The Remains of John Corbet, Part 4

The Remains of John Corbet · Part 4

p. 139Here followeth a Conſideration of divers particulars contained in the Liturgy.

Of the Order how the Holy Scripture is appointed to be read.

I Do not think it in it ſelf unlawful, or utterly unfit, that ſome Apocryphal Chapters ſhould be read in the Church. But I queſtion whether I may conſent to the uſe of the Calendar and Tables ſo far as they direct to the reading of Apocryphal Chapters p. 140in the ſame place, and under the ſame title with Canonical Chapters; alſo to the reading of the proper leſſons, tho apocryphal, rather than the leſſons in the ordinary courſe, tho canonical. I grant that the Church in her Articles of Religion, doth ſufficiently diſtinguiſh between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books; nevertheleſs the aforeſaid uſe of the Apocryphal Chapters in the liturgy, without any diſtinction of the Canonical there given, may tempt the Vulgar to take them for Gods word. It is to be noted, that in the order of reading the leſſons, the title of holy Scripture, and Old Teſtament, is given to the Apocrypha.

I am more concerned to know whether there be no ſufficient objection againſt the matter of any of the Apocryphal Chapters appointed to be read, which may prove them not fit to be uſed in Divine ſervice.

Judith c. 9. approveth the fact of Simeon againſt the Sichemites, as performed by divine aſſiſtance and approbation, and deſires the like aſſiſtance in her enterprize. Chap. 10. and C. 11. ſhe ſpeaks things untrue. In defence of the preſcribed uſe of theſe Chapters, it is ſaid, that theſe things are related hiſtorically, and not for imitation, as many things are in the Canonical Scripture: Such as were Elijah's interceſſion againſt Iſrael, and both his and Jonah's paſſionate deſire of death. But this doth not ſatisfie; for thoſe unwarrantable paſſages which in Canonical Scripture are related hiſtorically, are ſufficiently ſignified to be unwarrantable, as in particular thoſe ſpeeches of Elijah and Jonah are plainly notified to be their weakneſſes. But the aforeſaid paſſages in Judith ſeem to be recorded in way of approbation, being deliberate in a ſolemn prayer for ſucceſs in an enterprize; and ſhe expreſly prays for ſucceſs in her deceit; and nothing of the diſallowance of theſe things is intimated in that ſtory. I ask, Whether the reading hereof as a holy leſſon, doth not tend to the imboldning of men in ſuch undertakings; and at leaſt whether it hath not the appearance of evil, from which we ought to abſtain, by the Apoſtles precept?

I might further object, That there is little evidence of the Hiſtorical truth of this Book. But on this I inſiſt not.

Tob. 5.12. The Angel Raphael is brought in telling a falſhood in expreſs terms, viz. that he was Azarias the ſon of Ananias the great, of Tobits brethren. Tho this fift chapter be left out of the Calendar, yet in other chapters appointed to be read, this p. 141perſon who ſpeaks that which was untrue, is ſet forth for a holy Angel. And c. 7.3. both the Angel and Tobias are reported to ſay to Raguel, that which was falſe on the Angels part, viz. that they were of the ſons of Naphtalim, who were captives in Niniveh. Tho we read in Scripture that Angels were ſometimes taken to be men, and ſo called by them that took them to be ſuch; yet we do not read therein, that any Holy Angels affirmed that they were men, and ſuch particular men by name.

Tob. 12.15. The Angel is reported to ſay, I am Raphael, one of the ſeven holy Angels which preſent the prayers of the Saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy one. The preſenting of the prayers of the Saints before God, looks like a mediatory act. And ſuppoſe it here ſignifies but an act of miniſtry, not of mediation; yet I queſtion whether it be right to conſent to the uſe of ſuch a paſſage as ſeems to imply the mediation or interceſſion of Angels for us, and which may give an occaſion to believe it, and be made uſe of to prove that opinion.

The ſtory of Bell and the Dragon is thought to be fabulous; and there may be ſome regret in conſenting to its being appointed to be read at a time, when it being omitted, the firſt Chapter of Iſaiah would come in courſe to be read. Moreover the reading of the Apocrypha hath been excepted againſt, as it excludeth much of the Canonical Scriptures, and taketh in ſuch Books in their ſtead, as are commonly reputed fabulous, yet read for real Hiſtory.

Of the Tables and Rules for Holy dayes and times.

IN this Book is contained the appointment of divers Feſtivals, and other ſolemn times. Now tho I ſcruple not to join in the publick Worſhip of God performed in thoſe days, yet I heſitate about the expreſ… declaring of aſſent and conſent to the uſe of Tables and Rules directing to the ſolemnizing thereof. It is to me doubtful whether any humane power may lawfully inſtitute ſuch times and days as ſome of theſe are. I confeſs there be arguments for the lawfulneſs of ſuch inſtitution, which I cannot well anſwer; and there be other arguments againſt it, which alſo I cannot well anſwer; and this later ſort I crave leave to propound in this place.

The occaſions of theſe days and times were exiſtent in the Apoſtles times; and if God would have had theſe days appointed, p. 142he could as eaſily and fitly have done it by his Apoſtles, and have left it recorded in Scripture, as he did other like things.

If the inſtitution of theſe days and times were neceſſary, it is equally neceſſary in all ages and parts of the Catholick Church, and is the matter of an univerſal Law, and ſo belongs to the Univerſal Lawgiver.

If the Univerſal Lawgiver hath reſerved any thing to his own power, it can be no leſs than the making of ſuch Laws and Ordinances as are univerſally and perpetually neceſſary.

To affirm ſuch inſtitution to be univerſally neceſſary, when God hath made no Law concerning it in Scripture, is to overthrow the ſufficiency of Scripture, as a Catholick Rule of divine faith and worſhip. For men to inſtitute Ordinances of Worſhip ſuppoſed to be univerſally and perpetually neceſſary to the Church, ſuppoſeth a defect in the divine, univerſal, and perpetual Ordinances, to be made up by adding other Ordinances by way of ſupplement.

The fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue, ſeems to be of ſo high a nature, that man may not preſume to make the like. The Table of all the Feaſts to be obſerved, begins, All Sundays in the year: ſo it calls the Lords day, which it ſeems to put upon the ſame level with feaſts of humane inſtitution. And there ſeems as great a ſacredneſs (if not greater) conferred upon ſome of the high feſtivals, as upon the Lords day, which is of divine appointment.

The Lords day doth ſufficiently anſwer the ends for which thoſe feſtivals that relate to our Saviour are appointed: for that being in memory of his Reſurrection, implies a memorial of all things done for mans redemption.

If ſuch Inſtitutions as theſe be not prohibited, Deut. 4 2. Deut. 12.32. I enquire of what ſort is the prohibited addition there ſpoken of? The prohibition ſeems to me to be not meerly of adding to the Rule, to wit, the written law; but of doing more than that Rule required; as the precept is not of preſerving the Rule, but obſerving what is commanded in it. I do not queſtion the lawfulneſs of ſuch humane inſtitutions in divine Worſhip as are in meer ſubordination to divine inſtitution, and ſerve for the more convenient modifying and ordering thereof, and which indeed are not properly additions thereunto, becauſe they are not of the ſame nature and uſe, but are meerly accidentals of worſhip. p. 143But I doubt of ſuch humane Ordinances of divine worſhip as are coordinate with the divine Ordinances, and expreſs the ſame nature, reaſon, end and uſe with them, and are additions properly ſo called. The feſtival days appointed by the Church of England, are in the Table of feaſts ſet in coordination with the Lords day; and they are not meerly the accidentals, but very important integral parts of divine ſervice in this Church. In reaſon it muſt needs be that God hath ſufficiently provided for his honour, in the worſhip which he hath inſtituted, as much as belongs to the reaſon and end of thoſe things which he hath inſtituted. Thereupon I enquire, Whether it be not a preſuming of our own, againſt the divine wiſdom, to add to the divine Ordinances by way of ſupplement, humane ordinances of the ſame reaſon and intent with the divine?

