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
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
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
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
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
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
proposition stands as cannot be easily shaken or removed Answ. Though there be no one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry as theirs is that act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling whether real or supposed as such yet if any that so acts as suppose a Dominican Fryer or Jesuite in the Indies do Preach the Gospel truly there is a blessing promised in Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry Christ having said Luke 11.28 Blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it yet were there no promise of blessing the major is not proved unless this were true they are not to be heard but to be separated from to whose Ministry as such a blessing is not promised which makes unlawful the hearing of gifted Brethren unless they can produce such a promise yea every action indifferent should be unlawful unless it have a blessing promised to it What more he can say for his major yet rests in his breast and so needs no answer till it be produced I hasten to the proof of his minor Sect. 2. The names given to the Ministers of England prove not their Office not to be from Christ. The minor saith he wants not sufficient demonstration First the present Ministers of England are either from Christ or from Antichrist There is no medium a Linsey-woolsey-Ministry that is partly of Christ partly of Antichrist as 't is not to be proved by Scripture so will it not be abetted That they are not from Christ hath in part been proved already and may further be evinced 1. Their names are forraign to the Scripture where read we of Deacons in their sense Priests as distinguished from Christians in the New Testament Deans Cannons Petty-Cannons Prebendaries Arch-Deacons Lord Bishops Parsons Vicars c. these are only found in the Popes Pontifical whence they are derived Answ. It hath been abetted by Mr Bradshaw in his Answer to Francis Johnson his second reason against hearing the Ministers of the Church-Assemblies of England whose Arguments this Author hath revived though answered long since by Mr. William Bradshaw and the answers vindicated by Mr. Thomas Gataker from Mr. Cans reply that there is a medium and that a Ministry may be from Christ in respect of the thing Ministred though from Antichrist in respect of the way of entry into it yea he saith It is not necessary that the Ministry of Priests and Deacons though ordained by Antichrist himself should be the Ministry of his Apostasie but notwithstanding his Ordination their Ministry may be the Ministry of Jesus Christ as was the Ministry of Luther Huss Wickliffe and others I add that if by being from Christ or Antichrist be understood of outward calling as this Author seems to mean Ministers mâ—y be neither from Christ nor Antichrist and yet true Ministers as those that Preached Christ even of envy and strife yet St. Paul saith Philip. 1.15 18. Notwithstanding every way whether in pretence or truth Christ is Preached and I therein do rejoyce yea and will rejoyce But let us consider his proofs that the present Ministers of England are not from Christ. To the first I answer that the term Priests as distinguished from all Christians in the sense used by the Convocation of the Church of England is the same with Presbyters as appears by the Latin translation of the 39 Articles of the Church of England Art 32.36 extant by it self and in the Corpus Syntagma confessionum of the Protestant Churches and the Letters of Orders under the seals of Bishops in Latin and this is sure found in Scripture Act. 11.30 c. The other names note not any Ministry different from the Ministry of Christ but are used to signifie some difference in their maintenance or places which may be annexed to them and yet their Ministry from Christ. If this Authors reason were good the names are forraign to the Scripture therefore the things it would follow that Congregational Churches are forraign to Scripture Lecturers Sacraments Ruling Elders Itinerant Preachers c. because their names are not there But this Author adds So are 2. Their Officers Deacons attending tables we read of but Deacons Praying Preaching Administring Sacraments so called by virtue of an office-Office-power an order of the first step to the Priesthood we find not Priests in the Old Testament both true and false we read of In the New Saints are so called 1. In respect of Analogie to the ritual Priest of old whose prerogative it was to come near to God Deut. 21.5 to whom through Christ Saints have access with boldness Ephes. 2.18 3.19 James 4.8 2. In respect of their union and engrafture into Christ the great High-Priest over the house of God 3. In respect of that analogie there is betwixt what Christ hath done for them as Priest and by his Spirit worketh in them He offered up Sacrifice so do they Psal. 116.17 141.2 Rom. 12.1 Heb. 13.14 He was crucified died so are they Rom. 6.6 7 8 c. Gal. 2.20 4. As Priests they are anointed to the participation of do thereby attain to a kind of holy and intimate communion with Christ in all his glorious Offices Rev. 5.10 But an office of Priesthood in men for the Ministery of the Gospel that are to be branded by men in that their Office must Preach what they would have them and cease when they would have them as is the case of the present Ministry of England the Scripture is a stranger to Answ. Though the present Ministers of England men are to hear be more than Deacons yet this may be said that if it be supposed that the Office of a Deacon be not now to attend Tables as the first seven Deacons were Act. 6.2 yet according to the book of Ordination it is his Office where provision is so made to search for the sick poor and impotent people of the Parish to intimate their Estates Names and places where they dwell unto the Curate that by his Exhortation they may be relieved with the almes of the Parishioners or others If they be appointment to Pray Preach and Administer the Sacraments they have this to plead that Philip the Deacon did both Preach and Baptize Act. 8.5 12 38. that St. Paul requires of the Deacons 1 Tim. 3.9 That they hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience and v. 13. They that have used the Office of a Deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus and therefore may the Deacons Office be well conceived the first step to the Priesthood that is the Office of a Presbyter As for the word Priest as it answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament if the Saints as Saints may be termed Priests then may the Elders or the best of them surely be called Priests yea and that in
a special manner as in respect of their Office drawing near to God engaged to offer spiritual sacrifices of Prayer and Praise which the Apostles conceived to belong to them in special manner together with the Ministry of the Word Acts 6.4 and 13.21 yea the Apostle Paul Rom. 15.16 useth this expression that this grace was given to him of God that he should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word applyed to Christ as a Priest Heb. 8.2 and joyned with Sacrifice Phil. 2.17 the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministring as a Priest the Gospel of God that the offering or sacrificing of the Gentiles might be acceptable and therefore in respect of his Office he might have been called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priest though not properly yet allusively and so may Ministers now as the Christian Church is called the Temple of God the Israel of God the heavenly Jerusalem c. And if as some conceive the word Priest be derived from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may be judged the fitter word than Minister which is more apposite to signifie a Deacon than an Elder Selden de Syned vet â—braeo l. 1. c. 14. p. 583. Vocem nostram Priest Teutonum Belgarumque Priester uti Gallorum Prebstre Prestre Italorum Prets a Presbytero deformatam nemo puto non concedit p. 585. Nec pueruli nesciunt voces istas Seniorem Priest Presbyterum Elder ex sui tam naturâ Usuque primario significatione apertissimâ non magis differre quà m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consulem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Regem aut quae alia sic invicem omnino eadem sunt As for that which is added that the present Ministry of England is bounded by men in their Office so as that they must Preach what they would have them and cease when they would have them I think it is not without example in the best ordered Churches I do conceive that in the Churches of the Separatists they would tie their Ministers to Preach according to their Confession and that if any taught otherwise than according to the declaration of the Faith and Order of the Congregational Churches in their meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. they would restrain him or withdraw from him Sure the Apostle would have Timothy to abide at Ephesus that he might charge some that they teach no other Doctrin 1 Tim. 1.3 and Titus to reject an Heretick Tit. 3.10 and 1 Cor. 14.30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by let the first hold his peace v. 28. If there be no Interpreter let him keep silence in the Church Which is sufficient proof that even those that are Gifted extraordinarily may be bounded by Order and they that teach otherwise than they should may be silenced Which if the Prelates or others do when they should not they are accountable to Christ who will judge them for it But it is no proof that their Ministry is not from Christ who submit to the commands of men that have power over them forbidding them to teach some truths and forbearing to teach when it cannot be with safety and fruit to the Church of God themselves and them which are without It is added So is it 3. to their admission