designed by his Son and his Apostles the several Officers and Offices his Wisdom thought sufficient for the management of the affairs of his House that is his Church as they are such First Christ Jesus called his twelve Disciples together and gave them power and authority over all Devils and to cure Diseases and he sent them to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick Luke 9.1 2. After he appointed other seventy also and sent them two and two before his face into every City and place whither he himself would come and these were confined to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Mat. 10.6 To whom he saith only he was sent Mat. 15.24 St. Peter having confessed him Christ tells him Mat. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church which by reason of the repeating of his Name and alluding to it and thereby minding him of it is justly to be thought to imply a promise of a special use of him in the building of his Church not barely as that particular man but as a foundation of it by his Preaching as other Apostles are called Foundations Eph. 2.20 in respect of their Doctrine wherein St. Peter had some work before the other in his Preaching Acts 2. and 3. and 10. And therefore Christ promiseth to give him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 16.19 So as by his preaching to open the Kingdom of Heaven first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles when Cornelius was admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore Act. 15.7 he speaks of it as his preheminence that God made choice among the Disciples that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel and believe he imploying that key of knowledge which the Lawyers had taken away who entered not themselves into the Kingdom of God and them that were entering in they hindered Luke 11.52 To him our Lord Christ assures Mat. 16.19 Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Which Phrase seems by the expressions Mat. 23.4 Rev 2.24 to import that what he should command to be done should be in Heaven ratified as commanded by God as it was Acts 2.38 Acts 3.19 20. Acts 10.48 and what he should untie that is free men from the obligation of that should be untied in Heaven that is God would not require the observation of it which was performed Acts 11.3 14 17 18. Acts 15.10 Which promises though personal to St. Peter and in respect of the first work peculiar to him neither imparted to any other Apostle nor derived from him to any successour yet this last promise was after made to the rest of the Apostles Mat. 18.18 and performed when St. Peter with them decreed about Circumcision Acts 15.24 and the Holy Ghost established it v. 28. Afterwards our Lord Christ being risen from the dead finds his Disciples assembled for fear of the Jews Thomas being absent and saith Peace be unto you as the Father hath sent me even so send I you And when he had said this he breathed on them and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained John 20.19 21 22 23. The words of salutation of mission the breathing on them and imparting the Holy Ghost to them do import that the remission and retaining of sins there promised was a peculiar power given to them on whom he thus breathed though also communicated after to other Apostles who were in like manner sent and received the Holy Ghost as they did Which remission of sins was accomplished when by their preaching persons repented and were Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins Acts 2.39 41. When Aeneas was cured by St Peter Acts 9.33 For healing is by remission of sins Mat. 9.6 James 5.15 John 5.14 Or by taking off the sentence of delivering to Satan by which the Apostles had power to retain sins as appears by that speech of St. Paul 1 Tim. 1.20 That he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander unto Satan that they might be instructed or corrected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as either to be afraid or disabled from blaspheming any more as they had done when Satan should chastise them with bodily punishment St. Paul also had determined by his Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. When the Christians were gathered together that they might be witnesses to deliver him that had his Fathers Wife unto Satan for the destruction of the Flesh that is the wasting of his body that the Spirit or Soul being sensible of his sin and humbled for it might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Which had been his comming to them with a Rod 1 Cor. 4.21 and the retaining his sin had not his after-sorrow caused S. Paul to forgive him in the person of Christ 2 Cor. 2.10 which was the remitting of sin confirmed in Heaven Other instances there are of the retaining of sins by Apostolical power when St. Paul smote Elymas the sorcerer with blindness Acts 13.11 and St. Peter inflicted death upon Ananias and his wife Sapphira for lying to the Holy Ghost and keeping back part of the price of the Land which they had sold Acts 5.3 5 10. After this mission commission and breathing of Christ on the disciples to reestablish St. Peter after his fall Christ injoynes him to feed his Lambs and his Sheep thrice charging him that he might shew his love to him whom he had thrice denied whereby he doth not make him universal Bishop or Monarch of the whole visible Church as Romanists impiously pervert the Text but requires of him diligence in testimony of his love to him by doing that work which is expressed in words which signifie teaching one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not ruling and that Ministry which is common to other Bishops Acts 20.28 and Elders among whom St. Peter termes himself a fellow Elder and Christ the chief Shepherd 1 Peter 5.1 2 4. But then Christ did most design the Officers and Offices he thought requisite for the management of the affairs of his house when being to ascend into Heaven not long after in a mountain of Galilee Jesus spake to them saying all power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations or rather Disciple or make Disciples all Nations or of or in all Nations not the Jewes only as formerly Mark 16.15 Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every creature or to all the creation Baptizing them thus discipled Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved into the name of the the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
I grant that Christ hath appointed Ministers as is said and that it is wisdom to choose and hearken to such and most of all to the best and the most able and though the reading of Mr. Matthew Pool's Quo Warranto might deterr many who take upon them to preach constantly and publickly in solemn Assemblies as Gifted Brethren from their practice which they use Nor do I deny there may be liberty yea and duty occasionally especially when there is want of Ministers in Office to preach yet I deny that a lawfulness to hear them as Ministers or as Gifted Brethren doth necessarily thence arise For suppose a Minister or Gifted Brother should be Heretical yet he is not to be heard but shunned Tit. 3.10 Here by the way I take notice that if it be lawful to others then Ministers to preach as their liberty permitted to them Some practice that is a part of Instituted Worship is warranted in Scripture as the persons liberty by permission without command and therefore hearing of the present Ministers may be lawful and warranted in Scripture as mens liberty by permission without command which was my answer to this Authors first Argument against hearing them and is now confirmed by his Concession concerning the preaching of Gifted-Brethren Sect. 2. They may be heard as Ministers of the Gospel who are not rightly called It is added 'T is the minor or second Proposition that is capable in the thoughts of some of a denial which we prove per partes thus 1. 'T is not lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel they are not such therefore may not be heard as such Ans. I deny this consequence if a man either ignorantly or fraudulently get into the place of a Minister of the Gospel or be unduly chosen or ordained yet if he have the place of the Minister of the Gospel and preach it truly he may be heard as a Minister of the Gospel though he be not such that is rightly called and stated in that Function The reasons whereof are 1. Because every Hearer is not bound to examine the entrance of the Teacher into his Function therefore it is enough to hear him as such that there is nothing appears to the contrary 2. Because it is above the ability of Hearers to judge of the Ministers Call in many Cases the resolution thereof depending upon sundry Controversies about the power of Election and Ordination which they are not able to discuss and there are many proceedings in getting Testimonials using means for obtaining Ordination Institution besides what concerns their Baptism which either they cannot or their time and estate will not permit them to enquire into and sure Christ hath not bound men to impossibilities 3. In all Governments and Societies the peaceable Possessour is presumed to have right till the contrary be evinced otherwise there would be perpetual unquietness and so Societies be dissolved Nor do I think even in the most Reformed no not in the Congregational Churches it would be permitted to a Member of the Society to decline the hearing of him who is taken for their Minister by the most though he conceive or know him to be unduely admitted into the Office Sure I am St. Paul did apply the Precept Exod. 22.28 to Ananias as High Priest Acts 23.5 though it was manifest that he was not such by any legitimate succession but by unrighteous practices and favour of the Roman Governour in Judaea Yea the Scripture makes Caiaphas to prophesie as High Priest though contrary to the Law not High Priest for life but that year Joh. 11.51 and if relations of the Histories of those Times be right no legitimate Successour in that Office but an Usurper and yet our Lord Christ did not except against him when he was convented before him as convented coram non judice or any other way excepted against his Office And therefore I judge that Christs example and St. Pauls are sufficient Warrant to us to submit to and hear them that are not right Officers when they peaceably possess the place and consequently it is lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel who are not such rightly called But let us consider this Authors Plea against the present Ministers of England Sect. 3. Preachers may be Ministers of the Gospel who are not chosen by a particular Instituted Church That they are not Ministers of the Gospel but Thieves and Robbers is manifest such as come not in by the Door which is Christ Joh. 10.9 viz. by vertue of any Authority derived to them from him are not Ministers of the Gospel but Thieves and Robbers Joh. 10.1 from whom 't is the property of the Sheep to flee ver 4 But the present Ministers of England come not in by the Door Therefore That they come not in by the Door viz. by vertue of any authority derived to them from Christ is evident If they have received any such authority or Commission from him they have received it either mediately or immediately the latter will not be asserted nor without the working of miracles should it so be would it to the Worlds end be made good 'T is the former must be fixed upon viz. That they have received their Authority or Commission mediately from Christ but to as little purpose for those that receive authority to preach the Gospel mediately from Christ have it from some particular Instituted Church of Christ to whom power is solely delegated for the Electing of their own Officers according to the tenor of the ensuing Scriptures Acts 6.5 14.23 Answ. If this could be proved there need no more to prove That the present Ministers of England are not to be heard for if they be Thieves and Robbers the sheep will flee from them and ought to do so Joh. 10.5 But it is an ill sign of an inconsiderate and audacious spirit for so high a charge which he that fears God I think should tremble to bring against so many Preachers of a Reformed Church to bring so low a proof which if it be well considered may be not only urged against Presbyterian Preachers if he mean by particular instituted Church as his meaning appears to be by his Preface a Church gathered in the Congregational way by Church Covenant as they speak but also against his gifted Brethren who have not authority to Preach mediately by election of a particular Church but onely from their gifts And if it be said They are chosen by the Church yet this will not authorize them unless the Church have power to choose any besides their own Officers which this Author doth not pretend Now let it be considered what a heavy burden is put on the consciences of hearers They must hear no Thieves and Robbers no nor any Stangers if this Author argue rightly from this Text and all are Thieves and Robbers and Strangers who are not chosen by a particular instituted Church who have power onely to choose their own Officers therefore they