There is no queſtion of the lawfulneſs of appointing ſome certain times, beſides the Lords day, either fixed or variable, to be ſpent in publick worſhip, wherein God is to be glorified for Jeſus Chriſt, and the work of redemption wrought by him. There is no queſtion of the lawfulneſs of appointing days of humiliation and thankſgiving, either for once, or anniverſarily upon ſpecial occaſions; and that beſides the ſpecial occaſions of thoſe days, things of univerſal and perpetual concernment ought to be minded in the religious exerciſes then performed. In theſe caſes the appointed days and times are only adjuncts of worſhip, which, as all other things, muſt be performed in ſome certain time; and they are for the worſhip, but the worſhip is not for them; and they are not intrinſecally holy, but only by extrinſick denomination from the holy worſhip then ſolemniz…d. But theſe conceſſions do not infer (as I ſuppoſe) the warrantableneſs of days appropriated to the ſame uſe and ends for which the Lords day is deſigned of God, and made intrinſecally and permanently holy, and ſanctifying the worſhip, as well as ſanctified by it, ſo that it were profaneneſs to alienate them to other uſes. Now as I aſſuredly believe that the Lords day is intrinſecally, and permanently, or unalterably holy, as well ſanctifying the duties therein performed, as ſanctified by them; ſo I ſuppoſe that the appointed feaſts, or at leaſt ſome of them, are ſet apart by the Church to a ſtate of like holineſs.

I confeſs, that as touching the dedication of ſuch days and times as ſome of thoſe are which are appointed by the Church, I have not a clearneſs of judgment to determine for or againſt the p. 144warrantableneſs thereof. Nor would I break with the Church upon this account, but would make thoſe days an occaſion of joining in the unqueſtionable divine worſhip then celebrated. But I know not how to declare an unfeigned aſſent and conſent to the ſanctifying of thoſe days, becauſe in ſo doing I ſhould not ſpeak the truth, while I doubt of the warrantableneſs thereof.

Of the Order for Morning and Evening-prayer.

THE ſecond Rubrick before Morning-prayer, is taken to enjoin the uſe of the Surplice. Suppoſing that the uſe thereof is not in it ſelf unlawful, nevertheleſs I queſtion whether I may lawfully conſent to a Rule enjoining the uſe of it to ſuch Miniſters, and in ſuch Congregations, by which the uſe thereof is judged unlawful, or to which it is odious or greatly offenſive by invincible or inveterate prejudice. I enquire, Whether a conſent to the uſe of this Rubrick, doth not imply a conſent to the enjoining of this Veſtment; for the enjoined retaining and uſing of it, ſo that ſacred Miniſtrations ſhall not be performed without it, is the ſubject matter of the Rubrick? I enquire alſo, Whether I may lawfully declare my conſent to the uſe of this Veſtment, ſuppoſing that tho I do not ſcruple the bare lawfulneſs of uſing it, yet I wiſh in my heart the uſe thereof were not retained, but laid aſide, in regard of the great offence taken at it, it being a thing unneceſſary, and the worſhip of God being as decently and profitably performed without it, as with it?

Moreover, what were thoſe Ornaments in the Church which were in uſe by authority of Parliament in the ſecond year of the reign of King Edward the ſixth, I do not well know. Some ſay this Rubrick ſeems to bring back the Cope and other Veſtments forbidden in the Common-prayer-book 5, 6. of Edw. 6. to the uſe whereof I do not ſee it fit for me to declare my conſent.

The Reſponſals of the Clerk and people, the multiplied repetitions of the Gloria Patri, and the Lords Prayer; the omiſſion of the Doxology in the Lords Prayer, the compoſure of many ſhort Collects inſtead of one continued prayer, I can ſubmit unto, and declare my conſent to them as to things paſſable. But if the declaration of conſent, imply not only the ſimple allowableneſs, but alſo the laudableneſs and comparative uſefulneſs or expediency of theſe things, I am not clear therein.

p. 145Of the Creed of St. Athanaſius.

I Heartily own the whole Doctrine of the Trinity, and of the incarnation of the Son of God, as ſet forth in this Creed; yet I am not ſatisfied to declare my aſſent to theſe aſſertions, Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he ſhall periſh everlaſtingly. Alſo, This is the Catholick faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be ſaved. Alſo, he therefore that will be ſaved, muſt thus think of the Trinity.

This Creed doth contain deep myſteries, as that the Son is not made, nor created, but begotten; That the Holy Ghoſt is neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. The difference between eternal generation, and eternal proceſſion, being a myſtery wherein the greateſt Divines ſee but darkly, we may be juſtly afraid to condemn all perſons as uncapable of ſalvation, who do not underſtand and explicitely believe theſe myſteries.

Likewiſe the proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt from the Father and the Son, being here delivered as a part of the faith, concerning which it is aſſerted, That except every one do keep whole, without doubt he ſhall periſh everlaſtingly; the undoubted damnation of thoſe Churches and Chriſtians who hold that the Holy Ghoſt proceeds from the Father only, ſeems to be thence inferred.

The beſt anſwer to theſe objections that I have ſeen, I here tranſcribe out of a book lately written. It is to be conſidered, That in this Creed there be ſome things contained and expreſſed as neceſſary points of Faith, and other things for the more clear and uſeful explication of the truth, tho they be not of equal neceſſity to be underſtood and believed even by the meaneſt capacity. Thus if we firſt conſider the contexture of this Creed, the Faith declared neceſſary concerning the Trinity, is thus expreſſed in the beginning thereof: The Catholick Faith is this, That we worſhip one God in Trinity and Trinity in Ʋnity, neither confounding the perſons, nor dividing the ſubſtance. After this follows an explication uſeful to ſet forth the true Chriſtian Doctrine, which begins: For there is one perſon of the Father, &c. After which explication the ſame neceſſary doctrine to be known and believed, is thus again expreſſed and diſtinguiſhed from that explication, in theſe words: So that in all things as aforeſaid, the Ʋnity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Ʋnity, is to be worſhipped; he therefore who will be ſaved, p. 146muſt thus think of the Trinity. What is contained in this conſideration, is the more clear by the following obſervation, That our Church doth both here and in her Articles evidently receive the Athanaſian Creed; and yet from the manner of uſing the Apoſtles Creed in the form of Baptiſm, as containing the profeſſion of that Faith into which we are baptized; in the Catechiſm, as containing all the Articles of the Chriſtian Faith; and in the Viſitation of the ſick, as being the Rule to try whether he believe as a Chriſtian man ſhould, or not; it is manifeſt that no more is eſteemed in our Church of neceſſity to ſalvation for all men to believe, than that only which is contained and expreſſed in the Apoſtles Creed.

Hereunto I make this Reply;

In this point the queſtion is not, What the Church of England, but what the Athanaſian Creed appointed by this Church to be read on certain ſolemn days, inſtead of the Apoſtles Creed, declares to be of neceſſity to ſalvation. Now the thing that is manifeſtly aſſerted in this Creed to be of neceſſity to ſalvation, is the intire belief of the Catholick Faith, as it is there expreſſed. For it is ſaid, Which Faith except every one keep whole, &c. Wherefore to diſtinguiſh the ſummary of the doctrine of the Trinity ſet down in the beginning and the concluſion, from the whole intermediate explication thereof, as if the belief of the one, but not of the other, were affirmed to be neceſſary to ſalvation, is a very forc'd and unwarrantable narrowing of the intendment of the Words. The explication, as well as the ſaid Summary, is ſet forth as that Catholick Faith, which except every one keep whole and undefiled, he ſhall without doubt periſh everlaſtingly. Yea, it is expreſly ſaid in the cloſe, So that in all things, as aforeſaid, the Ʋnity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Ʋnity, is to be worſhipped; He therefore that will be ſaved, muſt thus think of the Trinity. What leſs than the whole doctrine aforegoing can the ſaid words, in all things as aforeſaid, refer to? For ought doth appear, no one part of the doctrine or explication is made more neceſſary to be believed than another. Beſides, in the Nicene Creed, in the doctrine of the Perſon of Chriſt, why may not the ſummary thereof expreſſed in theſe words, and in one Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the only begotten Son of God, be diſtinguiſhed in like manner from the following explicatory words, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, light of light, &c. as if the one, but not the other, were thereby intended as neceſſary to be believed?

p. 147Moreover if the ſenſe of this Creed in the ſaid Aſſertions be not to exclude from ſalvation all ſuch as do not ſo diſtinctly know. nor ſo explicitely believe concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, as its ſets forth in the explication thereof; yet certainly it can be taken for no leſs than the excluding of ſuch as apprehend and believe in any point contrary thereto, which is the caſe of the Greek Church in denying the proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt from the Son.

Admit the ſaid Aſſertions are to be reſtrained to thoſe that believe not, as is expreſſed only in the ſummary of the doctrine: I then make this query, Whether none of thoſe who being of very low capacities, do not diſtinctly apprehend and explicitely believe one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, ſo as in their apprehenſions neither to confound the perſons, nor divide the ſubſtance, can truly and ſavingly fear God, and believe in Chriſt?