into this their office viz. by a Lord-Bishop without the consent of the Congregation in which they are as Officers Answ. In the Answer to the second Chapter of this writing Sest 3. hath been shewed that the praeelection or consent of the Congregation in which a Minister is to act as an Officer is not so necessary to his Office or to the communion with him in it but that he may be owned and act lawfully as their Minister in some cases without it The admission of the present Ministers of England hath not alwayes been by Lord Bishops some have been made by Suffragan Bishops not Lords and instituted I think by Dean and Chapter and if ordained or instituted by a Lord Bishop yet not as Lord but as Bishop which is not alwayes without the election of the Congregation who are in some Parishes Patrons and in others there is supposed in Law an implicit consent in their Ancestors yielding that power to the Patron to present and an after consent by receiving him that is instituted as their Minister In some Peculiars and Donatives there 's no institution from a Lord Bishop required nor alwayes any other than a Licence to preach from the Bishop But whether these usages be right or wrong notwithstanding them yet may the Offices of the present Ministers of England be from Christ though this Author further argue to the contrary thus Sect. 3. The term Priest proves not symbolizing with the Popish Order of Priests The very truth is both in their Names Office and Admission thereunto the present Ministers of England symbolize not with the Ministers of Christ but the Popish Order of Priests so that if these do Act by vertue of an Antichristian Office-power then do they as he that runs may read in the ensuing paralled particulars 1. They are both called and own themselves Priests which though some may make light of light of yet considering that it is a term borrowed either from the Priests of the Law the assertion of such a Priesthood being a denial of Christ come in the flesh or from the Priests of the Heathen in conformity to whom as the Druides of old our Priests wear their white Garment or Surplice or from the Antichristian Church so called of Rome such Idolatrous Superstitious names being commanded by the Lord to be abolished Hos. 2.15 Zâ—ch 13.2 wants not it's sufficient weight the retention whereof being also a sore suspicion of too great a compliance with if not a willingness to return to that from whence they are derived Of the same mind with us herein is Hierom upon the 2. of Hosea the Hebrew Doctors Kimchi and Aben-Ezra the Chaldee Paraphrast Ribera though a Jesuite Zanchi Danaeus Sanchius Polanus River and almost all that write upon the said Scripture The last mentioned viz. Learned Rivet hath these words in his Corollaries from Hos. 2.15 16. There are many names which in themselves are good enough and might be used but God abhorreth the use of them because they have been abused to Idolatry he instanceth indeed in the word Mâ—ss but Priest or Altar being of the same aâ—â—ay upon the same foot of account is to be rejected The reformed Churches in Helvetia in their Harmony of Confessions are of the same mind The Ministry say they and the Priesthood are things far different the one from the other he himself viz. Christ remaineth only Priest for ever and we do not communicate the name Priest to any Minister least we should detract something from Christ. Answ. Every one saith Mr. Selden de Syn. Ebrae l. 1. c. 14. p.
is this First those Ministers that in their Names Offices Admission into their Offices are not to be found in the Scripture are not Ministers of Christ act not by vertue of an Authority Office Power Calling received from him Secondly Those Ministers that in their Names Office Admission into their Office are at a perfect agreement with the Ministers of Antichrist such are the Popish Priests acknowledged to be by those with whom we have to do are not the Ministers of Christ have not received any Power Office or Calling from him to act in the holy things of God But such as hath been abundantly demonstrated are the present Ministers of England therefore these have received no Power Office or Calling from Christ and so are Antichristian Quod erat demonstrandum Answ. Of these particulars the three first are granted and avouched as not Popish but justifiable and agreeable to Orthodox antiquity To the fifth I return the same answer that Arch-Bishop Whitgift gave Surely if those things which were good in the Popes Pontifical and either contained in the Scripture or well used before in the ancient Church or well prescribed by General Councils be also in our Pontifical our Pontifical is never the worse for having of them for if the thing it self be good and profitable it forceth not from whom it was taken or of whom it was used so that now it be rightly used But it is most false and untrue that the Book of Ordering Ministers and Deacons c now used is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pontifical being almost in no point correspondent to the same as you might have seen if you had compared them together But ignorance and rashness drives you into many errours To the sixth though the English Prelates avouch not the Opinions of the Popish Writers of giving grace ex opere operato by the Sacrament of Orders as they call it of the indelible character imprinted by the laying on of hands of the Prelates with such other of their errours as wherein they over-magnifie the power they have in their imposition of hands yet they plead that they do use the words Joh. 20.22 23. in the Ordination of Priests without blasphemy or absurdity Archbishop Whitgift in his Answer to the Admonition p. 49. of the Edition 1572. in 40. To use these words Receive the Holy Ghost in Ordering of Ministers which Christ himself used in appointing his Apostles is no more ridiculous and blasphemous than it is to use the words that he used in the Supper But it is blasphemy thus outragiously to speak of the words of Christ. The Bishop by speaking these words doth not take upon him to give the Holy Ghost no more than he doth to remit sins when he pronounceth the remission of sins but by speaking these words of Christ Receive the Holy Ghost Whose sins soever ye remit they are remitted c. he doth shew the principal duty of a Minister and assureth him of the assistance of Gods Holy Spirit if he labour in the same accordingly Mr. Richard Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5. sect 77. The Holy Ghost may be used to signifie not the person alone but the gifts of the Holy Ghost and the very power and authority which is given men in the Church to be Ministers of Holy things is contained within the number of those gifts whereof the Holy Ghost is Author and therefore he which giveth this power may say without absurdity or folly Receive the Holy Ghost such power as the Spirit of Christ hath endued his Church withal See Edward Stilling fleets Irenicum part 2. c. 6. p. 231. Bradshaw against Fr. Johnson p. 65. of Gatakers Rejoynder to Can. Though in their Ordination of Ministers the Bishops use as a Ceremonial speech to say Receive the Holy Ghost and therein peradventure offer some force to the Scripture unto which they allude yet they disclaim all actual power and authority of giving the person or gifts of the Holy Ghost unto men Besides I add sith the laying on of hands is together with the designation of the person a sign of prayer as Mat. 19.13 Mark 10.16 and in Confirmation and the Apostles use Acts 8.15 and in Ordination Acts 13.3 those words may be used prayer-wise and freed from exception Whereto perhaps that makes which Dr. Field l. 5. of the Church ch 56 hath The Council of Carthage 4. Canon 3. provideth that in the Ordination of a Presbyter the Bishop holding his hand on his head and blessing him all the Presbyters that are present shall hold their hands by the hand of the Bishop and the person Ordained kneeling joyns in prayer for the Blessing So Dr. Sparks conceived it might be understood ch 15. of Unity and Uniformity Ecclesiast disc of the French Reformed Churches art 8. ch 1. The Ordained shall kneel when they impose their hands on him To the seventh Ordination is not alwayes at a Cathedral and may be before the Congregation to whom the person is to be Priest To the eighth That it is not alwayes so nor when so Popish See before in Answer to the Preface sect 22. and to chap. 2. sect 3. To the nineth To offer a persons self for Ordination may be no evil but in some cases a duty 1 Tim. 3.1 Isa. 6.8 Giving money for Letters of Ordination is no simony but only wages to the Register for his writing as when the Register was paid for writing and sealing the Instrument signifying the person to be an approved Preacher Against any Bishops taking money for Ordition and the Registers exacting overmuch provision is made Canon 135 Eccl 1. Jac. and even in the Council of Trent Sess. 21. Decr. de reformatione c. 1. To the tenth The Priests of England are not to be Ordained without some title according to Cannon 33. even the Trent Council ubi supra c. 2. hath made some provision about it It is necessary that some bâ— Ordained though they have not a fixed flock to attend upon Ministers are necessary for Armies Navies and sundry occasions which continue but for a while Even the Synod of Dort made some Orders about such and the New-England Elders that imploy Ministers to teach the Native salvage people do justifie the Ordaining to Office without a flock to attend upon unless they would have them imployed without Ordination which were incongruous to the Holy Ghosts direction Act 13.2 If Itinerant Preachers should have Approbation they should have Ordination To the eleventh subscription is required by the 36. Canon to three Articles about the Kings Supremacy the Books of Common-prayer and Ordination and the 39. Articles of Religion at Ordination the Priest promiseth obedience to his Ordinary to follow with a glad mind and will his godly admonitions and submit himself to his godly judgment by the late Act unfained Assent and Consent is further required but none of these by Oath the Oath of Canonical Obedience is only required at Institutions into Benefices and is