must hear no meer gifted Brethren no Itenerant Preachers though approved by Tryers none but their own Officers and those rightly chosen and consequently they must before they hear them know their Election to be right and the particular Church electing them to be rightly instituted which tends to such dictraction of peoples minds and alienation of them from hearing as can end in nothing but meer Irreligion and make men Seekers or Quakers the mischiefs of which are too too conspicuous But I shall more directly answer this Argument and that so much the rather because the Text John 10. is abused by Papists to prove that they are not right Shepherds who have not authority from the Pope whom they make the One Shepherd v. 16. as Hart in his Conference with Dr. Rainold Chap. 6 from whom all Bishopâ— derive their power and all the Sheep are to hear and by Quakers and others to prove that they are not true Shepherds nor to be heard who receive any maintenance by Tithes or other stipend because they that do so are by them judged Hirelings and not Shepherds v. 12. It is granted that Christ is the door Joh. 10.9 but it may be doubted whether Christ be meant by the door Joh. 10.1 the reason of which is because then Christ should be said to enter by himself and the door to enter by the door To avoid which Maldonate in his Commentary conceives the door v. 1. not to be the same with the door v 9. but the door v. 1. to be the Scriptures of the Prophets whâ—â— foretold of the good Shepherd Ezek. 37.24 34.23 Jerem. 23.5 30.9 Isa. 40.11 by vertue of which Prediction he entred And indeed the whole purport of the Parable doth tend to this that he onely was the good Shepherd that is the Messiah foretold by the Prophets and that all other that pretended to be the Messiah or good Shepherd such as Theudas and Judas of Galilee mentioned Act. 5.36 37. and if there were any other like them were but Thieves and Robbers Strangers Hirelings though they took on them to be Shepherds they were but false Christs such as Christ foretels should arise Mat. 24.24 But let it be granted that the door is the same Joh. 10.1 and 9. the entering in v. 9. cannot be meant of entring into the Ministery lawful election of a particular Instituted Church For then it would follow that every one that enters into the Ministry by by election of a particular Instituted Church shall be saved and go in and out and finde pasture which is manifestly false Therefore entring is meant of every True believer and is by faith in Christ who is the right door by whom that is by his Doctrin men come to be his Sheep and he is their Shepherd But be it that the entring be into the Ministery and that entring be by vertue of Authority derived to them from him how is it proved they are not authorized by Christ immediately who work not Miracles Have not many especially in cases of necessity been Ministers of Christ by immediate inward call who have not wrought Miracles It were hard to conclude of Petrus Waldo and many other Reformers that had no power of working Miracles that they were not Ministers of Christ that I say nothing of gifted Brethren that they were Thieves and Robbers because they had no immediate calling by a particular Instituted Church Sure this would be to offend against the generation of Gods children who in the darkest times of Papal Tyranny took upon them to Preach the Gospel without a praevious election of a particular Instituted Church But how doth he prove that those that receive authority to Preach the Gospel mediately from Christ have it from some particular Instituted Church of Christ He alledgeth no other but this that to a particular instituted Church of Christ power is solely delegated for the electing of their own Officers But what then may not for all this power be given to some others to choose send and ordain Preachers for the unconverted who yet may be Ministers of the Gospel and may be heard as such Yea may not some others ordain Elders for particulâ—â— Instituted Churches Sure when St. Paul left Titus in Crete that he might set in order things that were wanting and ordain Elders in every City as he had appointed him Tit. 1.5 giving him direction whom to ordain he left it to him to choose Preachers for Instituted Churches who were to be heard and this by power delegated by Christ to him and therefore power is not solely delegated to a particular Instituted Church of Christ for the electing of their own Officers but that they may be chosen and ordained by some other for them by vertue of an authority derived tâ— them from Christ. But how proves he the power for electing their own Officers delegated solely to a particular Instituted Church of Christ He saith it is according to the tenour of the ensuing Scriptures whereof one is Acts 6.5 and that relates onely one act of choosing the seven Deacons by the whole multitude of the Disciples at Hierusalem who cannot be well counted such a particular Instituted Church as made up one Congregation to meet every Lords day for all Ordinances they were too numerous to be such nor were they organized under fixed Officers with such constitution as is now made necessary to a particular Instituted Church Nor did they choose the Deacons upon any conceived power delegated from Christ by vertue of any rule established by Christ or his Apostles which should be perpetual in all ages to all Churches but upon advice of the Apostles for their more liberty to attend on other work of more importance and their own liking nor if it were to be a perpetual rule for all Churches in all ages can it be any rule for choosing other Officers besides Deacons there being a peculiar reason why they should choose Deacons whose honesty prudence and mercifulness was to be discerned and not other Officers whose sufficiency to Teach and Orthodoxie were to be considered of which the whole multitude of Disciples then and the major part of a particular Instituted Church are rarely now competent Judges The other text Act 14.23 hath no colour to prove such a delegated power but from one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translation renders when they had ordained Beza after others Per suffragia creâssent Had created by suffrages and because the word arose from a custom among the Greeks of choosing their Officers by Suffrages or Votes signified by the stretching out of the hand conceives that Paul and Barnabas did not create the Elders in the Churches without the Churches election signified by stretching out of their hands to shew their consent to the elected and thence is inferred that so it should be now But this is but one example though it is not to be denied that in after ages which were times of Persecution the Elders were
the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but to be separated from but the present Ministers of England act in the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling Therefore The major is evident For 1. The Power Office and Calling of Antichrist is opposite and contrary unto the Power Office and Calling of Christ not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office-power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ. Answ. The ambiguity that is in the termes of this argument is that which makes this Argument seem to many well-meaning people to be of some force which will appear to be a meer fallacie when the terms are clearly opened Concerning which that which is chiefly to be explained is who is the Antichrist here meant and what is meant by Antichristian which hath been so strangely abused especially of late years that every thing that hath been mâ—sliked by an opposite party is branded with the name of Antichrist and mark of the Beast and made a sufficient cause of utter separation from such as own any thing so called and of almost Vatinian hatred The word Antichrist I find not in any place in the Bible but in the Epistles of St. John 1 Joh. 2.18 As ye have heard that Antichrist should come even now are there many Antichrists whereby we know that it is the last time v. 22. He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son ch 4.3 And every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and this is that Spirit of Antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the World 2 John 7. For many deceivers are entered into the World who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an Antichrist or the Deceiver and the Antichrist In which passages I observe 1. That Antichrist is described as a Deceiver as one that opposeth the grand truth of the Gospel and therefore the word in the Scripture use is not applied to persecuting Princes and Emperours as the great Turk but to false Teachers 2. That the opposition is by denying not by making himself Christ but by denying Jesus to be the Christ and therefore the term Antichrist is not one that sets up himself as if he were Christ they are expressed by another word Pseudo-Christs Mat. 24.24 but one that is against Christ by teaching contrary to him 3. That the term Antichrist is applied to many false Teachers who were in St. Johns time 4. That yet there was one Antichrist more notable than the rest to come into the World About whom hath been variety of opinions of old and of late much controversie whether he should be a single person or a state or rank of persons succeeding one after another whether the Antichrist be already come or is yet to come whether the Popes of Rome for some generations have been the Antichrist or they and some other The opinions of the Fathers were various as conceiving of Antichrist by conjectures after the Popes of Rome began to be so haughty as to usurp dominion over Emperours and Kings and to be tyrannous in cruel persecutions of them that opposed the Papal corruptions many pious and learned men stuck not to stigmatize the Popes of Rome as Antichrists and since the Reformation begun by Luther it hath been the common tenent of Protestants that the later Popes of Rome have been the man of sin foretold 2 Thess. 2.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. the City of Rome the Whore of Babylon and the Papacy or Popes the Beast described Rev. 17. which is taken for a Prophesie of Antichrist And though some have endeavoured to apply these Prophesies to Caligula Simon Magus Domitian Mahomet the Turkish Sultans yet generally not only the French and German Protestants but also the English the most esteemed for learning even of the Order of Prelates such as Downham Robert Abbot Usher Bedel Prideaux together with King James and his Defendant Andrews and many more have applied the Prophesies in the Revelation and 2 Thess. 2. to the Roman Popes as the Antichrist that was to come Whence every thing that is retained in the Protestant Churches not taught or exemplified in the Scriptures according to the use of the Church of Rome is usually termed Antichristian as coming from Rome and the mark and image of the Beast in which sense I conceive this Author useth the term Antichristian as being against Christ and by power Antichristian he means Authority and Rule Prelatical by Office-Antichristian the Office of Preaching reading the Common-Prayer Administration of Sacraments and Discipline according to the Church of England by Calling Antichristian he means Ordination by a Bishop Now out of this may be gathered an answer to the Argument If by Antichristian Power Office and Calling be meant the Papal Power Office and Calling and the acting in Holy things be by preaching the Doctrine of the Trent Council in the points determined therein against Protestants by administring Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and Discipline according to the Canon Law of the Popes in which Papal power is established the major is granted and the minor denied For though I deny not that a person Ordained by a Popish Bishop if he forsake Popish Doctrine and preach the Truth taught by Protestants may be heard preach the Gospel though he do not renounce his Ordination yet while he holds that Doctrine he is not to be heard as being an Antichristian Deceiver But if by an Antichristian Power Office or Calling be meant by vertue of Ministry according to the Liturgie Articles of Religion and Homilies of the Church of England from the Ordination and License of the Bishops which this Author terms Antichristian the major is denied and to the Arguments to prove it I answer that that which he calls Antichristian is not truly such but only miscalled such by him and therefore till he proves that Power-Office and Calling which he calls such and means in his major proposition is such his major is denied and it is denied that what he calls Antichristian is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and Calling of Christ or not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ until he proves such acting to be really so And this answer might suffice to invalidate all the other Arguments he brings for his major they all moving upon this unproved Supposition That what he calls Antichristian and standing by and pleading for Antichrist is in truth such But because there are some things to be examined in the other Arguments also I shall survey them also 2. Saith he It 's unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by
a way of prayer and thanksgiving according to their abilities Indeed Claudius de Sainctes and Pamelius two Popish Divines tell us of Liturgies compâ—sed by the Apostles James Peter and Mark Of Peter 's and Mark 's Cardinal Bellarmine himself not only takes no particular notice but upon the matter condemns them as supposititious and spurious which that they are is abundantly demonstrated by learned Moâ—ney and no more need be added thereunto There are some also fathered upon Basil Chrysostome and Ambrose but as these lâ—ved about the years 372 381 382. in which time many corruptions had crept into the Churches of Christ so the spuriousness thereof as being falsly fathered upon the persons whâ—se names they bear may easily be demonstrated T is already done to our hands by learned Morney in his Book De Missa l. 1. chap. 6. Durantus himself the great Liturgy-monger acknowledgeth That neither Christ nor his Apostles used any prescribed forms but the Lords Prayer and the Creed that they used these he sayes but proves not nor will it ever be proved to the worlds end That about the year 380. Theodosius the Church being rent by Heresies intreated Pope Damasus at whose election though the contest was betwixt him and Ursinus a Deacon of the Church there were not fewer than one hundred thirty seven persons slain that some Ecclesiastical Office might be made which was accordingly done by Hierome and approved by Pope Damasus and madâ— a Rule The unlikâ—lyhood of this later part of the story is manifest Theodosius was too well acquainted with the spirit of Prayer than to goe about any such thing had he judged it necessary having assembled the great Council of Constantinople wherein were not less than an hundred and fifty persons convened is it probable this good man Theodosius would in so momentous a Concern rather consult with one single person than such an Assembly as were by his Authority met together And yet should this be granted it would not from hence appear that at this time there was any devised and imposed all that is pretended to be done by Hierome was the appointiing an order for the reading of the Scriptures which is another thing to the imposition of Forms of Prayer in worship There is one passage in Socrates his Ecclesiastical History l. 5. c. 21. who lived about the year 430. that carrying an undeniable evidence with it that at that time there were no Liturgies we cannot pass over in silence t is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he tells us That among all the Christians in that age scarce two were to be found that used the same words in Prayer Not to tire the Reader in this disquisition Though one part of the Liturgy was not long after introduced by one Pope and another part by another yet till Gregories time who to the honour of Liturgies be it spoken was the very worst of all the Bishops of Rome that preceded him viz. about the year 600. was there any considerable use or any imposing of them yea till the time of Pâ—pe Hadrian which was about the year 800. was it not as I find by publick Authority imposed Then indeed the Emperour Charles the Great being moved thereunto by the foresaid Hadrian by his Civil Authority commands the use of a Liturgy viz. Gregories Liturgy as it is thought to which he compels his Ministers by threats and punishments the usual attendencies and support of Liturgies ever since their production in the world The summ is That in as much as first it cannot be proved the contrary being most manifest in the Scripture that any Liturgy was enjoyned by Christ or his Apostles or in use in the first Churches planted by them 2ly It is evident that for the first four hundred years and more after Christ there was no Liturgy framed nor any by solemn Authority imposed to the year eight hundred it follows undeniably from hence That to worship God in the way of a Liturgy or stinted forms of Prayer is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment Answ. 1. It is to be remembred that as I said before were his Conclusion granted yet Ministers would not be proved to be Idolaters all worshipping of God in a way that is not of his appointment being not Idolatry except therein Divine or Religious Worship be exhibited to a Creature 2. That his own Argument whose way of Worship is not prescribed without a stinted Form of Prayer would as well prove himself an Idolater as the Ministers of England 3. That he still acknowledgeth that the worship according to the Common-Prayer-Book is the worship of the true God nor doth he shew that according to it any other is worshipped 4. That he doth not except against the matter of the Prayers in the Common-Prayer-Book no nor the particular forms of expression as if they were not agreeable to the Scriptures or indecent or inept But 1. That all Liturgies or stinted forms of Prayer and consequently this are not of Gods appointment but of humane invention 2. That they are unduly imposed on Ministers 3. That Ministers do sinfully yea Idolatrously use them because it is a way of Worship not appointed by God The two former of these reach not the Ministers of England but the Composers and Imposers it is the third thing which is pertinent to the present Crimination which may occasion to enquire 1. Whether stinted Forms of Prayer and service of God which are not otherwise faulty than in that they are stinted may not be lawfully used by a Minister of the Gospel in his publick ministration 2. Whether such Prayers and service may not be a Worship of God in a way that is of his appointment I affirm both and to what is said against either I answer 1. That Christ did in appointing the Lords Prayer to be used by his Apostles Matth. 