Here let it be no offence to make the following Queries.

1. Whether it be certain by the word of God, that all thoſe of the Chriſtian profeſſion whoſe apprehenſions of the Trinity were not fully conformable to the Faith of the Homouſians (as the Orthodox were called in thoſe times) did periſh everlaſtingly? 2. Whether it be certain by the Word of God, that all thoſe who ſo apprehended of the union of the natures in Chriſt, as was expreſt either by the Neſtorians or Eutychians, did periſh everlaſtingly?

Furthermore I enquire, Whether it be certain by the Word of God, That all Pagans who have lived ſince the times of Chriſtianity, and to whom the Goſpel was never publiſhed, are damned? In the aforeſaid Aſſertions the form of words being unlimited and univerſal, ſeems to import ſo much. Now the caſe of ſuch who live in meer negative infidelity, being without the revelation of the Goſpel, is different from theirs who by wilful perverſeneſs overthrow the Faith, againſt the evidence of that Divine teſtimony in the Holy Scripture, which they profeſs to believe. Without doubt none of the whole ſtock of Mankind can be ſaved, but through the Redeemer Jeſus Chriſt. But it is not ſo certain that all are damned who live and dye without the knowledg of Redemption by him. I certainly know, That without holineſs no man ſhall ſee the Lord; and that no man can be holy, without p. 148the ſanctifying operation of the Holy Spirit. But that none of them are ſanctified who are without the knowledg of Chriſt and his Goſpel, is not ſo evidently and certainly known to me, either from Scripture or Reaſon.

The ſum of the matter is, That I am afraid in the ſolemn rehearſal of a Creed in the midſt of Divine Service, to adjudg thoſe to eternal damnation that are not ſo adjudged by the word of God; yet I heartily and entirely aſſent to the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation of Chriſt, according to the explication thereof, as ſet forth in this Creed; and I would not give my ſuffrage that any ſhould be allowed in the publick Miniſtry, who holds in any point contrary to the ſaid doctrine.

Of the LITANY.

THE manner of the compoſure of the Litany, and more eſpecially that the formally petitioning words are in great part uttered by the people only, I judg not ſo inconvenient but that I may comply therewith; yet I had much rather, and do heartily wiſh that it were otherwiſe framed. Now I enquire, Whether being thus minded, I may juſtly declare my unfeigned conſent to the uſe thereof?

Of the COLLECTS, &c.

IN the Collect for Chriſtmas-day theſe words, And as at this time to be born, are to be conſidered. That our Saviour was born on or about the 25th of December, is a matter of great uncertainty, and little probability, and contrary to the moſt rational Chronology. It is therefore queſtioned, whether the ſaid words may be ſtatedly uſed in a ſolemn prayer of the Church. Tho this be a ſmall matter; yet the queſtion is, VVhether one may declare an aſſent and conſent to the uſe of it, while he doth not believe it to be true?

Of the Order for the Miniſtration of the Holy Communion.

IT is liable to exception, That a great part of the Communion Service (as it is called) which makes a great part of the Morning-prayer for the Lords day, is appointed to be read at p. 149the Communion-Table, when there is no adminiſtration of the Sacrament. If the declared conſent hereunto, import no more, than that, it may be complyed with in ſubmiſſion to authority, I ſhall not refuſe it.

In the Fourth Commandment, it is appointed to be read, The Lord bleſſed the Seventh day, inſtead of the Lord bleſſed the Sabbath-day. It may well be queſtioned, whether one may conſent to the changing of God own Words, in this Commandment, into other words of mans chuſing? But if the declared conſent reſpect not the changing of one word for another, but only the ſimple uſing of that word, which ſtands in the Liturgy; I ſhall not utterly refuſe it, ſeeing it hath nothing that is falſe or evil; nor any ſo conſiderable inconvenience, (that I diſcern), as to neceſſitate to a non-compliance. Yet I diſlike the retaining of it.

In the Exhortation, preparatory to the Sacrament, it is declared, That it is requiſite, that no man ſhould come to the Holy Communion, but with a full truſt in Gods Mercy, and quiet conſcience. Here it is ſaid not only, that it is a duty to be ſo qualified in coming, but that it is requiſite that no man ſhould come, but ſo qualified. This ſeems to mean, that the ſaid qualification is ſo neceſſary, that none may lawfully come without it. It is hereupon to be conſidered, whether a godly Chriſtian under doubts and fears touching his own eſtate towards God, and apprehenſive of Gods diſpleaſure towards him, may not have that Grace which may enable him to come acceptably to this Sacrament?

Tho I do not ſcruple the lawfulneſs of kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacramental Bread and Wine, yet it is hard to conſent to a Rule, that debars from the Lords Supper all Chriſtians who through unfeigned ſcruple of conſcience refuſe this geſture; eſpecially, conſidering that it was not uſed in the firſt Celebration by our Saviour with his Diſciples, nor in the Apoſtles time, as doth any way appear; nor afterwards, when General Councils forbad kneeling in any act of adoration on the Lords day. To this it may be anſwered, that it is not the enjoyning, but the uſing of this geſture, that is conſented to; and the objected inconvenience follows not the uſing, but the enjoyning thereof in the rigor, as to debar from the Sacrament thoſe that ſcruple it. But I further inquire: Whether a conſent to the uſe of p. 150a Rubrick, which hath the nature of an injunction, doth not imply a conſent not only to the uſing, but to the injoyning of the thing therein preſcribed? Moreover the very uſing or obſerving of this Rubrick by the Miniſter, is an injunction in reſpect of the people; becauſe it includes an obligation upon him not to deliver the Sacrament to them, except they uſe this geſture.

In the Rubrick after the Communion, Note that every Pariſhioner ſhall communicate, at the leaſt three times in the year, whereof Eaſter to be one. That it is the duty of every Pariſhioner to be fit to receive the Sacrament, and accordingly to receive it; alſo that the Church may require this duty of all her Members, and Cenſure thoſe who continue wilfully unfit, is not to be queſtioned. But this Rubrick injoyns all Pariſhioners to communicate, and the Pariſh-Miniſters to admit them, without any proviſo here made touching their fitneſs, or due caution elſewhere taken for it, that I know of; when it is ſadly known, that in moſt Pariſhes, too many Pariſhioners are notoriouſly unfit. And we ſee the practice conſequent to this Rule, a conſtant general admiſſion or intruſion of notoriouſly ignorant or ungodly Perſons, who pollute the Communion of the Church, and eat and drink Damnation to themſelves. Beſides this, Infidels, Papiſts, and ſuch as ſecretly at leaſt renounce the Communion of the Pariſh-Churches, are Pariſhioners in many places. Now tho ſuch may be compelled to uſe thoſe means which God hath made univerſally neceſſary to bring the ignorant and erroneous to the knowledg of the truth; yet I do not ſee, that they may be injoyned in word or deed to profeſs what they believe not, or to take that which is the ſpecial Priviledg of Viſible Church-Members.

Of the Order of Baptiſm.

THE ſign of the Croſs in Baptiſm, hath been more ſuſpected to be unlawful than any other ceremony injoyned in the Church of England. I ſhall firſt ſet down what hath made me queſtion the lawfulneſs of it; and afterwards, what may be ſaid in anſwer to it.

Againſt the lawfulneſs of the ſign of the Croſs, it is thus objected. It is not a meer circumſtance, but an ordinance of p. 151Divine Worſhip of mans deviſing, and as great as an external rite can be, and hath in it the nature of a Sacrament. Here is an outward Viſible ſign of an inward ſpiritual Grace. The outward ſign, is the repreſentation of the Croſs, the inſtrument of Chriſts Suffering; the ſpiritual Grace, is the Grace of being a Chriſtian, or a Soldier and Servant of Chriſt, and of Chriſtian fortitude conſequent thereunto, as the Words of the Liturgy do import: And we ſign him with the ſign of the Croſs, in token, hereafter he ſhall not be aſhamed to confeſs the Faith of Chriſt crucified, and to fight manfully under his banner againſt Sin, the World, and the Devil, and to continue Chriſts faithful Soldier and Servant unto his lives end.

If it were granted it hath not the compleat Nature of a Sacrament; yet one eſſential part thereof is moſt apparently in it; that is, to be an engaging-ſign for our part in the Covenant of Grace. For in the Liturgy it is declared to be a token of our engagement to Chriſt crucified in the relations of his Soldier and Servant, and to perform the duties of thoſe relations. Moreover, as Baptiſm dedicates to Chriſt, ſo doth the ſign of the Croſs, according to the expreſs words of the Canon, viz. It is an honourable badge, whereby the party baptized is dedicated to the Service of him that dyed upon the Croſs.