which when they have proved that ever the Lord Jesus did intrust an Assembly of the greatest Murderers Adulterers and Idolaters in the world with any power for the sending forth Officers to act in the holy things of God to and for the Church his Spouse will be admitted but that they shall never be able to do so hugely importunate are some of them herein that they are not ashamed to ask us VVhy Ordination may not be received from the Church so called of Rome as well as the Scripture To which we shall only say That when it is proved that we received the Scripture from that Apostate Church by vertue of any Authority thereof as such somewhat of moment may be admitted in that enquiry but this will never be done T is true the Bible was kept among the people in those parts where the Pope prevaileth yet followeth it not from hence that we received it from their Authority as Ordination is received If we did why did we not keep it as delivered from them to us in the Vulgar Latine So that of these things there is not the same reason It will not then be denied but the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office power received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters that Church being eminently so as hath been proved Answ. This Objection though it be but a slight thing and of no real force to nullifie or invalidate the Calling of the present Ministers yet because the well-affected Protestants are zealous against Popery as having learned the Pope to be Antichrist and that terrible threanings are in the Revelation against any communion with any thing that is suggested to them by those to whom they adhere to come from Rome or the Pope as being Antichristian it is needful that this thing should be cleared for rectifying the mistakes of people that their unadvised zeal against some things as Popish which are not may not occasion unnecessary Schism and such other evils into which persons perhaps otherwise of honest hearts cast themselves to their ruine It is known to those that study Controversies between Protestants and Papists that this hath been one grand Objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches that their Ministers are not rightly Ordained and therefore they have no succession which by Bellarmine in his Book de Notis Ecclesiae c. 8. is made a Note of the Church and therefore they are not a true Church but schismatical The Answers given to this Objection are 1. For the truth of the Reformed Churches the succession in them of true Doctrine is sufficient to demonstrate them true Churches as I have asserted in my Romanism discussed against the Manuel of H. T. Art 2. 2. That Ministers may be sent of God who teach the Doctrine of God though they have not Ordination according to Church-Canons as was the case at the first beginning of the Reformation in which there was something extraordinary by reason of the long tyranny of Popes and the great corruptions in the Latine Churches 3. That their Ministers were at first ordained by the Popish Bishops and though they did after renounce the offering Sacrifice for quick and dead yet even by the Papists own Canons and resolutions of their Casuists their power to administer the Word and Sacraments according to the Word of God continued still 4. That those who had been thus ordained had power to ordain others for which the French and other Protestants of the Presbyterial Government allege That Presbyters may Ordain even by the confession of the Romanists and that Bishops though they be hereticks in their account yet they lose not the power of Ordaining no not when degraded of which more may be seen in Rivet sum Controv. tract 2. q. 1. Alsted suppl ad Chamier panstrat de memb Eccl. milit c. 8. Ames Bellar. Enerv. tom 2. l. 3. de clericis c. 2 sect 10. and many more who have still pleaded That notwithstanding the impurity of the Church of Rome yet the Calling which Luther Zuinglius and others had from Popish Bishops was sufficient without any other Ordination for an ordinary calling to the Office of a Minister and that those who have succeeded them have been true Pastours in their Churches The English Protestants who have had Bishops above Presbyters have advantage above other Protestants to plead for the regularity of the Ordination of their Ministers because they have been ordained by Bishops and those Bishops consecrated by other Bishops according to the â—anons of the Ancients in a succession continued from Bishops acknowledged by the Papists themselves To evacuate this plea saith Dr. Prideaux Orat. 8. de Vocatione Ministrorum The Papists would fain find a defect in the succession of the English Bâ—shâ—ps from the preceding Bâ—shops and in the solemnity of their consecration And being beaten off from the denial of Cranmers consecration by the producing of the Popes acknowledging of him Arch-bishop and the register of his consecration as also of other Bishops in King Edwards dayes After Christophorus à sacrâ—bâ—sco or Father Halywood of Dublin in Ireland Anthony Champney and James Wadsworth say That Arch bishop Parker Bishop Jewel and those others which were made Bishops in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth though theâ—e were an attempt of their consecration at a Tavern at the Nags-head in Cheapside yet could not they procure an old Catholick Bishop to joyn with them and therefoâ—e their consecration was disappointed To shew the falshood of this fable and to make evident the compleat solemnity of Paâ—kers and others consecration and the truth of the Ordination of the English Ministers even by the Canons of the Papists Bishop Bâ—del in his Answer to Wadsworth ch 11. and Mr. Francis Mason in his Vindication of the English Ministry have fully proved the solemnity of the consecration out of the Aâ—ch-bishops Begister to have been â—ight and the succession to have been legitimate even according to the Canon Law and the Ministers Ordination to have been good though not ordained sacrificing Priests for quick and dead against the exceptions of Bellarmine 〈◊〉 and such other of the Papists ' as have denied Protestant Ministers true Pastours and their Churches true Churches It is not unlikely that some of the Prelaâ—ical party have vented in writings and conference such expressions as carry a shew of their disclaiming the Churches which have not Bishops and extolling the Popish Churches Government and avouching their Ordination from Rome which hath caused a great aveâ—seness in many zealous persons from Bishops and the conforming Ministers and is taken hold of by this Author and other promoters of Separation as an engine sutable to that end But as those learned men Bedel Mason Prideaux and others have pleaded the succession of Bishops from the Popish Bishops and the Ordination of Ministers by them there is no cause given of that out-cry that is made of the Bishops
Antichristianism declining to Popery or of Separation for that reason the Presbyâ—erian Churches making the like plea for themselves That the first Reformers had ordinary calling even according to the Papists own Canons and the Episcopal Divines pleading only the same thing more fully Yet it is not true which this Author saith That either the one or other make the succession from Popish Bishâ—ps one of the best pleas they have for the justâ—fication of their ministâ—y For though they plead this succession against the clamorous and violent actings of the Popish party which Petrus Molinaeus in his 3 d. Epistle to Bishop Andrews mentions to have been in France by Arnola the Jesuite and the writings of Champney Wadsworth and others shew to have been in England yet they have justified their ministry without it as may be seen in Amos Alsâ—ed Bâ—del and others And for the present Ministers of England I conceive they will deny that they act by vertue of an Office-power from the Combination and Assembly of Idolaters in the Church of Rome their office-Office-power being not such as Priests are ordained to in the Church of Rome to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead but to preach the Gospel administer Sacraments and Discipline according to Christs institution And in the solemnity of their Ordination the Româ—sts rites being relinquished by the Ordainers who are not a Combination or Assembly of Idolaters but professors of the true Faith and haters of popish Idolatry though some succession of their Predecessors from Idolaters be alleged to stop the mouths of Papists who pervert their proselytes by impuâ—ation of novelty to the reformed Churches and their Ministers rather than by proving their Doctrine out of Scripture As for that which is obâ—ected That Christ would never entrust such to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God for his Church it is without reason objected sith many of them might be and in charity we are to conceive were the servants of God who abode in the communion of the Roman Church Dr. Ames himself in his Animadversions on the Remonstrants Scripta Synodalia Artic. 