6 9. Luke 11.2 the Salutation to be used by the seventy Disciples Luke 10.5 appoint such a stinted form of service 2. That we have footsteps of such a way of Worship in the New Testament in his justifying and countenancing the crying of Hosanna that is Save us now taken from Psal. 118.25 26. as Mr. Ainsworth in his Annotation observes by the multitude And the Children Matth. 21.9.15 Mark 11.9 With the Disciples Luke 19 38 40. John 12.13 In Christs using the Forms which David used before in the Psalms Matth. 27.46 He prayes in the Form used Psal. 22.1 Luke 24.46 In the Form used Psal. 31.5 In the Apostles use of a Form of Prayer in his Epistles Rom. 1.7 Rom. 16.24 1 Cor. 1.3 1 Cor. 16.23 2 Cor. 1.2 Gal 1.3 Ephes. 1.2 Phil. 1.2 Phil. 4.23 Col. 1.2 1 Thes. 1.2 1 Thes. 5.28 1 Thes. 1.2 2 Thes. 3.16 17 18. 1 Tim. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.2 Tit. 1.4 Philem. 3. Heb. 13.25 1 Pet. 1.2 2 Pet. 1.2 2 John 3. Jude 2. Revel 1.4 In the Old Testament Numb 6.23 24 25 26. 1 Chron. 16.7.35 2 Chron. 20.21
you heareth me he doth not restrain hearers from hearing others who delivered the same truth but the general speech Joh. 8.47 He that is of God heareth Gods words warrants the hearing of Gods word To the Argument I answer That if the major be meant of warrant by command and part accidental of Instituted Worship it is denied and the minor is denied in that branch That there is no warrant in the Scripture for hearing the present Ministers of England But let us view his proofs Sect. 3. Accidentals of Instituted Worship warranted without command in Scripture The major or first Proposition saith he is evident 1. From the nature of Instituted Worship which consists in this that it be of Divine Revelation else whatsoever it is it is not Instituted Worship Answ. This is true concerning the kind or sort of Instituted Worship and concerning the essential parts those things I mean which are determined and necessary but not true of accidentals parts or adjuncts of Worship undetermined these may be from Men and yet the worship be of God If Jehoiakim had heard and believed the Roll which was dictated by Jeremiah he had worshiped God though Jehudi's reading were by his appointment Jer. 36.21 2 From the verdict of Christ who pronounceth all the Worship of Man to be vain and fruitless and so unlawful that is bottom'd on any thing but Divine Revelation Mark 7.7 Answ. This is true that all those actions in which is placed the Worship of God having no appointment from God but onely from men are vain and fruitless and so unlawful and so much the Text alledged proveth But this proveth not that the Worship of God appointed by him is vain fruitless and unlawful because of some adjuncts or circumstances appointed by men which God hath left undetermined So though the receiving to hold Traditions of the Elders and Dictates of Pharisees as if they were of God and God were worshiped by them was vain fruitless and so unlawful yet the hearing of the Law of God read in the Synagogues which we find not to have been appointed by God but by the prudence and authority of Rulers was lawful and approved Luk. 4.16 17. Act. 13.15 27. Act. 15.21 3. If it be lawful to Conform to any one part of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture 't is also lawful to Conform to another a third the whole which would banish Instituted Worship out of the world Answ. The first consequence is granted yet the later is not necessary for though it be true If it be lawful to Conform to any one part of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture 't is also lawful to Conform to another a third the whole yet this would not banish Instituted Worship out of the world For when the Pharisees and all the Jews except they washed their hands oft eat not holding the Tradition of the Elders and when they came from the market except they washed they eat not And many things there were which they had received to hold as the washing of cups and puts brazen vessels and of tables Mark 7.3 4. Yet this did not banish the Instituted Worship of the Passeover and other worship appointed by God to the Jews out of the world 4. To assert that it is lawful to conform to any part of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture reflects sadly upon the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ for either he was not wise enough to foresee that such a part of worship was or would be requisite or had not faithfulness enough to reveal it though the Scripture compares him to Moses for faithfulness who revealed the whole will of God to the making of a pin in the Tabernacle Answ. It no way reflects with any disparagement upon the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ to assert that it is lawful to Conform to accidental parts or rather adjuncts or circumstances of Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture by express command for though Christ was wise enough to foresee what parts of Worship were or should be requisite and had faithfulness enough to reveal what God did require and did make known by himself or his Apostles what kind of Worship should be observed by Christians and what parts were essential or necessary to be observed were determined in Scripture yet many accidental things adjuncts or circumstances of that Instituted Worship were left to the prudence and authority of men chiefly of Rulers which the Lord foreseeing that his Churches would be gathered out of many Nations of various Customs Dispositions Governments thought fit to be permitted to them though he did restrain the Jews more strictly by Moses which was their burthen and it is our ease that we have more liberty than they had Christ was faithful as Moses in that he revealed to us what was his Fathers will in spirituals more clearly than Moses but for externals appointed but few things and those easie in what else was to be added he left it to be ordered under general rules as it should be found convenient in after times And to argue in this manner if Christ did not appoint every accidental part of Instituted Worship he had failed in wisdom or faithfulness and had come short of Moses seems to me to be like their arguing who in the Canon Law say If Christ had not appointed an Universal Bishop to end Controversies as there was an High-Priest among the Jews Non satis discretus esset He had not been discret enough very presumptuously if not blasphemously shaping Christs wisdom after the model of our understanding and injuriously to us in bringing again Christian believers under that yoke of bondage from which Christ hath freed them 5. It pours out contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament Churches as if it were less to these than to those under the Law and the Oeconomy of the Gospel as not so compleat as that of old the whole of whose Worship Orders and Ordinances as was said was bottom'd upon pure Revelation Answ. It is before proved in the Answer to the Preface Sect. 20. that it pours no contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament Churches that the whole of Gods Worship Orders and Ordinances in circumstantials or accidentals which are liable to much variation in Churches of different Nations are not bottom'd upon pure Revelation Divine but in many things left to humane prudence yea it is an effect of Gods love and care over the New-Testament Churches that he hath not tied them in so many things to external rites and particularities of Instituted Worship as he did the Jews Nor is the Oeconomy of the Gospel less compleat than that of old for this cause but if I understand the Apostle Col. 2.8 9 10. this reasoning is either the same or every like that of the Philosophical or Judaizing Teachers to which the Apostles caution is opposed telling them that all fulness was in Christ they were compleat in him without the tradition of
chosen by the Church and therefore seems not sufficient to inferr a necessary perpetual rule of such election especially other passages shewing the Constituting or Ordaining of Elders without mentioning of any such election as Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 And though the original and use of the word were from the custom mentioned and did in popular Elections signifie Election by suffrages yet as in other words so in this use hath enlarged its sense apples it to other creating than by such suffrage as is manifest by the use of it even in the same book Acts· 10.41 where the Apostle are termed Witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chosen before of God who did not choose by suffrages of others and by Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on Act. 14.23 is shewed to be used in like manner in Philo Judaeus and other Authors besides Christians as the same with Electing Ordaining or Constituting without Suffrages of others and must be so understood in this very place because none are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stretch out their hand but Paul and Barnabas and it is said they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be well translated any other than Ordaining by laying on their hands on the Elders not by bare stretching out or lifting up their hands as was wont to be in Suffrages and it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to or for them manifestly distinguishing the Disciples from the Electors or Ordainers by stretching out or laying on of hands So that this place doth not prove Power solely delegated to a particular Church instituted for the electing of their own Officers and therefore if all were true which is added by this Author These men as it s known have no such authority pretend not to it have it in derision come barely with a presentation from a Patron and Ordination Institution and Induction from a Lord-Bishop things forraign to the Scripture and impose themselves upon the people whether they will or no. Yet they may be Ministers of the Gospel and heard as such notwithstanding this Argument Yet I add that it will be hard for this Author to prove that the Parish Churches in England are not particular Instituted Churches of Christ or that the Ministers are imposed on the People whether they will or no the contrary is true of many places especially in London concerning the Incumbents and Lecturers Nor is the Ordination of a Lord-Bishop such a forraign thing to the Scripture as this Author would insinuate the Bishop not Ordaining without other Elders joyning with him and giving him no other authority than to Preach the word of God and to Minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto To shut up the Answer to this Argument As the Text Joh. 10.16 is abused by Hart to prove the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ as Dr. Rainold sheweth in his Conference Ch. 6 divis 1. it being meant only of the Lord Christ and the Quakers abuse Joh. 10.12 to cry down Preachers as Hirelings because they receive Wages though it be according to Christs own determination Luke 10.7 the Lords Ordinance I Cor. 9.14 St. Pauls practice sometime 2 Cor. 11.8 and his Precept Gal. 6.6 and his Approbation 1 Tim. 5.17 18. The word Hireling Joh. 10.12 being not used as making it a sin for a Minister to receive hire but to distinguish Christ from other Shepherds who was not as Hirelings whose Sheep are not their own but was a singular Pastor owner of the Sheep of whom he was Pastor and those abuse Joh. 10.5 who urge it against the hearing of any Preachers but those of their own Church or way calling them Strangers whereas the strangers there are such as were Usurpers of Christs Office and were enemies to the Sheep not feeding them but perverting them So this Author abuseâ—â— John 10.1 9. by saying the present Ministers of England are Thieves and Robbers because they come not into their Ministry by the door that is by any authority to them from Christ that is not by election of a particular Instituted Church when this is but from an expression in a parable in which is not the scope or Doctrin intended by it and therefore not argumentative and neither is it certain that the door v. 1. is the same with the door v. 9. nor if it were is the door that whereby there is entrance into the Ministery but the Church nor the entrance by right election of others but by the persons true faith nor is the not entring in by the door brought as the reason or form denominating them Thieves and Robbers but only as some description of them from a concomitant nor are any meant there to be Thieves and Robbers who do direct to Christ or receive him for defect of regular calling but such only as obtruded themselves as the Messiah on the people with intent to make a prey of them Sect. 4. The present Ministers may be heard as Gifted Brethren There is yet more of the like stuff 2. Saith he 'T is not lawful to hear them as Gifted Brethren 1. The most of them are not Gifted Brethren Nor 2. Brethren being Canonical Drunkards Swearers Gamesters c. Answ. That any of them are such it is to be bewailed and in a Christian way the persons that are guilty are to be rebuked Levit. 19.17 not to be thus charged in Print in a Book vented in the dark tending not to amend them but to make them odious even with them that are too much inclined to censuring and reviling of those that dissent from them or are of an opposite party But how it appears that the most of the present Ministers of England are such as he stigmatizeth them I know not and I hope it is not true However if it were so it proves not that others better qualified might not be heard nor that these men may not bethren yea if he follow St. Pauls rule 2 Thess. 3.15 alledged a little after he is not to account them as enemies but to admonish them as Brethren and were all this and more true yet they might be heard preach the Gospel as Brethren Gifted as Judas was to be heard though declared by Christ to be a Devil Joh. 6.70 But what saith he of the rest 3. The best of them cannot by Saints in respect of Gospel Communion be so accounted For 1. There was never any giving up of our selves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example whence such a Brotherhood doth result Answ. By Saints I doubt not he means such as are members of a particular Instituted Church Congregational distinct from Parish Churches either under Episcopal or Presbyterial Government For such only are accounted Saints by him as give up themselves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example and by Gospel Communion no doubt he means hearing of them preach praying with