Hereupon I inquire, Whether an Ordinance that is of the ſame import with the Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace, or an eſſential part thereof, may be inſtituted by humane authority, or lawfully uſed by thoſe that are under authority? Tho the Impoſers ſay, it is not a Sacrament, yet while they declare its meaning to be of the formal Nature of a Sacrament, they make it to be one indeed, tho in word they deny it. Whereas to avoid this Argument, ſome ſay, it is impoſible for man to make a Sacrament; therefore the ſign of the Croſs cannot be ſuch: it is anſwered, That tho God only can inſtitute a lawful and valid Sacrament of his Covenant; yet man may preſume to inſtitute an Ordinance of the ſame nature, and reaſon, and intent, with a Sacrament of divine inſtitution, tho it be unlawful, and of no effect. And ſuch an Ordinance is truly and properly a Sacrament, tho an unlawful one, as any other Ordinance deviſed by man, that hath the Nature and formal Reaſon of Religious Worſhip, is truly and properly Worſhip, whatſoever may be ſaid of the lawfulneſs or unlawfulneſs thereof.

p. 152The Reply.

The grand objection againſt the lawfulneſs of the ſign of the Croſs, as uſed in Baptiſm, ſuppoſes that it is of the ſame Nature with a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, whereupon the proper Nature of ſuch a Sacrament is neceſſary to be conſidered.

Sacraments are ſigns appointed to ratiſie, ſeal, and confirm the Covenant of God, and to tender and exhibit the Grace of that Covenant to us. And if any humane authority conſtitute any ſign to this end, it would be a high intrenchment upon the ſoveraignty of God. But the ſign of the Croſs in Baptiſm, is not uſed to this end and purpoſe. It is uſed indeed as a token by way of remembrance, and as a teſtimony of engagement, that the party baptized ſtands obliged to maintain the Chriſtian profeſſion and warfare. And altho ſuch profeſſion and engagement be included in a Sacrament; yet it is not peculiar thereunto, or of its ſpecifically differencing nature. Standing at the Creed, is a profeſſing and engaging ſign of Chriſtianity, yet it is not a Sacrament.

It appears both by the 30th Canon, and by the Liturgy it ſelf, That the Infant baptized, is by vertue of Baptiſm, before it be ſigned with the ſign of the Croſs, received into the Congregation of Chriſts Flock, as a perfect member thereof, and not by any power aſcribed to the ſign of the Croſs. And tho it be declared by the Canon, That it is an honourable badge, whereby the party Baptized is dedicated, &c. yet this Dedication by the Croſs, is wholly diſtinct from the baptiſmal Dedication, to be a Member of the Church. We muſt underſtand, that the Church by this ſign engageth the party upon her account to the Service of Chriſt. The Miniſter acting in the Name of God, baptizeth the party in the name of the Father, &c. but acting in the name of the Church, he ſigneth him with the ſign of the Croſs. This ſign is not any tender of Grace received from God, nor any proper conſecration to God, in his Name and Authority, and as by his Symbol; but a declarative token of duty and engagement to God. The Iſraelites were circumciſed, kept the Paſſover, and had their Sacrifices, all which were tokens of the Covenant between God and them: Yet Joſhua did ſolemnly engage them to God, by ſetting up a Stone as a Witneſs thereof.

p. 153The Objection and Reply, I leave for a while to further conſideration. I have ſomewhat more to ſay touching this point.

The Stone of Witneſs ſet up by Joſhua, was a meer profeſſing or witneſſing-ſign of the Iſraelites acknowledged Relation and Obligation to God; and the erecting or uſing of it, was not for their Dedication to God, as by an Act of ſolemn Worſhip. The uſing of the Croſs in Banners and Coyns, &c. is no Act of Religious Worſhip; but a profeſſing-ſign, or ſignal Action, to teſtifie to the World, that they who uſe it, do believe in Chriſt crucified. And ſurely, it is not unlawful to profeſs by other ſigns, as well as by words, that we are Chriſtians.

But the ſign of the Croſs in Baptiſm, is a ſolemn and ſtated Symbol of a Divine Myſtery: Its uſage therein, is not a meer circumſtance, but a very important Act of Divine Worſhip. It is a compleat Inſtitution of it ſelf, added to the Ordinance of Chriſt, appearing to be of the ſame nature and end. It is evidently uſed as a rite of ſolemn Dedication to God, upon the terms of the Covenant of Grace; and in this regard it is plainly Sacramental, and it ſeems a Dedication added by way of ſupplement to the Baptiſmal Dedication, and in that regard derogatory from the ſufficiency of Baptiſm to that end. It is alſo performed by a Miniſter of Chriſt, acting as his Miniſter towards one of his Flock. Moreover, it is a rite, not of private arbitrary uſe, but of publick inſtitution; and it is made a matter, not of occaſional temporary Obſervance, but a perpetual Ordinance of Worſhip, of the ſame reaſon with thoſe Ordinances which God hath inſtituted to be univerſally and perpetually obſerved by his Church. Sacred rites of this nature, more than thoſe which God hath inſtituted, are not of that rank of things which are neceſſary in genere, and need to be determined in ſpecie; and being not neceſſary, they may be matter of ſcruple to thoſe, who think that unneceſſary rites of Worſhip ſhould not be ordained, or ſtatedly uſed in conjunction with the Holy Sacrament.

That God hath reſerved ſome things in Religion to his own appointment, and left other things therein to humane Determination, is not to be queſtioned. But to diſcern exactly and throughly between the one and the other ſort, I want a ſufficient p. 154clearneſs of Judgment. That the ſign of the Croſs in Baptiſm, as now uſed, is to me a puzling difficulty, I am not aſhamed to confeſs, tho it may be thought a weakneſs in me.

If the ſign of the Croſs were lawful, I am not ſatisfied to declare an aſſent and conſent to the impoſing of it, as a bar againſt the Baptiſm of the Children of thoſe Parents who judg it unlawful, and a ſin in them to permit the ſigning of their Children therewith. To this it may be anſwered, That it is not the injoyning, but the uſing of this ceremony, that is conſented to. But here alſo I inquire, Whether I may lawfully declare an unfeigned conſent to the uſe of this Rubrick, if I diſſent from the injunction of the things thereby injoyned? The uſe of this Rubrick doth include ſuch an Obligation upon the Miniſter, as hinders his Baptizing of the Children of ſuch Parents as are before deſcribed. Further I inquire, Whether I may declare my unfeigned conſent to the uſe of this ceremony, if I be perſwaded, that it is not in it ſelf unlawful, yet wiſh in my heart, that the uſe thereof were not retained, in regard it is neceſſary, and an occaſion of ſtumbling to many? I may ſubmit to the uſe of a thing, not ſimply evil, when I may not declare a hearty conſent to it.

The ſaving Regeneration of all baptized Infants, and their undoubted Salvation if they dye before actual ſin, being aſſerted in the Liturgy, is to be conſidered. In the prayer after the Child is Bapt zed, are theſe words, We yield thee hearty thanks, moſt merciful Father, that it hath pleaſed thee to regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit, &c. At the end of publick Baptiſm, there is this Rubrick, It is certain by Gods word, that Children which are baptized, dying before actual ſin, are undoubtedly ſaved. Admitting that the injoyned Declaration doth not reſpect this Rubrick, as being not a matter of practice, but a doctrinal aſſertion: Nevertheleſs the form of thankſgiving for all baptized Children aforcited, is unqueſtionably contained under it, and I am ingaged to examine the truth and lawfulneſs thereof.