5. c. 7. saith We believe there were and yet are many who have not so farr separated themselves from the Papists but that they are polluted with their manifold Idolatry who yet have their part in the Kingdom of God Even in the dayes of King Henry the 8 th and Q Mary all the Bishops were not like Gardiner Bonner and such as were inhumane persecutors Why Christ should not entrust Cranmer Tonstall and such like to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God as well as Judas to be an Apostle I find not cause The baptism received in the Church of Rome the Brownists in their Apology p. 112. acknowledge to be so farr valid as not to need rebaptization and why not then the Ordination by their Bishops Bishops and Ministers though they be evil men and unduly get into power yet as it is with other Officers their actings are valid as Caiaphas Ananias and such like persons who by bribes unjustly and irregularly usurped the High-Priests Office yet their sentence and ministration were not therefore disannulled He who said We received the Bible from the Church of Rome it is not likely meant it to have been received by vertue of their authority but their ministry Preachers having been sent by the Pope to instruct the Saxons in the Faith But whatever was meant by that speech this we may safely say That if the office-Office-power of the present Ministers had been as it is not received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters yet being no other office-Office-power than what hath been instituted by Christ it no more proves the present Ministers Idolaters than the receiving of baptism or the Scriptures by the ministry of men in that Church It is further added Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry 3. Nor can it be denied but they offer up to God a VVorship meerly of humane composition as the Common-Prayer Book worship hath been proved to be once abused to Idolatry with the mâ—â—es â—nd rites of Idolaters That the Commonâ—Prayer Book worship is a worship that was once abused to Idolatry being the worship of that Church whose worship at least in the complex thereof is so cannot with the least pretence of reason be denied That the whole of it is derived from and taken out of the Popes Portuis as are the Common-prayers out of the Breviary The administration of the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual or Book of Rites The Consecration of the Lords Supper Collects Epistles Gospels out of the Mass Book The Ordination of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests out of the Roman Pontifical hath been aâ—â—erted and proved by many VVhich might be evidenced if needful beyond exception not only by comparing the one with the other but also from the offer was made by Pope Pius the 4th and Gregory the 13th to Q. Elizabeth to confirm the English Liturgy which did it not symbolize with the service of the Church of Rome they would not have done Yea when the said Queen was interdicted by the Popes Bull Secretary Walsingham procures two Intelligencers from the Pope who seeing the service of London and Canterbury in the pomp thereof wonder that their Lord the Pope should be so unadvised as to interdict a Prince whose service and ceremonies did so symbolize with his own VVhen they come to Rome they satisfie the Pope That they saw no service ceremonies or orders in England but might very well serve in Rome upon which the Bull was recalled Not to mention what we have already minded viz. the testimomy of King Edward the 6th and his Council witnessing the English service to be the same and no other but the old the self-same words in English that were in Latine which was the worship of England and Rome in Queen Maries dayes it is evident That the present Minsters of England offer up a worship to God once abused to Idolatry That they do this with the rites ceremonies and modes of Idolaters viz. such as are in use in that Idolatrous Church of Rome needs not many words to demonstrate What else is the Priests change of voice posture and place of worship enjoyned them Not to mention their holy Vestments Bowings Cringings Candles Altars c. all which as it s known owe their original unto the appointments thereof In the margin Maccovius loc com append de adiaph p. 860. saith Non licet mutuari aut retinere res aus ritus sacros Idololatrarum sive Ethnicorum sife Pontificiorum c. etsi in se res fuerint adiaphorae quia vitandam esse omnem consormitatem cum Idololatris docemur Lev. 19.4.27 and 21.5 Deut. 14 1 It remaineth That the present Mâ—nisters of England acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offering
that every person be in such a particular instituted church and that is the fiâ—st seat of Ecclesiastical power alleging Matth. 16.18 18.17 to that purpose and build thereupon their Separation Yet I never judged either the allegation of those Texts to be pertinent to that they produce them for or that such conclusions as they gather from them about the constitution and power of a congregational church or the necessity of being a member in such a church so formed are rightly deduced But of this I need say no more than what is said in Answer to the Preface of this Book sect 15. and else-where Sect. 4. To attend only on the ministry of Ministers of Congregational Churches is not of Christs appointment Fâ—uâ—thly Saith this Author That Christ hath appointed Officers of his own to act in the holy things of God in and over thâ—se Assemblies whom he furnisheth with gifts every way suiting their employment to whom without turning aside to the voice of strangers or attending upon the ministry of such as are not of his appointment it s the duty of Saints to hearken is very conspiâ—uous in the ensuing Scriptures Ephes. 4.11 Heb. 13.7 13 Mat. 24.4 5.23.24 1 Joh. 2.18 4.1 2 Joh 10 Acts 20.29 30 31. Revel 2.14 15 16. Which exactly agrees with what was practised by primitive believers who it seems received none without the testimony of some Brethren of known integrity in the Churches 1 Cor. 16.3 Acts 9.26 Answ. It is true That Christ hath appointed officers of his own to act in the holy things of God in and over the Churches and that he furnished them with gifts every way suiting their imployment when he ascended up on high and this may be proved from Ephes. 4.11 and that such officers as may gather and perfect his Churches are of his appointment and that we are to follow and obey them Heb. 13.7.17 and that we are not to hear or attend upon the Ministry of such strangers as are deceivers false teachers Antichrists that bring not the same doctrine with the Apostles that are false prophets speak perverse things Nicolaitans that teach the doctrine of Balaam as the Texts alleadged do import and that S. Paul sent alms to Jerusalem by such messengers as the Corinthians approved that S. Paul was not at first admitted into society with the disciples till Barnabas brought him to the Apostles and informed them of his conversion But that Christ hath appointed Officers onely in and over particular Congregational Churches or that they onely who are chosen by such a Church are his Officers or that they are furnished by Christ with gifts every way suiting their imployment as when he ascended up on high or that all other Ministers or Preachers are strangers not of Christs appointment or that the Saints are not to attend on their Ministry or that hearing them is turning aside to the voice of strangers or that none is to be admitted to Preach or to Communion in a Congregational Church or to be heard Preach but such as have had testimony of some brethren of known integrity in the gathered Churches are not in the Texts alleadged nor in any other part of the holy Seripture But these Tenents and Rules of the Congregational Churches although the things may be observed in many cases as agreeing with the state of Churches at some times and in prudence may be commended yet to make them Institutions of Christ necessary to be observed at all times and no other Orders different from these lawful but rather Antichristian is an humane invention and no better then superstition which this Authour and other Separatists do so much inveigh against And indeed to injoyn Christians Members of a Congregational Church or other Christians to hear onely such Officers is both against the doctrine and practise approved in the Scripture against the practise of the Congregational Churches themselves and if it be urged rigidly according to this principle of this Authour puts such a yoke of bondage on the consciences of Christians as is intolerable and pernicious For 1. The Ministers of the Gospel are according to Christs design for the benefit of all Christians not appropriate to this or that particular number of men so as not to act as Ministers of his appointment but in particular gathered Churches It may be requisite perhaps for good order and government to assign particular places to them and this is of Divine and Apostolical institution that in particular Churches there should be Pastors and Elders and that they should be bound to be resident with them and to feed them But that no other then such should be Officers of Christ is not proved If there be not Apostles Prophets or Evangelists now as were in the Primitive times yet I presume none will deny that men may be Officers of Christ that are assigned to no particular Charge as Lecturers Catechists Readers in the Universities Members of Synods Commissioners for setling Churches in Discipline for Approbation of Preachers and the like and they being for the benefit of the Church of God either in common or more specially for some place may be heard or else the end of Christ in giving them should be frustrate This I gather partly from the expressions 1 Cor. 12.28 That not onely Apostles and Prophets but also Teachers are set by God in the Church indefinitely not in this or that definite Church and Pastors and Teachers as well as Apostles Prophets and Evangelists are given by Christ Ephes. 4.12 for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ without the determinate assignation of some Saints or some part of the body but making them his gift to any Saints or any part of the body which his providence shall order partly and chiefly in that S. Paul counts it sinful glorying in men to appropriate this or that Teacher as peculiar to some and that because Paul and Apollos and Cephas and by the same reason every Minister was every Christians in that every Christian was Christs and he Gods 1 Cor. 3.22 So that however every of them cannot be every Christians in use so as that he should have jus in re yet every Christian hath a title to every Minister or jus ad rem and therefore to say none are Christs Officers but such as are in the Coâ—gâ—egational Churches and over them and to attend on the Ministry of others is to turn aside to the voice of strangers is to deprive Christians of the right God gives them to all the Ministers and tends to that gloâ—ying in men whch the Apostle condemns 2. We find that Apollos said to be a Minister by whom the Corinthians believed whom Paul planted and Apollos watered 1 Cor. 3.5 6. was a diligent Teacher of the things of the Lord at Ephesus and he disdained not to be instructed in the way of the Lord more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla Acts 18.25 26. who are