bounded with such terms as make it not intolerable sure it is nothing like that which is required of Papists according to the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth supra forma juramenti professionis fidei To the twelfth The practice of leaving Benefices is not strange to any Churches even from New England some have come into Old England leaving their places there nor are there wanting like instances of Congregational men at home perhaps for greater benefit without consent of the people The practices are not on any side justifiable in all yet we read in Scripture of removals of Ministers from one place to another upon urgent occasions To the thirteenth The person Ordained hath authority committed to him by the Bishop to preach the Word of God in the Congregation where he should be lawfully appointed that is by License which is thought needful to be added besides Ordination because all persons are not alike fitted for all Congregations the Voice and other abilities not serving for one Congregation which will for another To the fourteenth Silencing Suspending and Degrading may be necessary in some cases Tit. 1.11 and 3.10 if the Laws intrust the Prelates with it so it hath been in other Churches besides the Popish The abuse of it is justifiable in none To the fifteenth Inequality is judged to have been in the Elders of the Primitive Churches by the inscription of the seven Epistles of Christ to the seven Angels of the seven Churches of Asia and hath been in some sort in all Churches which have been well ordered and too much experience shews that by reason of the inequality of parts and minds it is necessary to settled order What is undue in the Popish or Protestant Churches should be charged on the Authors not on the Ministry it self To the sixteenth The Vestments of English Priests are not all the same with Popish those that are it 's denied to have the same use and therefore not to be charged with the same superstition To the seventeenth Even the late Assembly of Westminster prescribed a Directory for Worship and Ministration The Common-prayer Book that now is urged should not be judged the worse in those prayers or portions of Scripture which are holy and good because they were in the Popes Porluis no more than the acknowledgment of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God is the worse because the Devil used it Mark 5.7 And therefore King Edward the 6. his plea for it was good and the thing not to be misliked because used in the Roman Church who though they have many great corruptions in their Doctrine and Worship yet have they retained the Bible Apostles Creed many prayers from ancient Fathers and some Popes who were holy men and Martyrs in the first Ages which are not to be rejected because continued by later vicious and Antichristian Popes That which is insinuated as if the Common-prayer Book now in use were little different from the Popes Portuis or Missal is very untruly and unjustly suggested He that shall impartially and without prejudice compare the one with the other shall find a vast difference in the things liable to exception I have made some view of the Roman Missal of Pius the 5. and Clement the 8. and Breviary of Pius the 5. and Urban the 8. and though I deny not sundry Collects Prayers Hymns Lessons Psalms Epistles and Gospels are the same in the Common-prayer Book in English with those in Latine as being either parts of Holy Scripture or agreeable to it yet there are so many differences in fundamentals of Doctrine substantials of Worship and in Rituals as the invocation of Saints and the opinions of Merit sacrifice for Quick and Dead adoration of the Host vertue of the Cross half Communion and many more things material that I cannot but judge that either much ignorance or much malice it is that makes any traduce the English Common-Prayer Book as if it were the Popish Mass Book or as bad as it and to deterr men from joyning with those Prayers and Services therein which are good as if it were joyning with Antichrist the Pope or receiving the mark of the Beast when they can hardly be ignorant that the Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes were burnt for it is impudent falshood By the parallel particulars and such other as might be alledged cannot be inferred an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England In many particulars might there be shewn a parallelism between Ministers of the Congregational Churches and Presbyterial and the Popish yet an exact symmetrie would not thence be demonstrated Few of these particulars alledged are unjustifiable those that are if not excusable yet are far from that which is the main thing charged on the Papists and disputed against learnedly by Mr. Francis Mason against Champney that they Ordain Priests to offer the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass for Quick and Dead which is abhorred by the English Prelates and Ministers and they are not to be charged to symbolize in Office with the Popish Order of Priests for which this Author hath produced nothing though it were the chief thing to be proved and therefore the minor of his Syllogism is denied and it is manifestly false which he saith he hath abundantly demonstrated it he having said nothing to prove it in the main Sect. 5. The Office of Bishops is not proved to be Antichristian but may be found in Scripture It follows Secondly Those that receive their Power Office and Calling from a Lord Bishop and act in the Holy things of God by virtue of that Power Office or Calling act in the Holy things of God by virtue of an Anâ—ichristian Power Office and Calling But the present Ministers of England receive their Power Office and Calling from a Lord Bishop and act in the Holy things of God by virtue of that Power Office and Calling Therefore The consequence of the major or first proposition is manifest the Office of a Lord Bishop is Antichristian therefore those that act by virtue of a Power Office or Calling received from them act by virtue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling That the Office of Lord Bishops is Antichristian one would wonder should be denied in such a day as this after so full a demonstration thereof by many witnesses of Christ who have wrote so clearly in this matter as if they carried the Sun-beams in their right hand especially that it should be denied by persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles if indeed any of them do deny it To prosecute this matter to the uttermost is not our present intendment the intelligent Reader knows where to find it done already to our hand and if after all that hath been said any through self love or fear of persecution will herein be ignorant we might say Let them be ignorant Answ. The Office Power and Calling received from a Lord Bishop is all one with the Office Power and Calling
his Paraphrase on Mat. 23.8 9 10. as if Christ did forbid the Apostles to impose their Authority upon any in the matters of their God which they did Act 15.25 28. But how comes this to be an Order Ordinance Institution of the house of Christ appointed by himself Such Orders I took to be Precepts of Christ to us but this seems to be Gods gift to him Mat. 28.18 Joh. 3.35 and 5.22 26 27. and 17.2 Acts 3.22 and 5.31 Ephes. 1.22 c. no Precept to us But let it imply a Precept to us Do not the present Ministers of England conform to it He grants they do so in words but not in deeds Why so They own other Lords that have a Lawâ—making power and would enforce the Consciences of the Free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches besides him and thereby proclaim their disobedience and rebellion which is as the sin of Witchcraft against the King of Kings and their rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them This is a high charge and if true would unchristen them but I see no proof of it so that I take this to be only a piece of Oratory such as Tertullus used against St. Paul Acts 24. which is so much the more venomous in that it is in generalibus without instancing in particulars which is the sign of a Diabolical Calumniatour Yet I shall not let it pass The Lords he means are either the King or the Bishops The King is owned by the Ministers in the Oath of Supremacie the Bishops in the promise at their Ordination wherein they promise the Lord being their helper to obey reverently their Ordinary and other Ministers unto whom is committed the charge and government over them following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions and submitting themselves to their godly judgements The Law-making power of the King is with the Parliament of the Bishops in the Convocation the enforcing of the Conscience though it be an uncouth phrase as supposing the Conscience can be enforced by man which is impossible is meant of Causative Compulsion by enjoyning men to act or speak according to such Statutes or Canons as are imposed on them under certain penalties How many and which of these Acts or Speeches are rebellion and rejection of Christs Authority is to be demonstrated and not persons of place and Authority to be thus criminated after the manner of Railers and Scolds And sure it is not easie to prove that though such Acts and Speeches were imagined to be such Rebellion yet that they are so in them unless it could be proved they did them presumptuously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a proud heart and an high hand which if this Author hath not learned the Maxime Calumniare audacter aliquid haerebit methinks he should tremble to attempt But sith he tells us of this more hereafter I intend to observe his motion He goes on Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the Will of Christ by not joyning in the Separation pleaded for 2. Saith he This great Prophet and King hath also revealed and proclaimed That 't is his Will that those whom he hath called by his Word should separate from the World walk together in particular Societies and Churches having given up themselves to the Lord and one another according to the Will of God for their mutual edification and comfort in the Lord. The truth of this soveraign Institution of Christ he that runs may read in the Scriptures hereunto annexed 1 Cor. 1.2 and 5.12 2 Cor. 6.17 Rev. 18.4 Joh. 15.19 and 17.6 Acts 2.40 and 19.9 Phil. 1.5 Acts 2.41 and 17.4 2 Cor. 8.5 with many more In the proof of this we might be copious but that we study brevity The diligent Reader knows where to find this Theam at large treated of by learned Ainsworth Bartlet Cotton Rogers c. How do the Ministers of England acquit themselves in respect of this solemn appointment of the Lord alass who sees not that they are in their practice at open defiance herewith have it in derision and contempt making no difference betwixt the Holy and Prophane admitting persons led captive by the Devil at his will that openly blaspheme the spirit of the Lord and deride its effectual operation in the Consciences of men into their society Are any too vile except such as truly fear God and desire to press after holiness to be admitted by them into their Communion Is not their Church-state so unlike is it to the Institution of Christ a very Babel a Den of Dragons and Hold of unclean Beasts Answ. This Crimination proceeds on these suppositions 1. That Christians should separate from the Parish Assemblies and joyn together in the Congregational way by Church-Covenant which they call separating from the World 2. That Ministers are bound to reject and not to admit to the Communion those that are profane and to admit only real Saints in the judgment of Charity and that by opposing the way of separation and promiscuous admission to the Communion they infringe the solemn appointment of the Lord. For my part having read somewhat in Mr. Ainsworths and Mr. Cottons Writings both concerning the way of the Separatists in the Low-Countries and the Independents in New-England I do not either in the Scriptures here alledged find such a solemn appointment of Christ either that private persons or Ministers are to make such a Separation as these Authors do press upon the Consciences of others nor hath experience either in the Low-Countries or Old or New-England given such encouragement to sober minded Christians as to engage them in that way but rather many divisions declinings into errour and other evils have given too much cause for men to doubt whether it were ever a Plant of Gods planting It is granted that it is the will of Christ that those whom he hath called by his Word should separate from the World And this they are to do in respect of their Worship so as not to have Communion with them therein and this I doubt not may be proved from 2 Cor. 6.17 and some other of the Texts alledged But then by the World are meant professed Infidels such as denied the Lord Jesus and worshipped Idols or at least such as were professed Unbelievers as John 15.19 and 17.6 Acts 2.40 and 19.9 the Jews were and yet the Apostles did not refuse to go to the Temple to pray nor to go into their Synagogues or to take a Vow and purifie themselves at the Temple notwithstanding the corruptions of their Priests Service and People and their open opposition to the Christian Faith But that ever it was the Will of Christ that Christians should separate from the true Worship of God and the Professors of true Faith in Christ because of either known evil in the Coversation of those present or only suspected or reported is without all colour of Precept or Example in the Holy Scripture It is true the people of God are invited Rev.