The extent of the efficacy of Baptiſm is a point much controverted by Proteſtant Divines among themſelves, and the ſtate of Infants ſeems not to be ſo fully and clearly expreſs'd in Scripture, as the ſtate of adult perſons; and I acknowledg my ſelf unable to dertermine thereof in the manner here required. p. 155The Queſtion is not, Whether there be any ſaving-benefit to Infants by Baptiſm? But, whether every Infant admitted thereunto, be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and received of God for his own Child by Adoption? &c. That an Infant be a partaker of theſe ſaving-benefits, beſides his being baptized, this condition is requiſite, that he be duly qualified for Baptiſm, and have right thereunto in the ſight of God. Be it granted that the Sacrament hath its effect, where the receiver doth not ſet a bar againſt it; yet it muſt be ſuppoſed, that the receiver is one who hath right to Baptiſm in the fight of God, and to whom the promiſe of Salvation doth belong. But I do not find that the promiſe of Salvation belongs to Children, whoſe Parents, Proparents, or proprietors, are impious, or infidels, under the Mask of the Chriſtian profeſſion; or that ſuch have right before God to Baptiſm, whatſoever right they may have before the Church, while the impiety or infidelity of the Parents, &c. is not diſcovered. It is not enough to ſay, that the Infants title to Baptiſm is founded in Chriſt Inſtitution of the Sacrament. For as there muſt be an Inſtitution of the Sacrament, ſo there muſt be a due qualification of the ſubject that receives it. The Infants of Jews, or Mahomitans, or Pagans, do not actually ſet a bar againſt the efficacy of the Sacrament; yet it cannot be ſaid of ſuch Infants, in caſe they were baptized, that they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. The Parents infidelity doth put a bar to the efficacy of the Sacrament towards his Infant; and this bar is not properly a puniſhment to the Infant, but meerly a non-deliverance, or a being left in the ſtate of ſin and wrath, wherein he is by nature.

I ſtill query, Whether the aforecited aſſertion, That it is certain by Gods word, that Children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual ſin, are undoubtedly ſaved; be not contained under the Declaration? It being the matter of a directing Rubrick, and for uſe, as I ſuppoſe. Moreover this Rubrick ſeems evidently included in the injoyned Subſcription, and to be juſtified thereby, as not contrary to the word of God. Now the ſame things that are objected about the ſaving Regeration of all baptized Children, may be objected in reference to this alſo. Beſides, to affirm the certainty of this poſition by the word of God, is much harder than to admit it as a probable truth only. Whereas it is ſaid, that this poſition may be p. 156acknowledged as certainly true of children indefinitely, without denying it to be true univerſally. I anſwer, That to underſtand it but of children indefinitely, is to make it an inſignificant and uſeleſs Aſſertion, unworthy to be matter of a Rubrick, as ſhewing no more, but that it is certainly true, that all baptized children are not damaned, but ſome ſaved. This is not rationally apprehended to be the meaning thereof.

According to the order preſcribed in the Liturgy, Children are devoted to God, and brought into the Covenant of Grace, and the Baptiſmal Vow by Godfathe s and Godmothers, who have no propriety in them, nor right of dedicating them to God, or bringing them into his Covenant; and the Parents who have right, and by whom the Infants have title to this priviledg, are excluded. It is not mans Law that can authorize any to bring children into the bond of the Covenant with God. And there is no Law of God that authorizeth any beſides Parents, Proparents, or Proprietors, ſo to do. Tho the taking in of Sureties in conjunction with the Parents for a greater aſſurance of the Infants Chriſtian Education, may be commendable and uſeful, if thoſe Sureties did indeed concern themſelves therein, and not make it a matter of meer formality, (as generally it is made) yet there can be no reaſon for ſuch a rigid inſiſting upon Sureties, the uſe of whom at the moſt is but expedient for greater caution about the Childs future education, and in the mean time to overlook, yea to exclude the Parents open and ſolemn dedication of the infant, which is neceſſary.

That form of ſpeaking to the Infant by the Sureties, Doſt thou renounce, &c. doſt thou believe, &c. wilt thou be baptized, &c. wilt thou obediently keep, &c. and the taking of ſeveral anſwers as from him by the Sureties, is not a form of words expreſſing ones being devoted or brought into Gods Covenant by another, but of ones own profeſſed preſent actual believing, deſiring, and vowing. If it be ſaid, This is ſpoken to the Sureties in the Childs name, and 'tis a declaring of what the child undertakes by his baptiſm. I anſwer, The child is not capable of doing any thing in the caſe, and the child doth not, and cannot undertake any thing by another as in his name. To ſay the Infant doth theſe things paſſively, and that he doth paſſively accept the Covenant, is that which I do not underſtand. I grant that baptized infants are under a vow of dedication to God, but not a vow made by themſelves, but by p. 157thoſe whom God hath authorized to dedicate them, and by which they are bound, as much as by a vow actually made by themſelves when they are capable.

Of the CATECHISM.

EVery baptized perſon is taught thus to anſwer,—in my baptiſm, wherein I was made a member of Chriſt, the child of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven.

By the very receiving of baptiſm, neither infants, nor the adult are firſt put into a ſtate of grace; but thoſe who by their own faith, or by the faith of their Parents, were before in the Covenant of Grace, are by Baptiſm ſolemnly inveſted in that Grace. Ones being in the Covenant of Grace, is a prerequiſite condition to the ſaving uſe of this Sacrament, which is the ſole…n dedication to God of one ſo qualified, and his ſolemn inveſtiture in the Grace of the Covenant.

But whether the ſaid words be underſtood of the firſt conſering of thoſe benefits, or of the ſolemn inveſtiture therein; nevertheleſs be it conſidered, Whether it be fit to teach every Catechiſed perſon to believe, That by his baptiſm he was made a pertaker of, or ſolemnly inveſted in thoſe high priviledges which only the children of true believers do receive by their Infant-baptiſm. Be it alſo conſidered, whether it tends not to cauſe many, who are yet in the ſtate of ſin, to believe that they are in the ſtate of grace.

Of the Order of Confirmation.

ANY ſuch baptized perſons as are come to a competent age, and can ſay in their Mother-tongue, the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and alſo can anſwer to other queſtions of the Catechiſm, and to the Biſhops interrogatory touching the renewing of the Vow made in their name at their Baptiſm, and their conſenting thee unto, ſhall anſwer, I do, are according to the Rule of this Book, ſufficiently qualified for confirmation. Be it conſidered, Whether all this may not be ſaid by a perſon in whom appears no credibility of a ſincere, yea, or of an intelligent profeſſion. If it be ſaid, it is left to the Biſhops diſcretion by theſe words of the Rubrick, and if the biſhop approve of them, he ſhall confirm them; nevertheleſs the Rule here ſet down, doth expreſs and require no more. The Query is, Whether p. 158I may conſent to the uſe of a Rule inſufficient for its end?

Confirmation is reſerved to the Biſhop alone; yet it is ordinarily impoſſible for him to take due notice of all perſons to be confirmed within his Dioceſs; and conſequently it cannot be duly adminiſtred to a multitude of perſons that are to be brought to it. Whereas it is alledged, That this reſervation was the uſage of the ancient Church; let it be conſidered, that the primitive or more ancient biſhops were biſhops but of one particular Church, and were capable of taking the overſight of every particular perſon of their flock, and did perſonally perform the ſame. But the preſent biſhops being biſhops of many hundred Churches, have commonly more ſouls in their ſeveral Dioceſſes, than an hundred biſhops can perſonally watch over.

In the prayer immediately before the act of Confirmation, it is ſaid of all perſons admitted to it, That God hath vouchſafed to regenerate them by water and the Holy Ghoſt, and hath given them the forgiveneſs of all their ſins. I enquire, Whether this be warrantable, and according to truth, conſidering what is the corruption of human nature, and what the inclinations and behaviour of moſt young ones are, and what regeneration by the Holy Ghoſt doth import; and how ſuch as are far from any credible appearance of Regeneration, may be qualified for Confirmation, according to the terms preſcribed in this book; and beſides all this, that children of ungodly Parents, to whom the promiſe of ſalvation doth not belong, cannot be ſuppoſed to be really regenerate and pardoned by Baptiſm.

Let the tendency of the ſaid aſſertion, as alſo of that touching the ſaving regeneration, and undoubted ſalvation of all baptized infants, be well conſidered, whether it be to bring men to a ſight of their miſery in the unregenerate ſtate, and an endeavour of their recovery by real regeneration, or to keep them from it.

The Rubrick after Confirmation, There ſhall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until ſuch time as he be confirmed, or be ready and deſirous to be confirmed.

This Rubrick is not only in the nature of a Directory, ſhewing that Confirmation according to due order is requiſite to be received by perſons before they come to the Communion; but a rigid excluſion of all from the Communion who are not confirmed, or are not ready and deſirous to be confirmed according to the preſcribed manner. It is granted, That a credible, approved p. 159profeſſion of Faith and Repentance, may be made neceſſary to admiſſion; becauſe they, who do not make ſuch profeſſion, are juſtly excluded from Communion in the Sacrament. But there are many that are fit for this Communion, that are not willing to ſubmit to this order of Confirmation. And if their refuſal of it be culpable, yet it may not deſerve ſo great puniſhment, as excluſion from the Sacrament.