thought did appertain to me to do because I found that many that had heard of my judgment in another point did imagine that I must needs be also a Separatist from the Church and Ministers as now they are and where my practice is known to the contrary I have been censured as acting against my own tenet yea and my own light and taken to be and shunned as a deserter of that Cause for which I have appeared notwithstanding in many places of my Writings I have disclaimed Separation for that wherein I was dissenter from others alwayes foreseeing that a groundless Separation would be endless and therefore have still professed my desire of such a Reformation as might be without Separation from Brethren who are not heretical in the doctrine of Christian Faith nor Idolatrous in their Worship nor impose that on me for communion with them which I cannot yield to without sin against God and accordingly did in express words in the Addition to my Apology Sect. 4. declare my willingness to joyn with any Churches of Christ and unwillingness to be a Separating Member in any Church being willing to be a conjoyned Member with all the Churches of Christ in general and each in particular Apol. p. 5. I abhor Separation from my Brethren in this regard p. 10. I durst not gather a separated Church as not knowing how to justifie such a practice In refutatione positionis Dr. Henrici Savage Sect. 15. Sanctissimè in conspectu Domini corda scrutantis possum profiteri me in animo semper habuisse ut si fieri posset èsset reformatio absque separatione animorum exacerbatione Praecursor Sect. 15. I am conscious to my self of using what means I could for Reformation without Schism if possible Yea when some of those who agreed with me in that tenet which my Writings held forth differently from others were moved to admit me to their Communion and they excepted against it because I did not disclaim the Church of England nor renounce Ordination by a Bishop nor desert my standing as a Parish Minister nor my maintenance by Tith or Augmentation nor my hearing with the World as they used to speak nor some such like practices as were inconsistent with the principles of the Separatists I refused many years ago to joyn with them that would not otherwise admit me than upon such terms but did answer their exceptions against me and persisted in my refusal unto this day And how averse my spirit and wayes have been from division that Antagonist of mine whose former Writings had given occasion to men to conceive of me as a Sect-master yet hath in his two Epistles Printed before my two Books one against the Quakers about the insufficiency of each mans Light within him for his guidance to God being Nine Sermons on Joh. 1.9 and the other entituled Romanism Discussed against the Papists assertions about their Church and Pope declared his opinion of my inclinableneness to brotherly Communion and agreement notwithstanding our dissent They to whom I was a Teacher even in the times of our greatest Liberty can bear me Witness that I alwayes withstood by Writing and Conference such insinuations as tended to alienate their minds from Dissenters and alwayes advised conjunction in Church Communion and hearing such as taught the truth of the Gospel in respect of the foundation though in their Worship and Preaching some Hay and Stubble were superadded And therefore to shew my constancy in the same opinion and practice I have conceived my self obliged to appear in this matter at this time Sect. 3. The evils consequent on the tenet of Separation urge to an examination of it Which I conceived my self the more urgently provoked to by the direful imputation of serving the Image of the Beast which the Title of the Book chargeth on the Hearers of the present Ministers and the terrible predictions which in the Epistle to the Reader seem to be levelled against compliance in hearing the present Ministers as if it were likely to meet with the same judgment in the day of Gods wrath with the Antichristian Beast and seeming commiserations of such as did joyn in Communion with the publike Church Assemblies in praying and preaching as worshiping with the Nations waiting at the Posts of an Antichristian Ministry and through the power of temptation turned aside by the flocks of the Companions and expostulating with such as forsaking the fountain of living Waters for broken Cisterns that will hold no Water changing their glory for that which will not profit leaving the bread in their Fathers house and going a begging to the doors of Strangers casting contempt upon the pure Institutions of Christ and thereby provoking the Lord to send leanness into their soul giving occasion of grief and stumbling unto their Brethren pouring contempt upon the Offices Wisdom and Faithfulness of Christ hardning persons in a false way of worshiping of God to their eternal ruine disobeying the heavenly voice calling aloud to them to come from the Lions dens and Mountains of the Leopards to come out of Babylon admonishing them to arise depart hence this being not their rest but polluted to hasten their escape and be like the He-goat before the Flocks in their retreat from the Tents of these false Worshippers lest being partakers of their sin they receive of their plagues that are even ready to be poured forth Which is further pressed by intimating as if this may be the last warning such may have from God Which passages if I should my self read without commotion of mind as if they were brutum fulmen a great Thunderclap without any Thunderbolt yet I doubted whether they might not have such operation on many well-meaning persons as to affright them from any hearing or Communion with the present Church or Teachers as judging such compliance a damnable sin such as the Scripture makes drinking of the cup of Fornication of the Whore of Babylon receiving the mark of the Beast in their forehead and in their hand and in some an irremissible sin like that of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which must needs produce these woful effects an irreconcilable enmity between the Separatists and such as hold Communion with the present Churches and their Pastors and if the Law should not be mitigated the utter ruine of many thousands in respect of their Liberties Estates and perhaps Lives or else the violation of their Consciences if being possessed with these notions out of fear or secular hope they yield to things of so direful an aspect which things have appeared to me of so great importance that I conceived both prudence and charity bound me to examine these pretences and to inform my self and others of what I found conducible to the preventing of those sad consequences which attend the compliance if it it be such as it is pretended to be and the unyieldingness to what Laws injoyn if it be not such an evil as it is accused to be That which
it is put in the Plural number as the Churches of Asia Galatia Judaea In the Evangelists History of the doings sufferings and sayings of our Lord Christ I find the Word Church used but in two places Mat. 16.18 and 18.17 Of the extent and meaning of both which Texts there is so much controversie not only between the Protestants and Papists but also among the Protestants themselves of different persuasions about Church Government that it would require a Treatise by it self to make a thorough discussion of those two Texts in order to the clearing of the Controversies that are started about them That Mat. 16.18 is undoubtedly meant of the Christian Church but whether Oecumenical visible or invisible or indefinite or topical is doubted It is without any proof appropriated to the Church of Rome or any particular Church as ordered under this or that peculiar form of Government but is to be taken for the number of Believers in Christ whether of Jews or Gentiles more or fewer abstractively from any political considerations and such external adjuncts and denominations as whereby usually Churches are in common speeches diversified In the other place Mat. 18.17 in as much as it is not said tell my Church but tell the Church and the term thy brother may as well be meant of a Brother as by birth or proselytism adjoyned to the Jews as St. Paul calls the Jews by birth his brethren kinsmen according to the flesh Rom. 9.3 in which sense it may seem to be taken in that place Mat. 5.23 24. which is a precept like to this for the reconciling of particular differences and righting of wrongs and the expression let him be to thee as a Heathen seems to intimate as of a Brother in Christian profession it may not without reason be doubted whether by the Church there be meant the Christian Church or an Assembly of the Jews in their Synedrium whether greater or lesser and if it be extended as a direction to Christian Brethren whether it be meant of their Assembly under an Ecclesiastical Consideration or Political that is the Christian Magistrate Institution of a Church by Preception or Command I find not neither Christ nor his Apostles that I know have given us any rule or law of bounding modelling or numbring Churches There is a precept Heb. 10.25 that Christians should not forsake the assembling of themselves together as the manner of some was But none about the defining how many should go to a Church or be accounted to belong to one Church no determination by any precept concerning Members belonging to a Church whether they should be fixed to one Meeting or ambulatory and moveable sometimes belonging to one Assembly sometimes to another of the same profession Nor do we find any Institution of Churches whether they ought to be Domestick Congregational Parochial Classiâ—al Diocesan Provincial Patriarchical or Oecumenical The ordering of such distinctions Christ and his Apostles so far as I deprehend have left to Divine Providence and Humane Prudence allowing more or fewer to