18.4 to go out of Babylon But that their going out is by separation from the Service of God not Idolatrous or from a Church not Heretical by reason of some supposed or real corruption or disorder or defect in Government Service Members or Ministry is so far from the meaning of the Text that it needs no other refutation but the looking into the Text and comparing it with the foregoing Chapter Of withdrawing from such as walk disorderly 2 Thess. 3.6 enough hath been said before ch 2. sect 6. Nor is it made any where the Ministers Office to make such separation as the Separatists require 1 Cor. 5.12 is not spoken of Ministers as belonging to their Office to judge them that are within or if it be yet the putting away v. 13. is not made his act and how it is to be done is best discerned by v. 2. Christians are to walk together in Societies or Churches for their mutual edification and comfort in the Lord and this they are no doubt bound to do as occasion is towards all Christians And so much Phil. 1.5 Acts 2.41 and 17.4 may prove but that they are to conjoyn in separated Churches by the so termed Church Covenant as if they were not Members of other Churches nor to joyn in Prayer Praise of God hearing breaking Bread but with either that one Church or Company to which they have associated themselves or those that are of the same way of Church-order is neither proved from those Texts or 2 Cor. 8.5 which mentions no such Church-Covenant as it is alledged for nor any other And therefore the imputations here used to the Ministers and Churches without distinction are so unsavoury and from such an intemperate Spirit that I had rather cover them than rake in such a dunghil And I think respect to the fraternity this Author seems to be of should have made him wary in charging the Ministers with these things lest some of his adversaries should throw as much dirt on the face of the separated Churches out of Bayly's Disswasive Edwards Gangraena Welds History of Antimonianism yea the Preface to their Declaration Octob. 12. 1658. Besides what particular persons know by experience and the relations of the miscarriages of the ancient Separatists would furnish them withal Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church is not Christs Institution Yet this Author cannot hold but on he goes 3. Saith he That he hath entrusted them so called and united together with Power and given them Rules for the due and right exerting thereof for the carrying on the Worship of his house to chuse Officers over them to act in the holy things of God for and to them of which more shall be spoken in its proper place to admit Members to excommunicate Offenders c. all which we find shining forth in brightness in the ensuing Scriptures Act. 1.23 and 6.3 5. and 14.23 2 Cor. 8.19 Mat. 18.17 1 Cor. 5.4 Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this Institution of Christ nothing less is there any thing like this in the whole Oeconomie invented and practised by them Do they not to the utmost of their power labour to break this Bond of Christ asunder cast away this Cord from them by stirring up the Magistrate to persecute by Fines Imprisonments Banishment c. the precious people of the Lord that desire to be found in the practice of this Law of Christ branding them with the odious names of Phanaticks Sectaries Schismaticks c. Answ. The Election Acts 1.23 was of an Apostle and that by Lot and contains no Law or Institution of Christ which we are tied to follow Of the impertinent allegation of Acts 6.3 5. and 14.23 enough hath been said before ch 2. sect 3. The Election 2 Cor. 8 19. was of a person not to be a Pastor to themselves but to travel with St. Paul about the Contribution for the poor Saints and though it be a good precedent for the like occasion yet was but a Fact not a Precept Law or Institution of Christ necessary to be observed at all times much less binding as a perpetual rule in Election of Pastors or Teachers No other Excommunication is expressed Mat. 18.17 but what is permitted to the injured person of which more may be seen in the answer to this Authors Preface Sect. 15. The delivery to Satan 1 Cor. 5.5 is argued by Peter Moulin in his Vates lib. 2. c. 11. to have been more then our ordinary Excommunication to wit the permitting Satan to cruciate the body of the person that sinned which no Church now hath power to do nor indeed was the Church then to do it but the Apostle by his power Apostolical as having power over unclean spirits though absent yet with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ in their presence when gathered together which being in the Greek in the Genitive Case absolutely put notes not their acting but presence the Apostles determined to do it and therefore contains no Institution of Christ which Ministers are to practice What else is charged upon the Ministers it concerns them who are guilty to answer I know he cannot justly charge all with it It follows Sect. 6. No contempt of the authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices 4. That the Officers of his appointment are onely such as these Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons Widows or Helpers who as they are in one particular Congregation so they have not any Lordship or Lordly Authority over each other being all Brethren Ephes. 4.11 Rom. 12.7 and 16.1 1 Cor. 12.28 Phil. 1.1 1 Pet. 5.1 2 3. Act. 6.5 and 15.2 and 20.17 and 28.21 28. 1 Tim. 3. chap. and 5.9 10 17. This Law of Christ so clearly revealed in the Scripture they are so far from subjecting to that they have neither the name nor thing required by him therein See up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of his Authority of which it may righteously be said He did at no time command them neither did it ever enter into his heart so to do Answ. It is true that those whom he calls Officers are mentioned in some or other of those Texts he cites and are some of them termed gifts given by God or Christ in or to or for his Church or Body But there are also other as Apostles and Prophets mentioned in some of the Texts as given also by God and therefore those whom he reckons are not the only Officers of his appointment nor all of them to be in one Congregation Apostles were certainly to go up and down and though they had not Lordship or Lordly Authority over others yet had they authority preeminence and some kind of superiority over others and if not in the same measure yet some superiority is still allotted to Pastors over Deacons which are acknowledged to be Officers to be still continued in the Church nor is it unlikely that those
not acknowledged Arch-Bishops over the whole Church as the Pope but in their own Province nor are they termed Arch-Bishops as if other Bishops had their authority from them as the Pope claims but they only have a Primacy or Precedency with some other Prerogatives by that title Nor are they or other Bishops made Lords as Christ over the whole Church or have such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3 Luke 22.25 26. and is usurped by Popish Bishops but are Lords only by the Kings Grant as is said before in Answer to Chap. 3. Sect. 5 6. not in the Church of Christ but in the Kingdom and Parliament and therefore this acknowledgement is not contrary to the revelation of Christ there being no contrariety or contradiction unless there were an opposition in the same respect as Logicians determine Christ is said 1 Tim. 6.15 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only Dynasta or Potentate and yet without contrariety or contradiction the Eunuch Acts 8.27 is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dynasta or Potentate as in the reading in the margin of our translation But were there contrariety yet it is not shewed that what is acknowledged is a Law Constitution or Ordinance which do usually determine not what may be but what shall and must be nor that Ministers own it by subscription 2. That men may and ought to be made Ministers only by these Lord-Bishops which is contrary to Heb. 5.4 John 10.1 7. and 13.20 and 14.6 Act. 14.23 with 6.3 5. Answ. It is true it is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England that men may be made Ministers by these Lord-Bishops but not that they may and ought to be made Ministers only by these Lord-Bishops sith Ministers are allowed who are made by Suffragan Bishops who are not Lords and for the Churches Reformed of Foreigners dwelling in England Ministers made by Presbyters only But this is not a Law Constitution or Ordinance to which Ministers subscribe nor if they did is there any contrariety therein to the revelation of Christ. Heb. 5.4 it is said And no man taketh this honour that is of being High-Priest unto himself but he that is called of God as Aaron But this is impertinently alledged being not spoken of the Gospel Ministery but of the Priesthood of the Law and the High-Priest and of his Calling by God immediately and therefore if that which the Ministers acknowledge be proved contrary to the revelation of Christ by this text the making of Mâ—nisters in Congregational Churches by their Eldership is alike contrary sith they are not called of God as Aaron Of the impertinency of John 10.1 7. enough is said before in the Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Joh. 13.20 He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me is no more contrary to Bishops Ordination than to Presbyters John 14.6 speaks not at all of making Ministers but of the way whereby Christians have access to God Of Acts 14.23 and 6.3 5. enough hath been said in Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. 3. That Prelates their Chancellors and Officers have power from Christ to cast out of the Church of God contrary to Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 Answ. That there is a Law Ordinance or Constitution of this to which Ministers subscribe I finde noâ— Of the texts Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 enough hath been said in Answer to the Preface Sect. 15. to Chap. 4. Sect. 5. whence the impertinency of the alledging these texts may appear 4. That the Office of Suffragans Deans Canons Petty-Canons Prebendaries Coiristers Organists Archdeacons Commissaries Officials Parsons Vicars and Curates are lawful and necessary to be had in the Church evidently contrary to 1 Cor. 12 18 28. Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 The Officers instituted by Christ are sufficient for the edification and perfecting of the Saints till they all come unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ ver 12 13. in what sense the forementioned being not one of them of the institution of Christ may be owned as lawful or necessary without an high contempt of the Wisdom and Soveraignty of Christ cannot by such dull persons as my self he conjectured That any others see them any way useful to the Church of Christ may be imputed to such a sharp-sightedness as was that of Caius Caligula to whom when he enquired of Vitellius whether he saw him not imbracing the Moon 't was answered Solis Domine vobis-diis licet se invicem videre Answ. Where this imagined Law Ordinance or Constitution is or when and how the present Ministers do own acknowledge submit and subscribe to it as this Author suggests is not here shewed by him nor do I know where to finde it Oâ— the Office of so many of these as are ordained Presbyters or Priests as the term is in the English Liturgy enough hath been said in answering the 3 Chapter Sect. 3 5. c. that though their names are various yet their Office is the same with some of those who are of Christ 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 and consequently lawful and necessary the rest are not reckoned among the Orders of Ministry in the Church but counted Services which are acknowledged not necessary and whether they be useful or not it matters not in respect of the present enquiry if there be no Law Constitution or Ordinance to make them lawful and necessary to be had in the Church which the Ministers subscribe to as I think there is not 5. That the Office â—f Deacons in the Church is to be imployed in publick praying administration of Baptism and preaching if licensed by the Bishop thereunto contrary to Act. 6.2 Ephes. 4.11 Answ. That at first the institution of Deacons was to serve tables Acts 6.2 not to preach the word of God yet Steven and Philip being imployed in Preaching and Philip in Baptizing it is not contrary to Christs revelation in those texts or any other that they should be imployed in those works 6. That the Ordinance of breaking Bread or the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be administred to one alone as to a sick man ready to die which is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance 1 Cor. 10.16 and 11.33 Mat. 26.26 Act. 2.42 and 20.7 Answ. The Communion is in time of infectious diseases allowed to be administred to one only besides the Minister which whether it be fit to be done is left to the Minister That it is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance is not easily proved 1 Cor. 10.16 A Communion is proved in that Sacrament but ver 17. and 1 Cor. 12.13 rather proves the Communion to be therein with all believers throughout the world though absent than only with the present partakers and if so though but two joyn the Minister and the sick man the Communion there meant is held with all Christians the meaning and