Of the Form of Matrimony.

TOuching this form of words, Who haſt conſecrated the ſtate of Matrimony to ſuch an excellent myſtery that in it is ſignified and repreſented the ſpiritual Marriage and unity betwixt Chriſt and his Church; be it conſidered, that this Doctrine is not found in Scripture, that Marriage was conſecrated to repreſent the ſaid myſtery. It is indeed a ſimilitude uſed to expreſs that miſtical union. But every ſimilitude uſed in Scripture to expreſs a holy Myſtery, (as that of the Vine and the Branches, to expreſs the Union betwixt Chriſt and the faithful), is not conſecrated to a repreſentation thereof. Upon this very ground, the Papiſts hold Matrimony to be a Sacrament, becauſe God hath put in it the ſignification of ſo excellent a thing, as the indiſſoluble conjunction of Chriſt with the Church. The Apoſtle, Eph. 5.30, 31. ſpeaking of a great myſtery, doth not in any reſpect intend the Marriage-Inſtitution and Union, but only the Union of Chriſt and his Church. Now tho this be a ſmall matter, for which a peaceable man would not break with a Church; yet ſuch a one may queſtion, Whether he may declare his unfeigned aſſent and conſent to the uſe of it, while he doth not believe it to be true.

The Rubrick at the end of Matrimony. It is convenient that the new Married perſons ſhould receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage, or at the firſt opportunity after their Marriage.

I queſtion, whether it be convenient, that the new Married Perſons ſhould receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage. In caſe married Perſons could at the time of their Marriage be compoſed to ſuch a holy, and ſpiritual, and heavenly frame, and ſo ſequeſter their thoughts from the concernments of the body, as requiſite for the ſolemn duty of receiving the Sacrament; and withal ſhould abſtain from thoſe heightned p. 160ſenſitive injoyments, which are uſed at that time, this Rubrick were allowable and commendable. But it is not ſo with one of a thouſand, if with any one; nor do I know, that it is requiſite it ſhould be ſo, at leaſt ordinarily. The rule of Scripture is, That Perſons ſhould abſtain from conjugal embraces, in time of moſt ſelemn Religious exerciſes, 1 Cor. 7.5. This alſo is but a ſmall matter, for which no breach ſhould be made. But a ſober peaceable man may queſtion, whether he may aſſent and conſent to the uſe of ſuch a Rubrick, as to that part of it? Yet queſtionleſs, it may be convenient that the new-married Perſons, if duly qualified, ſhould receive the Holy Communion at the firſt opportunity after their Marriage.

Of the Order for Viſitation of the Sick.

RUbrick, The Sick perſon ſhall be moved to make a ſpecial confeſſion of his ſins, if he ſhall feel his conſcience troubled with any weighty matter. After which confeſſion the Prieſt ſhall abſolve him, if he humbly and heartily deſire it.

Here the Prieſt is deſired and required to abſolve every Sick perſon, after ſpecial confeſſion of ſin, in caſe he feel his conſcience troubled with any weighty matter, if he humbly and heartily deſire it. And the Abſolution is to be given abſolutely unto every ſuch perſon, and not conditionally, if he truly repent. In defence of Abſolution given upon the only terms preſcribed in this Book, it doth not ſatisfie to ſay, that if the Sick perſon ſhew himſelf truly penitent; his Abſolution ought not to be left to the Miniſters diſcretion. For every Miniſter ought to exerciſe a judgment of diſcretion about his own Act, eſpecially an Act of ſuch importance, as the abſolving of a ſinner from all his ſins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. And the queſtion ſtill remains, whether every Sick perſon, that can verbally expreſs as much as is here required, be truly penitent; yea or make a credible profeſſion thereof? To preſume every one is truly penitent, who is deſirous to receive Abſolution, is a charity larger than of Gods allowing. That the Abſolution ſhould be pronounced abſolutely, and never conditionally; it doth not ſatisfie to ſay, that the condition is underſtood: For it is not reaſonably ſuppoſed that all the Sick, who can ſay ſo much as is here required of them, p. 161do underſtand or conſider, that it is ſpoken to them conditionally. Too many be ſtupidly ſenſleſs, and groſly ignorant of their own ſpiritual eſtate, and of the true conditions of reconciliation with God.

In the Rubrick of the Communion of the Sick, the Curate is required to adminiſter the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to every Sick perſon that is deſirous to receive it; but he is not allowed to conſider whether he be fit to receive it. To preſume that every one is fit to receive, that is deſirous to receive, is a Charity larger than of Gods allowing. It is known by ſad experience, that many very bad men are deſirous to receive the Sacrament when they are Sick:

It may be conſidered, whether this manner of giving Abſolution, and adminiſtring the Sacrament to every Sick perſon that is deſirous to receive the ſame, tend to bring men to repentance, or to harden them in impenitency.

Of the Order for Burial of the Dead.

THeſe enſuing forms, Foraſmuch as it hath pleaſed Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himſelf the Soul of our dear Brother here departed, we commit his Body to the ground, &c. in ſure and certain Hope of the Reſurrection to eternal Life. Alſo, we give thee hearty thanks, for that it hath pleaſed thee to deliver this our Brother out of the miſeries of this ſinful World. Alſo, that when we ſhall depart this Life, we may reſt in him, as our Hope is this our Brother doth: are to be uſed at the interment of all perſons whatſoever, but ſuch as dye unbaptized, or excommunicate, or have laid violent hands on themſelves. But multitudes, that are not here accepted, dye in notorious ſin, and give no credible evidence of their repentance.

Tho we be not infallibly certain, that ſuch notorious ſinners, and in all appearance impenitent to the laſt, are damned; yet it may be queſtioned, whether there be ground of hope for their being ſaved, and whether they may be owned as Brethren that reſt in Chriſt, and whom God of his great mercy hath taken to himſelf, and on whoſe behalf we ought to give thanks to God, that he hath taken them out of the miſeries of this life. It may alſo be queſtioned, Whether it be of ſafe or dangerous tendency for the Church in her publick Leturgy, p. 162ſolemnly to declare all this at their interment.

Tho the words in ſure and certain hope of the Reſurrection to eternal Life, be to be underſtood of the Reſurrection in general, and not of the Reſurrection of the deceaſed party; yet the very committing of his Body to the ground, in ſure and certain Hope of the Reſurrection to eternal Life in general, doth imply ſome degree of grounded hope of his part in that Reſurrection, or elſe the ſaid words ſeem to be uſed impertinently.

Whereas it is ſaid, There is ſome degree of Hope, where we cannot determine the contrary: I anſwer, that this which is called a degree of Hope, is a meer negative, or nothing, and ſignifies no more, than that we are not infallibly ſure of mens final Impenitence and Damnation. This is not properly any degree of Hope, nor doth it include any Judgment made of the party, it being a meer negative. And here no Judgment of Charity is included, becauſe here is no ground thereof ſuppoſed.

It doth not ſatisfie to ſay, That the Church ſuppoſeth all who dye in her Communion to be hopeful; becauſe this ſuppoſeth and requireth the due exerciſe of diſcipline in the Church. Now we ſee that diſcipline is not ſo exerciſed, but that multitudes, in whom no credible or hopeful evidence of repentance doth appear, dye in her Communion. And this omiſſion of diſcipline is conſtant, general, and uncontrolled.

It is granted, that dying-impenitents do not go immediately into the power of the Devil, but firſt into the hands of the great God, to be diſpoſed of by him according to the conditions of the Goſpel-Covenant, which flow from a grant of mercy. Nevertheleſs, we know that the Law of Grace and Mercy finally abuſed and violated, doth contain a Denunciation of the greateſt Wrath and Vengeance. And it ſeems very improper to ſay of one whom God hath taken into his own hands to adjudg to everlaſting puniſhment for the final violation and contempt of the Covenant of Grace, That God hath taken him to his mercy, or unto himſelf of his great Mercy; becauſe he judgeth and condemneth him for violating the Law of Mercy. Beſides, what mortal man certainly knows whether the Judgment and Execution immediately after Death, be not the ſame thing.

p. 163Some geneneral Obſervations upon the Book of Common-Prayer.