a Church as the imes will permit the increase or diminution of Believers should be as Pastors may be had and their Partitions and Meetings be convenient for their edification and government It is true the Romanists would infer from Christs promise to Peter Mat. 16.18 Upon this Rock will I build my Church that St. Peter and after hâ—m the Bishop of Rome was made universal Bishop But that by Christs Church is meant the universal Church and by Christs building it is meant constituting an universal Bishop is an assertion without proof In some of the Ancients the Bishops of Rome have been stiled Oecumenical but so also have other Patriarchs We believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church but so denominated from their common confession or the same Faith not from union to and subjection under one visible Church head Mr. Paul Bayne as I remember long since disputed against Diocesan Churches for Parochial and in the Assembly at Westminster the dissenters against this proposition that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial government from such distinction of Churches as the New Testament yields But the Arguments seem not to me to be cogent they declaring only what was done de facto not what was necessary to be done de jure That Text Mat. 18.17 is much urged by sundry sorts of Pleaders for their several wayes of Church-government But it is uncertain whether by Brother and Church be meant Christian Believers and the Christian Church and if Christian Believers and Church be meant whether the Church be meant of the Christian Civil Judicatory or Ecclesiastical Consistory or Congregational Assembly of Believers of all ranks or some select Arbitrators that of which the Church is to have cognizance being there no other than the sin of one Brother against another which v. 21 22. Luk. 17 3 4. shew to be meant only of private trespasses or injuries done by one to another who might remit or forgive them nor is any other act ascribed to the Church than an admonition to the injurious Brother to do right to him whom he hath wronged whereupon it is then allowed or appointed upon non-satisfaction to him or disobedience to the Church without any other juridical sentence mentioned that he that is thus disobedient should be to him that complained as a Heathen or Publican with whom the Jews would not have familiarity Nothing is said of being such to the Church or by vertue of its sentence juridical or being excluded à sacris which we are sure the Publicans were not Luk. 18.10 These things seem to me to evince that neither is here that instituted Church which the Assertors of Congregational Churches and Church-government urge as the only Churches and Church-government of the New Testament and inculcate as the pattern in the Mount and any other way to be as the setting of mans posts by Gods posts and separate from a National Church as a humane Invention Nor is here that Church-government instituted which they make the only Government appointed by Christ that the Congregation or the major part are to cast out exclude from Communion in Holy things in every Church though but of seven or eight every member that sins and will not obey the monition of the rest of the Congregation These things being premised I answer to the Questions in the first Querie fore-mentioned 1. That it is granted That since the Unchurching of the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath not yet that we know of so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his We say that Christ hath redeemed us to God by his bloud out of every Kindred and Tongue and People and Nation and hath made us unto our God Kings and Priests Revel 5.9 10. We own no Church visible now but of Believers by their own personal profession We approve the 19. Article of
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
joyning together in their praying and praising God Mat. 21.16 Luke 19.39 40. Sure it can be no sin in any person to joyn in the true worship and service of God with any if he have no command to withdraw himself from that service because of their presence nor power to exclude them and yet is bound to the duties then performed Believers might prophesie and hear it though Unbelievers came in 1 Cor. 14.24 25. Christians are commanded to separate and not touch the unclean thing 2 Cor. 6.17 But those they are to separate from are no other than Unbelievers and the unclean thing is the Idol v. 15 16. not the true service of God because of the presence of some scandalous Brother The people of God are to come out of Babylon Rev. 18 4. but that is no other than Rome and that because of its Idolatry v. 2 3. Rev. 17.2 3 4 5 6 18. We are not to keep company with a man called a Brother if he be a Fornicator or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner with such an one no not to eat 1 Cor. 5.11 But this prohibited keeping Company and eating can be meant of no other than arbitrary unnecessary society in civil things and eating common Bread because v. 10. that keeping Company which is forbidden to such Brethren is allowed in v. 9 10. to the Fornicators of this world which cannot be Gospel Communion keeping company in eating the Lords Supper but civil eating The Doctrine of defiling our selves by the presence of wickâ—d men at the Lords Supper hath begotten so much superstition in the minds of many well-affected people that they can scarce ever break Bread with comfort no not in the best Instituted Churches there being seldom such an unspotted Congregation but that some or other is known or reported or suspected to be guilty of some sin or errour which is made sufficient to exclude themselves from the Communion so that as they use to speak they are not free to break Bread and that before the fault be examined or the person judged upon trial to be guilty and impenitent which makes those very Churches which by themselves are counted purest and best Disciplined to be full of Brawls and rash censures and separations and without any regular Discipline of any long continuance These things being considered I answer that I know no evil in it to account the worst of the Ministers of England Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion if not under regular censure in Hearing Prayer Praising of God eating the Lords Supper nor evil to account them members of the same Church and of one Brotherhood according to the Rime which should not be derided by any holy sober Christians being only the Lords Prayer in Metre It follows Sect. 5. Tender Consciences may call the Bishops Reverend Fathers Nay 3. We cannot so acknowledge them but we must also acknowledge the Bishops for our Reverend Fathers for theirs they are which how abhorring it is to any tender enlightned soul may easily be conjectured Answ. The Bishops are acknowledged by the present Ministers of the Church of England as their Reverend Fathers in respect of their Ordination but as Brethren only in respect of Gospel Communion Nor do I think the Bishops affect the title of Reverend Fathers as if they were superiours over the Ministers or People in respect of the common Faith had dominion over their Faith or were Lords over Gods heritage or would be called Masters or Fathers in that sense in which our Lord Christ appropriates these Titles to himself and his Father Mat. 23.8 9 10. in which sense I acknowledge any tender enlightned soul should abhor to give it to them I conceive they are far from usurping that Title as the Bishop of Rome doth who now hath ingrossed the Title of Pope that is Father heretofore given to other Ministers even to Deacons and doth claim the Prerogative to be the Oecumenical Bishop and Universal Monarch as Christs Vicar over the whole Church as having power to make Laws binding the Conscience out of the Case of Scandal and Contempt to determine infallibly in point of Faith with much more wherein he sitteth in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God 2 Thess. 2.4 But I conceive the Title of Reverend Fathers is given to them and taken by them in no such sense but that they account not only the Ministers but also the meanest Christian their Brethren in Christ. Yet may they be called Reverend Fathers not only in regard of their Age and their success in begetting others through the Gospel in Christ Jesus as the Apostle of himself 1 Cor. 4.15 in which respect there have been and I presume some of them are rightly termed Fathers in Christ but also in respect of their Office and Dignity according to that of the Apostle 1 Tim. 5.1 Rebuke not an Elder but intreat him as a Father In which respects usual Titles may be given even to the unworthy as St. Paul did Acts 22.1 and 26.25 and such compellations and salutations have been used by holy persons Gen. 42.10 Dan. 6.21 as warrantable which Quakers and tender Consciences not enlightned but darkned by prejudice and undue suggestions abhor as giving flattering Titles to men disclaimed by Elihu Job 32.22 whose example and opinions are not imitable nor doth this Author any good Office to any in such affrightments whereby our Breach is widened and our Wound uncurable Sect 6. It is not proved that the best of the present Ministers are to be separated from as walking disorderly This Author goes on thus But to hear this Plea speak its uttermost let it be granted they are Brethren and may be so esteemed They are Brethren that walk disorderly or they do not That they walk disorderly cannot be denied by such as pretend to Reformation if submiâ—ting to Ordination or Reordination by a Lord Bishop covenanting and protesting with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture and the best Reformed Churches to own as consonant to Scripture a Lyturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church and read them to wear the Surplice c. be disorderly walking they are the very best of them beyond contradiction to be reputed in the number of disorderly Walkers And so after due admonition according to the Scripture and a perseverance in their sin to be separated from by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ Mat. 18. 2 Thess. 3.6 Now we command you Brethren in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition he received of us with what vehemency authority and holy earnestness doth the Apostle press separation from Brethren that walk disorderly We command you and we command you in the Name of the Lord Jesus and we command you Brethren by vertue of our relation to each other and that love and endearment that is betwixt