the characters of false Prophets and Priests upon them Therefore The major or first Proposition stands upon too firm a basis to be quickly removed nor will any attempt so to do Christ having charged his to beware of such Mat. 7.15 to take heed that none deceive them Mat. 24 4 5 23 24 25. not to believe every spirit but to try the spirits because many false Prophets are gone out in the world 1 Joh. 4.1 not to receive such into their houses 2 Joh. 10.11 to watch against them Acts 20.29 30 31. with much more that might be said if needful for its confirmation is a sufficient evidence of the truth thereof But herein the parties litigant are at a perfect agreement Answ. It is true the major is yielded if the hearing be meant of hearing them of choice or with reception and separation from them in respect of that wherein they are false Prophets and Priests But if it should fall out that one that should as Balaam at one time prophesie as he did Numb 23. and 24. at another time through his counsel cause the committing of a trespass against the Lord as in the matter of Peor Numb 31.16 hold the doctrine of Balaam who taught Balack to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel to eat things sacrificed unto Idols and to commit fornication Rev. 2.14 or as Caiaphas being high Priest that year at one time prophesie that Jesus should die for that Nation and not for that Nation only but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad Joh. 11.51 52. At another time say that Christ had spoken blasphemy Mat. 26 65. Such a one may be heard joyned with in the former though not in the latter Whence it follows that it is not the Character or property of the man who is a false Prophet or a false Priest that is the reason why he is not to be heard or is to be separated from but his false doctrine and his evil counsel whereby he seeks to thrust us away from the Lord our God Deut. 13.2 6 10. or the damnable heresies denying the Lord that bought them as it is 2 Pet. 2.1 turning the grace of God into lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ Jude 4. that do denominate them false Prophets or false Priests and bind us to a refusal of hearing them or joyning with them in that Communion in which we cannot partake without fellowship in their errour false Worship or other sin And this is it which is to be collected from the Texts alledged not that we are to refuse to hear persons or separate from them because of their personal vices or irregular obtruding themselves into their places but in respect of their pernicious Doctrine and impious Worship by which we are in danger to be ensnared and defiled We are bidden Beware of false Prophets Mat. 7.15 but no where is any called a false Prophet but from his false Doctrine And therefore though his counterfeit shews of Piety be mentioned as the bait to catch men yet the false doctrine is the hook they are to beware of as in like manner St. Paul warns Rom. 16.17 18. and St. Peter 2 Pet. 2.1 2 3. And thus in the places cited where Christ bids take heed that no man deceive them he alledgeth the reason For many shall come in my name saying I am Christ and shall deceive many Mat. 24.4 5. and v. 23. If any man shall say unto you Lo here is Christ or there believe it not for there shall arise false Christs and false Prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders insomuch that if it were possible they shall deceive the very Elect v. 24. the false Prophets that were gone out into the world 1 Joh. 4.1 were they that confessed not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh v. 3. the person not to be received into house 2 Joh. 10.11 is he that brought not the doctrine of Christ v. 9. that confessed not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh who is the Deceiver and Antichrist v. 7. those that the Ephesian Elders were to watch against Acts 20 31. were grievous wolves that should enter in among them not sparing the flock and men arising of their own selves speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them v. 29 30. And thus farr I agree to the major let us see how he proves the Ministers to be such Sect. 2. The Ministers not false Prophets because not sent as Jer. 23.21 Rom. 10.15 is meant 'T is the minor Proposition saith he that is judged by some to come short of a sufficient substraction viz. That the present Ministers of England have the properties and characters of false Prophets and Priests upon them This we doubt not by a serious observation of the characters are given of such in the Scriptures by the Holy Ghost will to any ordinary understanding be made exceeding perspicuous and evident The signal characters of whom are 1. That they run before they are sent Jer. 23.21 That a mission from the Lord is of the essence of a lawful Ministry that whoever wants such a mission is no officer of Christ but a false Prophet and Minister of Antichrist may hence rationally at least by way of Analogy be deduced is evident which also exactly accords with what is asserted by the Apostle Rom. 10.15 That the present Ministers of England want such a mission hath already been demonstrated and we shall not actum agere In a word when it shall be proved that they have received their authority from Christ either immediately or mediately from any rightly constituted Church of Christ or by succession from the Church in the Wilderness we shall acknowledge them to be Ministers of Christ and look upon our selves as obliged to pay them all honour and duty that as such we are charged in Scripture to do But if they have nothing else to plead for themselves but what is usually instanced in by them a succession from the Church of Rome That Apostate Church having lost her Churchship and therewith all lawful power for the sending forth Officers into the Churches of Christ we shall not fear to say That they are such as are characterized here by the Prophet persons that run before they are sent Answ. A man that meant honestly and had any spark of charity justice or ingenuity would not charge so deeply the whole order of men throughout a Nation containing many thousands of men of years breeding parts and by reason of their Calling to be reverenced and some of them by his own Confession good men as being false Prophets who by the Law of Moses Deut. 13.5 were to die and as false Priests without some irrefragable proof unless he had learned that accursed art of him in Terence Calumniare audacter aliquid haerebit or having once past the bounds of modesty were resolved to be gnaviter impudens But
in the Liturgy of the Church of England Therefore The major is grounded on the rule given by Divines about the Decalogue That which requires a duty requires the means conducing thereto The minor is proved in that the Common-Prayer Book directs what things are to be prayed for by reason of the brevity of Collects the Responds the frequent use the plain expressions help the memory and elocution wherein the acquired gift of Prayer consists therefore it is not an obstruction but a help to the gift of Prayer But this Author though he may perhaps count this tolerable in others yet not in Ministers let 's view what he saith of them He alledgeth Eph. 4.11 and would inferr from thence That all Ministers have the gift of Prayer and are to use it that the Common-Prayer Book worship shuts it out of doors as unnecessary and therefore is not of Christs appointment But 1. The Text expresseth not the several sorts of Qualifications but the several sorts of Officers 2. If it be supposed that ministerial gifts are also implyed yet whether extraordinary or ordinary may be doubted 3. If ordinary gifts there may be a question Wheâ—her the gift of Prayer as he means it were one that is Whether Christ hath required that every Minister should be able on all occasions to express himself without any stinted form either conceived by himself or composed by others to make known the requests which it concerns his people to whom he is Pastour in the most solemn and publick auditory to ask of God in their behalf in words and elocution fitting the matter and auditory I doubt not but the Minister should be able to express the requests of the people as he should be able to declare the mind of God to the people yet neither the one nor the other is of necessity to be done or the Minister tied to do it every way but the best way he is able or at least that way as is fit for the end of his expressions to wit the peoples understanding not the ostentation of his parts The Apostles could preach without study but Timothy was to give attendance to reading to meditate to give himself wholly to thâ—se things whereby his profiting might appear to all and yet had a gift given by prophecy 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15. Ministers are to preach the Word now but they are not tyed to preach without notes without study without other helps which God affords Nor are Ministers bound to express themselves alwayes without pre-conceived or prescribed forms in prayer and yet they may faithfully discharge their work Now God doth not give gifts as he did in the Apostles times and therefore the same readiness and exuberancy of expressions or composure of petitions is not to be expected of Ministers now as was of them 4· I add That though the Apostles said Acts 6.4 We will give our selves continually to Prayer and to the ministry of the Word And St Paul 1 Tim. 2.1 exhorts Thaâ— first of all supplications prayers intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men for Kings and all that are in authority Yet we read not that this is made the Ministers work to express the common necessities of the Church in a publick auditory or any rules about the form or manner of praying Nor do we find that either Christ or his Apostles used any forms of prayer before or after their preaching and therefore conceive not this to be the proper work of a Minister or that either way of praying is determined and therefore both may lawfully be used by the Minister or other Christians Nor doth the one way of Worship shut out of doors the other or the Minister by using the Common-prayer Book exclude conceived prayer by the speakers If they were tyed by the Governours to use no other than the Common-prayer Book expressions yet this is not to be imputed either to the Common-prayer Book or its way of worship or to the Ministers but unto those who do so rigidly impose it I add further That were there a prohibition of using any other than the Common-prayer yet this were not a shutting out of doors Christs institution unless it were proved Christs institution that at all times in Prayer no stinted form should be used Nor doth it shut out of doors the gift of Prayer unless it be proved they only have the gift of Prayer who use their own conceived expressions which if so not only those who use the forms of Prayer though with never so much fervency of spiâ—it which they read or remember in the Common-Prayer Book or in the Practice of Piety or any other such Book of mens composure but also those who use the words of the Psalms or the Lords-Prayer yea that do say Amen to the words of any Preacher before Sermon or any that gives thanks afore meals should shut out of doors the gift of Prayer or the exercise of it sith he useth not the gift he hath to wit the ability of mind to form words and to utter them which is the definition of the gift of Prayer before given There are many in the Congregation perhaps yea some Women that can form and utter words as fit for Prayer as the Minister will not this Author have this gift of Prayer shut out of doors and yet not conclude that a positive duty is obstructed thereby Besides there may be a restraint of a duty as unseasonable sith affirmative precepts bind not ad semper to be done at all times perhaps time will not permit or weather or some accidents or more necessary business and yet the gift not shut out of doors as unnecessary but as only inconvenient at that time Do not the most able Preachers sometimes omit the exercise of their gifts and yet count not them shut out of doors as unnecessary Yea doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 1â— put some restraints upon Prophecying to keep order Did he then shut out of doors as unnecessary the gift of Prophecy I have read that the Separatists in the Low Countries have spent so much time on the Lords day in debating causes and matters of Discipline that they have omitted exercise of their gifts in some other Ordinances and yet I presume they have not shut them out of doors as unnecessary If at one meeting of Christians no other thing had been done but the reading of St. Pauls Epistles as he appointed Col. 4.16 yet were not the exercise of Aâ—chippus his ministry thereby shut out of doors as unnecessary but only suspended for that time And this would be no Napkining up of his Talent nor such exclusion of the gift of preaching or prophecying as with others this Author clamouâ—ously inveighs against The 55 th Canon directs Preachers what they should pray for doth not limit or bound them in the words or matter It saith They shall move the people to joyn with them in prayer in this form or to this effect as briefly as conveniently they