ACcording to the Tenor of this Book, every perſon in the external Communion of the Church, is ſet forth as godly or regenerate, when multitudes in the ſaid Communion are palpably unregenerate and ungodly. This appears by ſeveral important paſſages already noted, touching every perſon baptized, confirmed, interred, &c. and by theſe further Inſtances. In the order of Matrimony, for every Married couple, this form is to be ſaid, O Lord ſave thy Servant, and thy Handmaid, who put their truſt in thee; and the like for every Sick perſon that is viſited by the Prieſt, and for every Woman that is Churched. It is likewiſe recommended as convenient, that the new married Perſons ſhould receive the Holy Communion at the time of their Marriage, or at the firſt opportunity after their Marriage, which ſeems to ſuppoſe, that all perſons who may lawfully be married, are fit to receive the Sacrament of Chriſts Body and Blood.

The Objection here made, is not againſt the applying of the aforeſaid, or the like form of words, or the vouchſafing of the aforeſaid Priviledge of the Holy Sacrament to thoſe that give any credible evidence of their faith and repentance; but that it is done to all indifferently, whatſoever their ſtate towards God appears to be. Indeed the Church may be called Holy, as the Apoſtles writing to the Churches, give them the ſtile of Saints, and thoſe that are ſanctified, and holy Brethren, and the like. But the query is, Wherther they would, or we may account every Pariſhioner, who is not excommunicate in this preſent way of Church-Government, to be penitent, and believing, and holy; and wether we may uſe towards every particular Pariſhioner, ſuch forms of words as import their unfeigned faith, notwithſtanding a manifeſt appearance of impenitence and ungodlineſs?

If the omiſſion of things moſt neceſſary in ſome main parts of the Liturgy, be a juſt ground of not declaring an unfeigned aſſent and conſent to the forms as there preſcribed: I may urge, that in the general Confeſſion there is no mention of Original ſin. As for thoſe words, the devices and deſires of our own hearts, they denote actual ſins of the heart. And that clauſe, There p. 164is no health in us, betokens there is no Salvation or Deliverance in our ſelves. Or if it were deſigned in this place to fignify Original ſin, it is a very obſcure expreſſion thereof. This Omiſſion is the more liable to exception, if it be upon theſe Principles and Suppoſitions, that all who are in the external Communion of the Church, are regenerate; that all baptized Perſons, yea or all baptized in Infancy, whether they be the Children of the promiſe or not, are delivered from the guilt of Original ſin: Or that no reliques of Original ſin, which are truly and properly ſin, remain in the regenerate.

It may be likewiſe urged, that in the ſaid Confeſſion there is no ſufficient expreſſing of actual ſins in particular; and that the Morning and Evening-prayer moſtly conſiſts of meer generals, without ſuch particular Confeſſion of ſins, and Petition for ſpiritual Graces, as is requiſite to be made on the behalf of the whole Congregation. There may be indeed particular Confeſſions and Petitions proper for particular Perſons, which are not here intended: But there are others of common concernment and neceſſity to all Chriſtians. And my query is, Whether this ſort may be ſtatedly omitted in a publick Liturgy?

Of the form of ordering Biſhops, Prieſts and Deacons.

IN the Preface it is ſaid, That it is evident to all men diligently reading the holy Scriptures and ancient Authors, That from the Apoſtles time there have been theſe Orders of Miniſters in Chriſts Church, Biſhops, Prieſts and Deacons. Between the Orders of biſhops and deacons, there is unqueſtionably an eſſential difference. But if by the orders of biſhops and prieſts, be meant ſeveral Orders or Offices ſpecifically or eſſentially different, and not ſeveral degrees of ſuperiority and inferiority in the ſame office, the eſſential nature whereof is in both, I cannot by ſubſcription declare that the ſaid aſſertion is not contrary to the word of God. Upon diligent reading of the Holy Scripture, I cannot find therein the office or order of a presbyter that is no biſhop.

Nor can I conſent to this paſſage in the ſaid Preface, No man ſhall be accounted or taken for a lawful Prieſt, or be ſuffered to execute the function, except he be called according to this form, or hath had formerly Epiſcopal Ordination. I am no way ſatisfied in the diſabling or degrading of ſo many Miniſters as are ordained only by Presbyters.

p. 165Of the promiſſory part of the ſecond Article of Subſcription in theſe words, That he himſelf will uſe the form in the ſaid book preſcribed in publick prayer, and adminiſtration of Sacraments, d n one other. Can. 36.

THE laſt words [and none other] taken in their moſt obvivious ſenſe, ſeem to exclude all other form of prayer uſed by the Miniſter before or after Sermon, whether conceived at the preſent, or precompoſed. For prayer before and after Sermon is publick prayer. Now it is expreſly promiſed by the Subſcriber, that he will uſe no other form in publick prayer, than what is preſcribed in the ſaid book. I know many Conformiſts do practiſe otherwiſe than is here expreſſed. But I know alſo, that ſome do urge this and another Canon againſt their practiſe; and I now enquire into the plain force of the words, which ought to be regarded by a conſiderate Subſcriber.

I ſuppoſe it will be granted by all, That the Church intends hereby to engage againſt uſing any other form whatſoever in the adminiſtration of Sacraments; and thereupon one would think, that ſhe intended hereby to engage alſo againſt uſing any other form whatſoever in publick prayer, ſeeing in the words of the promiſe, the engagement againſt the uſe of any other form, both in publick prayer, and adminiſtration of Sacraments, is alike expreſſed.

If any ſufficient reaſon or good warrant can be produced for reſtraining the words to the excluding only of the uſe of any other publick Liturgy, as for example the Maſs-book, or of any other publick Directory of Worſhip, inſtead of the Common-prayer; nevertheleſs it were to be wiſhed, that men might not be enjoined to make a promiſe in thoſe words, which in their plain ſenſe do expreſs an engagement which is not thereby intended.

I have conſidered many particulars which come within the compaſs of the Declaration of unfeigned aſſent and conſent injoined by the Act of Uniformity, and the Subſcription required by the Thirty ſixth Canon. In all which my deſire and deſign is not to diſaffect any perſons to the Book of Common prayer, but to receive ſatisfaction, if it may be had, concerning the things wherein I am diſſatisfied. For I own the ſaid form of worſhip to be in the p. 166main ſound and good for the matter of it, and I ſincerely join with the Congregation in the ſame, tho I take it to be leſs perfect than is to be deſired. It is not therefore the uſe of a Liturgy in the publick Worſhip of God, nor the reading of the Common-prayer in the ordinary daily ſervice, that makes me a Nonconformiſt. But the high ſtrain of the Declaration and Subſcription, and the ſtrict obſervation of all things preſcribed, are difficulties which I cannot overcome.

This conſideration of the preſent ſtate of Conformity, hath proceeded according to the limited ſenſe of the Declaration, as reſtrained to the uſe of things, which being a probable limitation, I have willingly admitted for peace ſake. But there be thoſe who will not allow it, ſaying, that the true intendment of the ſaid Declaration is to be taken from the plain ſignification of the form of words wherein it is expreſſed, which is no leſs than a full juſtification of all things whatſoever contained and preſcribed in and by the Book of Common-prayer, &c. as right and good.

I confeſs I am not able with a judgment of certainty to determine which of theſe two explications doth truly and rightly expound the full intendment of this Declaration. And tho I have admitted the more reſtrained meaning thereof as probable, yet the truth is I have not found that it doth any great matter to make the way of Conformity eaſie or paſſable, as appears by the foregoing examination of many things contained and preſcribed in the Liturgy. But if the other opinion of the more comprehenſive meaning, be true, the way is yet more difficult; for then the Declaration doth imply an acknowledgment of the truth of all aſſertions any where contained in this Book; alſo of the truth, lawfulneſs, and goodneſs of all expreſſions, not only in the divine Service it ſelf, but in all the directing-Rules, viz. Rubricks, Calendar, and Tables; alſo of the lawfulneſs and fitneſs not only of the uſe of things injoined, but of the very injunction or impoſition, the ſaid directing Rules being ſo many injunctions ſtrictly requiring us to obſerve the things preſcribed in them. But (as I have before obſerved) if the ſenſe of the Declaration be reſtrained to the uſe of things, it doth not appear that the injoined Subſcription is to be ſo reſtrained.

As I have ſaid, I conſent to the uſe of the Common-prayer as a tolerable Form of Worſhip; but that doth not imply my allowing of all and every thing therein contained. Upon the review p. 167of the whole matter, let it be impartially conſidered, whether a Declaration of ſo high a ſtrain, about a book of meer humane and fallible compoſition, containing in it many hundreds of propoſitions and conſequences, ſhould be ſo rigorouſly exacted. If ſome recognition in this kind be thought neceſſary, it were to be deſired, that it might be contrived in a form of words leſs p rplexing and enſnaring, yet ſufficiently engaging.

Of the Renouncing of the Obligation of the COVENANT, Required by the Act of Ʋniformity.