as those 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Cor. 12.20 21. not those practices charged on the present Ministers here by this Author are meant by disorderly walking 2 Thess. 3.6 which is also confirmed by 1 Thess. 5.14 where after the Apostle had beseeched them v. 12 13. to know them which laboured among them and were over them in the Lord and admonished them and to esteem them very highly for their works sake which shews he expected not of them other works for the earning of their Bread than their labour in the Word and Doctrine he adds now we exhort you Brethren warn them that are unruly the same word which is 2 Thess. 3 6. translated disorderly whom he distinguisheth from thâ— feeble minded and weak and therefore is meant of Brethren who sinned openly and wilfully and not of Ministers who do yield to that which is controverted even by learned and godly men whether it be evil at all and if it be evil it s not of such a kind as the Apostle any where censures so as he doth this disorderly walking and it s most likely is practised out of ignorance errour fear or other motive which may befall an holy and upright man Nor is there any force in this Authors reasoning that the practice of the Ministers must be disorderly walking unless they can shew an Apostolical written Tradition for those things they practise For 1. it doth not appear that the Tradition 2 Thess. 3 6. of the Apostle is any other than the command v. 10. that if any would not work he should not eat which is not improbable from the connexion of the following verses with this which also makes it probable that the disorderly walking v. 6. is no other than being idle and busie-bodies the Apostle acquitting himself from behaving himself disorderly v. 7. in that he wrought with his hands that he might not be chargeable to any of them v. 8. and then they need to bring no other tradition to acquit themselves from disorderly walking than their labouring in the Word and Doctrine according to 1 Tim. 5.17 18. 2. If the Tradition be further extended to those mentioned 2 Thess. 2.15 It will not be necessary that they may be acquitted from disorderly walking that they produce for themselves an Apostolical written Tradition for a Liturgie Surplice or Crossing they think it concerns him that accuseth them as walking disorderly in doing them that he produce an Apostolical Tradition against the use of them For being as they conceive in themselves things indifferent they think it enough that there is no Apostolical precept forbidding them and then they have this Apostolical Tradition for them Rom. 4.15 where no Law is there is no Transgression If it be replied in things that pertain to Gods Worship there must be an express Institution or else the practice of it is walking disorderly besides what is said before in answer to the first Chapter Sect. 3. it may be retorted where is your Apostolical written Tradition by Institution for your Church Covenant Infant Baptism Election of Ministers by most voices excommunication of members in a Congregational Church by the major part with many more To use your own words if you have not as there is nothing more certain you are disorderly Walkers and to be separated from as well as the present Ministers if the Apostles argument be valid We command you to withdraw from such as walk disordâ—rly But who I pray are these disorderly Walkers how shall we know them they are sayes the Apostle such as walk not after the tradition received from us Eadem in te cudatur saba As much may be said of the Separatists if by Apostolical Tradition be meant an Institution for every thing used in Worship and Church Government 3. This Authors Argument if it proceed thus Every one that hath not a written Apostolical Tradition for what he doth or that doth otherwise than the Apostles Tradition requires walks disorderly which is the force of his reasoning then every one that sins in any kind is a disorderly walker for sure he hath no Apostolical Tradition for any sin and then this Author if he be not a Perfectist nor thinks himself excluded from the number of those of whom it is said James 3.2 In many things we offend all and 1 Joh. 1.8 If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves must acknowledge himself a disorderly walker and to be separated from 4. The present Ministers I imagine will be apt to alledge for themselves that they have Apostolical written Tradition even for those practices for which they are accused as disorderly walkers to wit Rom. 13.1 Heb. 13.17 and be ready to recriminate this Author and those of his mind as disorderly walkers in separating from their Brethren disobeying their Ministers and Governours commanding things lawful and to be separated from as practising of division To conclude this matter Were it granted that the present Ministers of England were disorderly walkers and that they were to be withdrawn from yet this doth not prove that they might not be heard as gifted Brethren or that the best of them cannot by Saints be accounted as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion Partly because the withdrawing themselves from every Brother that walks disorderly cannot be meant of exclusion of himself from hearing praying or receiving the Lords Supper if such a one be present unless it be determined that every one must not only examine himself before he comes to the Lords Supper which the Apostle requires 1 Cor. 11.28 but also every Brother even his Minister with whom he is to joyn in Gospel Communion yea and hath power to excommunicate his Brother or liberty notwithstanding the Institution of Christ to exclude himself which sure is no Apostolical Tradition but a far more disorderly walking than most of those things the practice whereof is made by this Author the Ministers disorderly walking Besides the injunction to every Christian to withdraw himself not to keep Company 2 Thess. 3.6 14. being expressions which note not acts imposed by Church Governours but such as they ought of their own accord to practice are to be understood of such familiar private arbitrary Communion in entertainments and other societies as they are at liberty to do or not to do or might do were it not for this consideration not such Communion as if they omit they omit the Worship of God which he hath appointed and so break his Commandment Partly also because if the withdrawing were upon publick censure of the Community yet it must not be according to their own rule without a gradual proceeding of endeavouring conviction and precedent admonition which being not done to the present Ministers of England to separate from them even the best in hearing and other Gospel Communion is irregular and unjustifiable I go on to examine what follows CHAP. 3. ARG. 3. Sect. 1. That which is by some termed Antichristian is not alwayes unlawful THose that act in
virtue of a power derived from him Answ. If by teachings of Antichrist be meant the teachings of the present Doctrin of the Church of Rome according to the Trent Council wherein they dissent from Protestants and the power derived from him be meant of the Englâ—sh Bishops Ordination it is denied that the Preachers of England derive their power from Antichrist Pope or Church of Rome and I say that it is meer impudency to say they do who renounce the Popes authority by solemn Oath and separate from the Church of Rome and are persecuted condemned and put to death where the Pope hath power even because they disclaim the Pope and his Doctrin Yet if any should act by virtue of Ordination from the Pope as doubtless many did before the Reformation such as Wickliffe and many others and yet not teach his Doctrin he might be heard teaching the Gospel and in such a case the consequence were not valid and therefore in this sense it may be denied that because it is unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by virtue of a power derived from him 3. Saith he Christ calls and solemnly charges his upon the penalty of most dreadful Judgments to separate from every thing of Antichrist Rev. 18.4 14.9 10 11. Answ. It is true Rev. 18.4 we read thus And I heard another voice from heaven saying Come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues Which may be understood of a local departure fâ—om Babylon or Rome when her judgment of Destruction from the Kings of the earth draws nigh but if it be extended further to a departure by forsaking communion with her in Worship and leaving the subjection which was yielded to her in her Government yet is it not understood of every Doctrin the Pope teacheth not of the Bible or Apostles Creed or any Doctrin or Service agreeable to these nor of relinquishing every Rite and Usage though undue and illegitimate which is observed by them but the Fornication that is Idolatry Heresie and other wickedness mentioned v. 3. Chap. 17.2 Revel 14.9 10. it is said If any man worship the Beast and his image and receive his mark in his forehead or in his hand the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God By the Beast and his image are meant some Empire or State which promotes Idolatry Some conceive it meant of the Pagan Emperors Others and those both more and more accurate Commentators among the Protestants understand by them the Roman Papacy and Latin Empire the worshiping of which is undoubtedly the acknowledging of its power and subjection to their Idolatrous Decrees and Edicts The receiving his mark in the forehead or the hand is allusively to the use of marking Slaves in the forehead and Souldiers in the hand to profess themselves servants to the Popes and ready to fight for them which Mr. Brightman makes to be in the Roman Clergy