and more exceptions then the present Ministers It is added Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church-officers of Gods appointment But let this be granted Suppose 2. The Scribes and Pharisees to be the preachers and expounders of the Law in that day the seat mentioned to be a Ministerial seat Yet this will not at all help them in the matter in controversie except it be granted to them that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawful but a false Ministry that had surreptitiously climbed up into this Ministerial seat for who sees not the invalidity and nothingness of this argument 'T was lawful to hear the Scribes and Pharisees which were the lawful Church-officers of that day of the appointment of the Lord acting by vertue of an authority derived from him therefore 't is lawful to hear persons that have not any such authority from Christ but are meer intuders and Ministers of Antichrist as the present Ministers of England have been proved to be now this upon that supposition that they were Ministers we cannot yield to these reasons 1. The Pharisees are expresly said to be Priests and Levites John 1.19 and this is the record of John when the Jews sent Priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him Who art thou v. 24. And they that were sent were of the Pharisees which were the ordinary lawful Ministers of that day 2. These of all others were most apt to question the authority of such as taught the people So when John appears preaching and baptizing and professes to them that he was not the Christ nor Elias nor Prophet who was expected by the people of the Jews they immediately question his authority John 1.25 Why baptizest thou then which they could not be supposed to have the face to do if they themselves of all others had been the greatest intruders Nay 3. When they question Christ himself about his authority he asks not them from whence they had theirs which doubtless upon that occasion he would have done had they not been lawfully seated in the seat they did possess but from whence John had his who was esteemed as a prophet 4. We have the Lord Jesus many times crying out above all others against the Pharisees condemning them of pride hypocrisie avarice c. but not the least tittle of the usurpation of Moses seat is by him charged upon them or in the least intimated which doubtless would have been had they been guilty thereof I reply that this grant that the Scribes and Pharisees were preachers and expounders of the Law in that day will help the objectours in the matter in controversie though it be not granted to them that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawfull but a false Ministry that had surrepticiously climbed up into this ministerial seat For they are assured that this Author hath not proved nor can prove the present Ministers of England to be meer intruders and Ministers of Antichrist and therefore need not this supposition concerning the Scribes and Pharisees to prove Christs allowing the hearing of the present Ministers Only this is urged that there is as much exception and more against the Pharisees teaching than against the present Ministers and yet they might be heard therefore with better reason may the present Ministers be heard Nevertheless I deny that the Scribes and Pharisees which they were to hear were the lawfull Church Officers of that day of the appointment of the Lord acting by vertue of an authority derived from him it being certain that as he saith they were a particular Sect among the Jews no where appointed by God to this office of Priesthood or teaching but taken up by men as orders of Friers among the Papists though some of them were Priests and some of them Rabbins or teachers of the law and educated thereunto as teachers of Divinity are in the Schools among us at this day which if the Ministers of England had no further ordination being the condition of most or very many of the present Ministers in England might justifie the hearing of them as well as the hearing the Pharisees who had no better calling to that function As for the reasons of this Author the first is not valid For it proves only that some of the Priests and Levites were Pharisees not all St. Paul certainly was not though a Pharisee nor that those that sate in Moses chair were Priests for all were not there being many thousands of Pharisees who were not Rabbins St. Paul was a Pharisee the son of a Pharisee when he sate at Gamaliels feet Acts 22.3 yet not a Doctor of the Law sitting in Moses his chair Nor if they were Priests doth it prove they were the lawfull Ministers of that day For to say nothing of Christs Apostles who were at that day the lawfull Ministers with and under Christ himself it is certain the Priests of those times got their places as for instance the High Priest by undue and unlawfull wayes by bribing the Roman Deputy as Josephus reports and therefore if it were proved they were Priests yet they are not proved to be lawful Ministers Yea that which is said of their Ordination and Education by the most favourable Writers of the Jewes proves they had some kind of entrance into their profession according to the customs of those times which were of human invention but nothing of Gods institution that they should sit in the chair of Moses As for the Second reason there is no marvel they had the impudence to question Iohns authority though themselves intruders when they were puft up with conceits of their authority though they had none when they were so proud and impudent as to conceive themselves righteous and despise others Luke 18.9 and to allege it in prayer to God though their Consciences might tell them they were covetous and unrighteous yea to deride Christ when he told them they could not serve God and Mammon Luke 16.14 Nor is the Third reason of force For Christ might question their authority though he did not when they questioned Johns and he seems after John to have done it in calling them a generation of vipers blind guides with sundry other expressions disparaging of them and their traditions And his charging them with affectation and ambitious seeking of the chief Seats and to be called Rabbi Rabbi what is it but an evidence that they did unlawfully climb into Moses his seat which they did so ambitiously gape after As for the not in express words charging them with usurpation it is no marvail it is not related sith their instigation of Herod to take away John Baptists life related by Iosephus is not related as imputed to them by Christ in any of the Evangelists Besides how irrational this argument is we read not that Christ charged them with usurpation of Moses seat therefore he did it not every puny in Schools knows who hath learned that rule in Logick argumentum non valet ab authoritate negativè an
Circumstantials such as are Time Place Meetings Order in Doing and the like God hath not determined the whole of the outward Worship appertaining to the New Testament Churches as of old he did with reference to the then Church but hath left such things though needful to the well performing of the Worship he hath determined under general rules prescribed in holy Scripture to be set down by men who are Governours to whom obedience is due in order to the end of their directions though not with equal tie of Conscience as to Divine Institutions Nor doth God hereby bear less love or exercise less faithfulness over his New Testament Churches than he did over the National Church of the Jews but rather more 1. Because the determination of the whole of the Worship of God to the National Church of the Jews was the imposing of a yoke on them which neither the elder nor later Jews were able to bear Acts 15.10 and therefore God shewed more love and exercised more faithfulness over his New Testament Churches in not determining the whole of his Worship in Circumstantials as he did to the Jews 2. The determination of the whole of Gods Worship to the Jews in Circumstantials of outward Worship did bring in many things which were unprofitable and weak and made nothing perfect Heb. 7.18 19. And if God had so determined to us he had commanded things unprofitable weak which made nothing perfect therefore he shewed more love and faithfulness to us in not so determining 3. The things God had determined to the Jews about the Circumstantials and Rituals of his Worship were but shadows of good things to come which were not fit to be continued or to be supplied with any other Christ being come who was the Body or Substance Col. 2.16 17. Heb. 10.1 Therefore God in not determining such things to us hath shewed more love and faithfulness 4 Such Ordinances were carnal to endure only until the time of Reformation therefore it is a part of Gods love and faithfulness that neither the same in particular nor other are precisely determined to us by God this time of the Gospel being the time of Reformation Heb 9.9 10. 5. God so determined the whole of his Worship to the Jews because they were in their Minority and therefore were to be kept under those weak and beggerly Elements of the World as under Tutors and Governours until the time appointed of the Father Gal. 4 1 2 3 9. But the Christian Believers are as sons come to age and therefore fit to be released of them and such like and to be at more liberty in these things than they were before v. 7. 6. The time before Christs coming was an estate under Moses a Servant but now the estate of Christians is under Christ the Son Gal. 4.4 5 6 7 Heb 3.5 6. Therefore our freedom from such determinations as were upon the Jews is more congruous than to have them imposed on us and consequently a sign of more love in God 7. If such determinations of the whole of Gods Worship had been to us as were to the Jews we had not reaped the fruit of Christs death by which he did abolish them Eph. 2.14 15. Col. 2.14 and consequâ—ntly had tasted less of the love of God than we have if the same or such precise determinations of the whole of Gods Worship had been continued to us 8. The Apostles judged it a great benefit to the Christian Churches that they were exempt from them and it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to lay upon the Churches no greater burden than those necessary things mentioned Acts 15.28 29. therefore they counted it an effect of Gods love that he had not determined the whole of his Worship to us as he did to the Jews 9. This yields us also another reason why it is an effect of Gods greater love to the Gentile Churches that he hath not determined to them the whole of his Worship as he did to the Jews because those Gentile Christians being of divers Nations and Languages under divers Governments used to divers Customs could not conveniently if at all practice such an uniformity of Circumstances as they must have done if God had determined the whole of his Worship as he did to the Jews 10 To averr that God hath determined the whole of his outward Worship in Circumstantials as he did to the Jews is to infringe our Christian liberty and to bring us into such bondage as they were in who were under the Law which is not agreeable to that love which God hath born to the New Testament Churches and the New Covenant which he hath made under the Gospel Gal. 4.20 21 24. This Author adds Sect 21. Christ designs Officers and Offices for his Church not as were in the Jewish which are the same while their work is the same though some Titles be new Yea 5. Whether he hath not now as then designed the several Officers and Offices his wisdom thought sufficient for the management of the affairs of his house so that the invention of new ones by the sons of men is not only needless but a daring advance against the Soveraignty care and wisdom of God over his Churches Answ. 1. God did besides Moses and the seventy Elders Joshuah and the Judges David and other Kings for the Government of the People of Israel and Prophets raised up as he thought good for special purposes design Aaron and his sons and the Levites for the Services of the Tabernacle and Temple But he hath not designed such Officers or Offices as either Moses and the Jewish Sanhedrin David or the Judges or as the Priests and Levites and their Services were for the management of the affairs of his House that is the Christian Church it being Gods design not to gather this Church or to form it in that way and Government as he did the Jewish Christ did not gather his Church as the Jews were by Moses brought out of Egypt nor were erected into the form of a Political Body but of a School without either infringing the power of the Caesars and their Officers or withdrawing the People from the Officers belonging to the Temple though corrupt If any advance themselves or others into Offices from the Pattern of the Aaronical Priesthood or Services as the Papists who will have their Pope to be Universal Supreme Bishop in correspondence to the High Priest of the Jews to be absolutely obeyed as he was in the Synedrium to be infallible in his determinations to have power of adjudging to death for Heresie to make sacrificing Priests for Quick and Dead in imitation of the Levitical Priests I conceive that the invention of such new ones by Papists or any other of the sons of men is not only needless but a daring advance against the Soveraignty Care and Wisdom of God over his Churches the Temple and the Priesthood thereof being now by God taken away 2. God hath