THis Covenant was not meerly a League between men, confirmed by an Oath; but a Vow to God of ſeveral things directly reſpecting him. And tho its intent were to engage men one to another, yet that was not the whole nor chief intent thereof: but its chief intendment was to engage all the Covenanters jointly to God.

Howſoever it be called an Oath, yet ſo far as it is an Oath of things which directly and immediately reſpect God, or that are to be performed towards him, it hath the nature of a Vow.

To invalidate the Obligation of an Oath or Vow made to God, is a thing of a high nature, and had need to be done with a clear judgment.

One point of this Oath or Vow, was to endeavour Church-Reformation according to our Places and Callings. And no Reformation can be without ſome Alteration.

Here the queſtion that concerns me, is, Whether there lies no ſecondary obligation from this Covenant, upon any perſon that took it, to do that which he was antecedently obliged to do, viz. To endeavour in his own place and calling, and only by legal ways, that alteration of Government in the Church, which is juſt and neceſſary to be made?

It is to be conſidered, that the Renunciation required, is to declare not only that there lies no obligation from the Covenant to endeavour an alteration of the ſubſtance of Church-government, to wit, Epiſcopacy; but that there lies no obligation thence to endeavour any alteration of Government in the Church. The extent of the words doth equally reſpect any change in any point, tho never ſo juſt and neceſſary.

p. 168It is a point too high for me to judg of all perſons whatſoever who have taken this Covenant, how far they are or are not bound thereby. And put caſe I may not be ſo clear and ſure in this matter, as to aſſert the obligation thereof, I may alſo not be ſo clear and ſure therein, as to renounce the obligation thereof.

As Gods Moral Law primarily obligeth to endeavour Church-Reformation, while there is corruption in the Church; ſo a ſolemn Swearing or Vowing thereof, infers a ſecondary or further obligation thereunto, in reſpect of the Oath or Vow.

God being a Party in an Oath or Vow of duties directly reſpecting him, and antecedently required by his Law, no humane Authority can nullifie the obligation thereof.

The unlawfulneſs of the impoſition, and the defect of Authority in the impoſers, or that it was taken conſtrainedly, or in ſinful circumſtances, doth not nullifie the obligation of an Oath or Vow, when the matter thereof is in it ſelf a duty.

The conjunction of things unlawful in an Oath or Vow, doth not make it null as to thoſe things which are antecedently neceſſary. This Covenant conſiſts of many parts, which are indeed for the matter ſo many ſeveral Vows. And thoſe parts which are of things lawful and neceſſary, do not riſe from, nor depend upon thoſe parts that are objected to be unlawful, but ſtand intire by their own force and valour. Now the queſtion is, Whether thoſe parts, which are of things lawful and neceſſary, can be made void by the conjuction of thoſe other parts objected to be unlawful?

The obligation of this Covenant cannot ceaſe by the mutual conſent of the Covenanters; becauſe it was not ſolely or chiefly a league between men, but chiefly an Oath or Vow to God of things to be performed towards him; and the Union and Aſſociation of men therein, was in vowing to God, who was the party chiefly intended in it.

Tho a Vow of things in themſelves arbitrary, being made by ſuch as are under the power of another, may be diſannulled by him under whoſe power they are; yet it is not ſo in Vows of thoſe things that are duties antecedently.

To be obliged by this Covenant to endeavour alteration of Government in the Church, ſo far as that alteration is juſt and neceſſary to be made, is againſt no due of obedience to Governours, no juſt rights of Superiors, or any perſons whatſoever.

p. 169This Covenant cannot oblige to any ſuch endeavour of alteration, as includes the determining of matters of publick Government againſt the Law and mind of the Soveraign. It is only an endeavour of a juſt and neceſſary alteration by lawful ways and means, which is here taken into conſideration.

Several things of moment in the Eccleſiaſtical Government may need Reformation, tho Epiſcopacy remain as it was received in the ancient Church.

It is an ordinary and neceſſary practice to make an alteration of Laws, and ſo of Government, both in Civil and Eccleſiaſtical matters, from time to time, ſo far as need requires.

I freely declare, That there lies no obligation from this Covenant upon any perſon to endeavour any alteration of Government in Church or State by Rebellion, Sedition, or any other unlawful means.

There lies no obligation from this Covenant upon any perſon to endeavour by any means, any ſuch alteration of Government in Church or State, as may not lawfully be made by the authority of King and Parliament, nor be endeavoured by others in ſubordination to the ſaid Authority.

I conſent to the Epiſcopacy that was of ancient Eccleſiaſtical cuſtom, as in the times of Ignatius, Tertullian, or Cyprian.

I conſent to Biſhop Ʋſher's Model of Government by Biſhops, and Archbiſhops, with their Presbyters, which was preſented to his Majeſty by the Divines called Presbyterian, for a ground-work of accommodation.

I am willing to exerciſe the Miniſtry under the preſent Eccleſiaſtical Government, and to promiſe obedience to the Ordinary in things lawful and honeſt, if there were a relaxation about ſome injunctions, which I ſcruple; or if the grounds of my ſcruples about them were removed.

I am ready to engage, not to diſturb the peace of the Church, and not to endeavour any point of alteration in its Government, by Rebellious, Seditious, or any unlawful ways.

I am ready to engage alſo, That I will not any way endeavour any point of alteration to be made in the Government of the Church, otherwiſe than by authority of King, of Parliament.

Yea, for my own part, I cou…d willingly engage, That I will not any way endeavour a change of Church Government from Epiſcop…l to Presbyterial. The ancient conjunction of Epiſcopacy p. 170with Presbytrey, is that which I wiſh might be reſtored to the Church.

Some have argued, that the renouncing of the obligation of the Covenant, is to be taken in a reſtrained ſenſe, viz. That there lies no obligation from this Covenant, by Seditious, Factious, Turbulent and Tumultuous ways, to diſturb the publick Peace and Government now Eſtabliſhed in Church or State.

Anſ. 1. It is hard to warrant this reſtrained ſenſe of the Declaration, by ſufficient proof, or good authority.

2. When we intend to declare the non obligation of an Oath or Vow, only in a limited ſenſe; it is not ſa…e to declare it in ſuch words as expreſs its non-obligation in any ſenſe whatſoever. Both the taking and renouncing of an Oath, had need be done in words of unexceptionable clearneſs, at leaſt in ſuch words as are not liable to great exception. Not only the thing intended by an Oath, but the expreſſion thereof, had need be warrantable.

3. This Covenant hath been ſo handled, and the form of the renunciation is ſo expreſſed, as that one would eaſily think, that the Law-makers intended an utter renouncing of all manner of obligation from it.

p. 171Of Divine Worſhip, in three Parts.

The Firſt, Of the Nature, Kinds, Parts, and Adjuncts of Divine Worſhip. The Second, Of Idolatry. The Third, Of Superſtition leſs than Idolatry.

TO make diligent ſearch into the nature of Divine Worſhip, I have judg'd my ſelf concern'd, as a Chriſtian, and a Miniſter, and a Sufferer for conſcientious diſſents and doubtings about ſome points thereof in joyned by Authority. Some Delineation of what I diſcern in this important matter, by the aſſiſtance of Divine Grace in reading and thinking, I have here drawn in a narrow compaſs. And I have done it to the intent, that I might have a Scheme of my thoughts herein, at hand, and ready for view, to be rectified where it is wrong, and to be further improved where it is right, and more readily managed as cauſe requires; likewiſe, that from others, who will do me the favour to peruſe and conſider it, I may have help for a better or clearer knowledg of theſe points. For I know my great defectiveneſs in this knowledg, and am an humble ſeeker of more clearneſs and exactneſs therein; yet I am not dubious in the main heads. In the body of an Animal, the greater veins are more eaſily diſcernable in their whole Syſteme; the ſma…er, with more difficulty; and the ſmalleſt are almoſt imperceptible. So in Theology, the large veins of the greateſt and moſt important truths, are very viſible and palpable; but the ſmaller branches thereof may not be eaſily diſcern'd, and are not traced in their ſeveral paſſages, without attentive and acurate inveſtigation. It behoves every one to do his beſt, for as perfect underſtanding in matters of his own Function and Practice, as he can reach unto. But when we have done all, we know but in part, p. 172and ſee darkly as in a glaſs: The ſenſe whereof ſhould diſpoſe men of different judgments to that conſiderateneſs and ſobriety, which will cauſe, that the one neither deſpiſe nor judg the other, but that all receive one another with mutual charity.