation of the Birth-days (as they were called, but indeed Death-days of the Martyrs) we cannot imagine they would be forget­full fo the joyfull days wherein the Lord, and the Lord of the Martyrs, begun, continued and perfected the work of the Redemption of mankind: But evident it is those days were reli­giously observed. S. Cypr. l. 3. Ep. 6. expressed his great care and zeal those commemorations and solemn Offices should not be slurred. Rivet. in Ex. 20. p. 154. saith, Ratio postulat, &c. Rea­son requires, that not onely certain days, but sufficient be retained, even as many as the right constitution, safety, good of the Church and the glory of God requires. For we being exonera­ted from the Jewish yoke, may have more, ought not have fewer days for the service of God than they had, but they had more than one in seven, some whereof were of humane institution. [Page 140] This he confirms, p. 163. Quod de die, &c. that which was expresly said of the Seventh-day, by analogy and parity of reason, respects any day which the Church hath appointed, and in com­mon use hath observed for holy Mee­tings: whereupon all Interpreters do conceive, not onely the Lord's day, but all other lawfully instituted Festivals are comprehended under the Fourth Commandment. But a good word from Geneva may doe more service, than all other authorities and reasons. Hear a whole gang of Genevians at once, Every Church may use her li­berty in observing Ember-days, and Holidays consecrated to the godly memory of the Saints. Annot. in Harm. Confess. Sect. 16. Obs. 1. ad Conf. Boh. and retain the use of singing Christian Hymns and Songs upon the Holidays; Obs. 2. Zanch. in Expl. c. 2. ad Col. so far approves them, that though he thinks there is no absolute necessity for them, yet there is a profitable ne­cessity in their due observation; Bi­shop Dav. in his exposition of the same words, hath furnished us with three substantial reasons, who will, may con­sider them.

CHAP. VII.

THE last which is opposed, is the Doctrine of the Church, exem­plified in the Book of Articles. The Independent Sophi hath expressed so great kindness for 36 of them, that by his Verdict, woe be to him that shall dispute them, no less correction will satisfie his tender Conscience than exile; but away with the other three, if they be not removed, no recipe of reformation or condescension will work kindly with him. All this is but a Copy of his Countenance, when he puts on his considering Cap somewhat else must march off and be disbanded. Certainly for his dear sake, and the good service he expects from his Herd and Comerades, the six Homilies a­gainst Rebellion must be cashiered, and cast off to the dogs. Well! This is onely one Doctour's opinion; A very good Friend of his would have the nine­teenth Article quite cut off, because therein (as he sagely guesseth) the Church is defined directly as the Inde­pendents [Page 142] define it. In good time! till these two be agreed about the definiti­on of the Church, there is little hopes of the much talked of Union; how this noble reflexion will go down with him, let him certifie when the project of Union is effected; but for his com­fort, that he may take heart again, that suggestion of the noble Peer was the product of his malice and ignorance. For the Church of England reprobates Independency (which is, that every particular Congregation is an indepen­dent Body, not subordinate to any su­periour Ecclesiastical Authority, as Spanhem. Ep. ad Dav. Buch. p. 74. with Rivet and Poliander might have enformed him) as a singular schismati­cal Sect, purely Donatistical: yet if the Doctour be offended that his belo­ved Friend thus girds at Independency, perhaps his other folly, that the Seven­teenth and Eighteenth Articles are dark, and not so full as he desires, may re­gain his favour; Whether it doth so or no is not considerable, men of clearer eyes and better set think otherwise. For they have resolved, that the Church of England had gone so far in these [Page 143] points, as could with perspicuity, and safety be concluded from the Scripture. Mos. Amyr. de Secess. ab Eccl. Rom. p. 160. & inde. Bishop Daven. de pace inter Evang. Proc. p. 20. & ad pacem Eccles. adhort. p. 146, 147. This is certain, they were variously stated by Prote­stants both at home and abroad. What the judgment of Melancth. Bulling. Eras. Sarcer. &c. was, is well known. What our Bishop Hooper held is fairly disco­vered in his Epistle to the Reader pre­fixed to his Treatise on the Ten Com­mandments: what Bishop Latimer, is found in his Sermon on Phil. 3. and on Septuagesima, and in his Sermon on Acts 13. 48. This is remarkable, ma­ny in the beginning of Queen Eliza­beth's Reign, returning home from Ge­neva, broached Calvin's Doctrine here, one whereof wrote a smart Letter to an ancient Divine, who had been exi­led too, charging him for his oppositi­on to that Doctrine with Pelagianism, whereunto he, secundo Eliz. framed an Answer, wherein he purged himself and others of his judgment from the imputation, and by way of recrimina­tion proved the Calvinists to be Pela­gians. [Page 144] But a dapper younker, and through paced Bigot, is not onely an­gry at these before excepted, but falls foul on the Sixth Article; what mo­ved him at this, I cannot conjecture, unless he bogled at the Apocrypha; but perhaps I may guess what heated him against the One and Twentieth Article; forsooth, in his wise judgment, the Kirk with its Provincials may meet, &c. without the King's leave first obtained, and sit too contrary to his express com­mand. I may also possibly hit at his displeasure at the Thirty Fourth Article, because by it he and his Drove must be concluded Schismaticks. Great reason he had to keck at the Thirty Sixth Article: For when he was presented to the Class of revolted Ministers with their Lay-Elders for Ordination, they were not provided at first for a cast of their Office; for not knowing how to pick out a form of Ordination from the Directory, they were at a loss till they received one from Scotland, and then they gravely proceeded; to work they went on all hands without any scruple, that they had stinted the Spirit in the use of that set Form.

CHAP. VIII.

HAving considered the subject mat­ters according to the rules of Re­ligion, somewhat remains to be added from the common measures of pru­dence to over-rule any motion tending to an alteration; which are to be ta­ken from the resolutions of wise Hea­thens and Christians, who have fore­seen and discovered the danger and mischiefs of such attempts, and then to make it appear, that those persons for whose behalf, or their own instance, such a motion is made, are not qualifi­ed for such a respect.