Answ. Though I doubt not but I could retort this Argument upon this Authour whom by sundry passages in this Book I judge to be one that hearkens not to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Order and Ordinance of his house even that most express Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. one of the principles of the Doctrine of Christ and part of the foundation Heb. 6.1 2. Yet I shall wave that and answer directly by denying the major of which I give these reasons 1. Because denial is more than not hearkning to the one is by positive contradiction the other may be only by Omission 2. The not hearkning may be out of ignorance incapacity to understand dulness slothfulness fearfulness mistakes prevalency of temptation without any enmity of heart habitual stubbornness or willful gainsaying which are requisite to a plain denial of the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. 3. There may be sundry Orders of his House revealed by Christ which are controverted whether they be such or no there may be some acknowledged to be Orders of his House yet thought not of such moment as that the peace of the Church should be broken by contending for them or judged not perpetual but temporary or not binding the Ministers to observe till the Magistrate reform as in the case of putting down Images or conceiving in cases of necessity or for avoiding of Scandal they may not hearken to them as in Davids eating the Shew-bread the Apostle Pauls not hearkning to the Order of discontinuing Circumcision and a Jewish Vow and Offering in these and perhaps more cases a person may not hearken to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House and yet be so far from denying the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ that he may be sound in the Faith and a zealous and faithful maintainer of them by holding forth the truth of the Gospel unto the death And therefore I take the major proposition of this Argument to be manifestly false which he seems by not proving to take for manifest truth Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Soveraign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers But he goes on thus 'T is the minor or second Proposition that in the thoughts of some is capable of a denial but the verity thereof shines forth as the Sun in its brightness in the review of the Orders and Ordinances of the House of Christ appointed by himself and the present frame and deportment of the present Ministers of England with respect thereunto which of them have they not made void by their Traditions This is that which Christ hath said 1. That all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Mat. 28.19 1 Tim. 6.14 15. Joh. 3.35 Acts 3.22 and 5.31 'T is upon this foot of account that Christ chargeth his Disciples not to be called of men Rabbi nor to call any Father viz. not to impose their authority upon any or suffer themselves to be imposed upon by any in the matters of their God Mat. 23.8 9 10. because one is their Master and Lord viz. Christ. Hence also the Apostles lay the weight of their exhortations upon the Commandment of Christ 1 Cor. 11.23 and 14.37 Proclaim all to be accursed that preach any other Gospel Gal. 1.8 yea though Angels from Heaven should they live and speak as such charge those to whom they write not to receive any into their houses that bring any other doctrine much more not to receive them as their Teachers 2 Joh. 10. Yea the Spirit of the Lord in the close of the last Revelation of his Will it pleased this great King and Law-giver in such a way to give forth testifies that if any man shall add unto these things the Lord shall add unto him the Plagues that are written in his Book Rev. 22.18 Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this great Institution in words indeed they do so But what meaneth the bleating of the Sheep and lowing of the Oxen in our ears Do they not own other Lords Heads and Governours that have a Law-making power and would enforce the Consciences of the free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches besides him what doth this less than evidently proclaim their disobedience and rebellion which is as the sin of Witchcraft against the King of Kings and the rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them But of this more hereafter Answ. It is no strange thing to find in this Author high Charges backed only with confident assertions and no proofs so that men comparing the one with the other may think he wrote his Dreams rather than Meditations For what are we to think otherwise when we read such passages as these the verity of his minor proposition shines forth as the Sun in his brightness Which is no more than is to be said of the first universal indubitable principles of the light of Nature or Reason which are indisputable and yet he saith in the thoughts of some it is capable of a denial and when he should prove it so clear in stead of an Argument proves all with Interrogations which if the Reader deny he is put to a stand But to shew the vanity of his arguings to his Question which of the Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not the present Ministers of England he means all even the best of them as his words ch 2. and arguings against them indiscriminatim do evince have they not made void by their Traditions I answer by another Question Which of them have they so made void Sure the Ordinances of searching the Scriptures hearing the Word praying to the Father in the name of Christ believing on the Son with many more which are the chief Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not been made void by the Traditions of the Ministers of England that now are at least not by all or the best of them that I know or hear of But he imagines he can prove it by an induction of particulars of which he names only seven though to make his induction full without which it is no good Argument he should have reckoned seven times seven But perhaps he thinks if he can make good the charge in these seven it will be without question his charge is true of the rest Let us then view each of these in order and see how well he hath acquitted himself therein The first of these Orders or Ordinances of Christ is that all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Which I grant as a truth though I assent not to
making good their ground herein who sees not that their Plea hitherto impleaded sinks of it self Sith I neither plead for the Constitutions of the Church of England in particular nor is it my supposition that only the Constitutions of a constituted Church of Christ bind in things of Divine Worship and Church Rule and therefore my Answer and position need not sink for want of making good this plea. And accordingly might put him off to others to answer his impertinent questions What is it then they mean by the Church whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are without disputing to subject to is it the National Church of England But where find they any National Church of the Institution of Christ in the Oeconomie of the Gospel How prove they that the Church of England is so Nevertheless I may say I know not any that hold concerning the Church of England that its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper opinions are to be subjected to without dispute though the Romanists hold it of the Church of Râ—me and for a National Church I refer him to what is before in answer to his Preface sect 15. But there are more questions behind Yet should this also be granted where are the Constitutions and Laws of this Church that we may pay the homage to them as is meet Which Question he might answer himself who in this Chapter cites so many of the Canons of the Church of England But he yet enquires When was it assembled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place together in its several members freely to debate 1 Cor. 11.20 and 14 23. and in the Margin Maccovius in loc com append de Adi p. 861. Things indifferent he tells you ought not to be introduced into the Church but by the common consent thereof according to Acts 15. determine what Laws and Constitutions were fit to be observed by them To which I answer The Church of England was assembled at London Anno 1603. in its several members by deputation freely to debate things as was the usage in the Synods of ancient and later times and even in New England at Cambridge there about the Antinomian opinions in Mr. Welds History in England in the Assembly at Westminster of the Congregational Churches by their Elders and Messengers in their Meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. which kind of Meeting must be allowed as the Meeting of the whole Church which they represent there being no other way in which orderly many particular Churches throughout a Nation can convene and debate freely either points of Doctrine or Discipline than by such Deputies and therefore as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod Nor is there any thing against this in 1 Cor. 11.20 or 1 Cor. 14.23 unless it be supposed that all those must meet to debate matters of Doctrine and Discipline who did then meet for worship which is not to be said For then in such things women also must have a voice contrary to the Apostles resolution 1 Cor. 14.34 and the practice of all the Churches As for Act. 15. the Synod was about a point of Doctrine and though it be said ver 22. that it pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send some to Antioch yet the whole Church is not likely to be meant of every particular member but as Acts 6.2 5. Acts 21.20 22. and elsewhere by the multitude or whole Church is meant a great part or indefinite number However those from Antioch mentioned Acts 15.2 were not many and therefore if that Synod be a pattern for after times yet it cannot be a rule in respect of the number of persons convening when Churches are so increased or so far distant one from another as that they cannot commodiously meet in their multitudes or debate orderly but must of necessity act by Deputies and their Constitutions are to be taken as the Constitutions of the whole Church for whom they appear But this Author excepts If it be said that this is not requisite it is enough that it be assembled in its several Officers or such as shall be chosen by their Officers whose laws every member is bound to be obedient to We answer But these Officers are the Church or they are not if they are not as there is nothing more sure I owe no subjection to their Laws or Constitutions it being pleaded that 't is the Church that hath only power in this matter if they are the Church let them by one Scripture prove they are so or where the true Officers of a true Church are so called and as Nonius saith out of Nâ—vius to them Dum vivebo fidelis ero Yet except this also be yielded them there is nothing of moment in the Objection produced Answ. The Objection as it is by me made is not the Plea as here is supposed The power in this matter is by me ascribed to Rulers and Texts requiring obedience to them have been produced and notwithstanding this Authors exceptions there is something of moment in the Objection and the speech is not made good That the present Ministers of England submit own and subscribe to Laws and Constitutions that are not in any sense of Christ revealing nor if it were doth it follow Therefore they oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. Sect. 6. It 's not proved that the Ministers of England own Constitutions contrary to the revelation of Christ. He goes on thus But this is not all 2ly The present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Laws Constitutions and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ whence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ may rationally be concluded This also by the induction of a few particular instances will be evinced beyond exception Answ. Four things are here undertaken 1. That the particular instances stand by Laws and Constitutions 2. That these Laws Constitutions and Ordinances are contrary to the revelation of Christ. 3. That the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to them 4. That from thence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ may rationally be concluded In which how he hath failed will be apparent by the view of what he alledgeth They own saith he and acknowledge 1. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself which is contrary to 1 Pet. 5.3 1 Cor. 12.5 Ephes. 4.5 Heb. 3.1 Luke 22.25 26. Answ. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England but not in the sense in which Christ is called the chief Shepherd 1 Pet. 5.4 or the same Lord 1 Cor. 12.5 or one Lord Ephes. 4.5 or the Apostle and High Priest of our prosession Heb. 3.1 or Lordship is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3 Luke 22.25 26. they are