their indelible character in Ordination in the Emperors their Oath of Protection of the Popes in the Common people their assuming the names of Papists and Roman Catholiques Mr. Mede more exactly in his Comment on Rev. 13.18 thus To receive the mark of the name of the Beast is to subject himself to his authority and to acknowledge him to be his Lord but to receive the number is to imbrace his impiety derived unto him from the Dragon to wit the Idolatry of the Latins whence that happily will not be unworthy consideration although no man can receive the mark of the name of the Beast or be subject to his authority but together also he must receive his number that is be must needs be Partaker of his impiety yet it may be that one may admit the number or impiety of the Beast but yet refuse the mark or name That which now long since is true of the Greeks which doth evince that the worship of the Beast and his Image and receiving his mark in his forehead or in his hand is not retaining of every usage of the Papists no not though it be Corrupt and Superstitious as many zealous persons against Popery but superficially viewing the text conceive much less such customs as are not superstitious in their use but acknowledging the universal Monarchy of the Popes and adoring Images the Host Reliques Crosses invocations of Saints and such like impieties which the present Ministers of England do profess to abhorr and therefore it is without cause that they are charged with receiving the maâ—k of the Beast and people are affrighted with the penalty of the dreadful Judgments Rev. 14.10 unless they separate from them and their Ministry as a thing of Antichrist 4. Saith he There is not a command in the Scripture enioyning Saints to take heed of being deceived to try the Spirits because many Antichrists are gone abroad into the World but is an abundant demonstration of the truth of this Assertion Answ. I grant it if the Assertion were they that act in the holy things as acknowledging the Power teaching the Doctrin owning the Calling of him that is truly Antichrist are not to be heard but to be separated from But being understood of other things which the Separatists call Antichristian it is not true nor proved by the commands in Scripture which forbid only to reject Antichristian Doctrin and Worship not every thing said by any without proof to be a thing of Antichrist The Baptism given in Popery is not by all Separatists rejected as Antichristian there is less reason to call the Ministry of England a thing of Antichrist 5. Saith he The institution of Officers of his own by Christ to be continued in the way appointed by him to the end of the World Ephes. 4.11 Answ. It is true that Christ when he went up into heaven gave gifts to men some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers and that some of these are to be continued to the end of the World and in that way he hath appointed But that there is any particular way of Election Ordination and Mission of ordinary Pastors and Teachers in those words appears not nor how the major is proved those that act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian so called not proved Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but separated from I discern not unless this be the Argument Christ hath appointed these therefore no other are to be heard but to be seperated from which overthrows the hearing of and communion with gifted Brethren whom he would have heard for they are no Officers of Christs institution 6. Saith he That there is not one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry with innumerable things of the like tendency and import that might be produced if needful are such a basis upon which the truth of the major
Mr. Selden De Diis Syris syntag 2. c. 1. in Heinsius his Aristarchus sacer on Nonnus c. 1. If Names abused to Idolatry or Superstition might not be used without such abuse the godly might not say as Isa. 63.16 Doubtless thou art our Father or we cry Abba Father or Our Father or Christ Father because Idolaters said to a stock thou art my Father Jer. 2.27 or say to the Lord thou art our God because Idolaters said our Gods Hos. 14.3 nor Christ be termed a Priest Lord Master because of the abuse of them to Saints deceased Popes Rabbins or others Surely the name Priest being the name of no Idol it cannot be proved from Zech. 13.2 Hos. 2.16 17. that it is commanded by the Lord to be abolished Nor do I think any of his Authors say it Hieroms words are Though it might well be spoken in respect of the signification of the word which signifies in common application an Husband as well as Ish yet I so hate the name of Idols that I will not have it said Baali but Ishi in â—espect of the ambiguity and likeness of speech lest while a man speaks one thing he mind another and mentioning an Husband he mean an Idol What the Hebrew Doctors and others named by this Author say upon this place of Hosea I cannot examine for want of the Books That which he produceth out of Rivet I assent to That which this Author saith that Priest or Altar are of the same allay with the word Mass and is upon the same foot of account to be rejected is not true sith Mass doth usually signifie not only the Service but also the consecrated Host as the chief thing in it which is an Idol and so is not the name Priest In the Helvetian larger Confession ch 18. 't is true they make a difference between the Ministry now and the Priesthood in the Old Testament and it is true that they assert Christs Priesthood as for ever and incommunicable and therefore give not the name of Sacerdos usually translated Priest to their Ministers not because they take the word Priest as it answers to Presbyter to be evil in the sense used in the Church of England as a Degree or Order above Deacons but as it is used in the Church of Rome as their words shew which are these For our Lord himself ordained not any Priests in the Church of the New Testament which having received a power from a Suffragan might offer daily the Host I say the very flesh and very blood of the Lord for the quick and dead but such as should teach and administer Sacraments This Author proceeds in his paralellism thus Sect. 4. The parallel particulars prove not the English Ministers symbolizing in office with Popish Priests 2. The Priests of Rome must be first Deacons ere they are Priests so must the present Ministers of England 3. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office by a Lord Bishop or his Suffragan so must the Ministers of England 4. The Priests of Rome must at their Ordination be presented by an Archdeacon or his Deputy with these Words Reverend Father c. Reverend Father I present these men unto thee to be admitted unto the Order of Priesthood so are the present Ministers of England 5. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office according to their Pontifical devised by themselves the Priests of England according to their Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons which is taken out of the Popes Pontifical as is evident to any that shall compare the one with the other and as hath been long since confessed by themselves in an Admonition to the Parliament in Q Elizabeths dayes in their second Treatise 6. The Popish Priests must kneel down upon their knees at the feet of the Lord Bishop that Ordains them and he must say to them blasphemously enough Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit or forgive they are remitted whose sins ye retain they are retained which exactly accords with the fashion of Ordaining the Priests of England 7. The Popish Priests are not Ordained in and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests but in some Metropolitan Cathedral City several miles from the place so are the Priests of England 8. The Popish Priests take the care of souls though not elected by them from the presentation of a Patron by the Institution and Induction of a Lord Bishop and do not the present Ministers of England the same 9. The Popish Priests wait not the Churches Call to the Ministry but make suit to some Prelate to be Ordained Priests giving money for their Letters of Ordination so do the present Ministers of England 10. The Popish Priests are Ordained to their Office though they have no flock to attend upon so are the Priests of England 11. The Popish Priests must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary so do the present Ministers of England 12. The Popish Priests may at their pleasure without the consent of the People resign and give over their Benefices and betake themselves to some other of greater value A symmetrie with them herein is visible by the frequent practice of the Ministers of England 13. The Popish Priests though Ordained to preach must have special license from the Prelates so â—o do so must the Priests of England 14. The Popish Priests are subject to be silenced suspended deprived and degraded by the Prelates as are the present Ministers of England 15. The Popish Priests are not of like and equal power degree and Authority amongst themselves but are some of them inferiour to others herein as Parsons to Arch-deacons Arch-deacons to Lord Bishops Lord Bishops to Arch-bishops so the Priests of England 16. The Popish Priests must be distinguished from other people by their Vestments as Surplice Tippet c. so must the Priests of England 17. The Popish Priests are tied to a Book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man for their Worship and Administration so are the Ministers of England and that to such an one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis as hath been proved by divers That the Common-prayer Book in Edward the sixth his time was so you have his with his Councils Testimony for it thus they write As for the Service in the English Tongue it hath manifest Reasons for it and yet perchance it seemeth to you a New Service and indeed is no other but the Old the same words in English which were in Latine If the Service of the Church were good in Latine it is good in English How little different the Common-prayer Book now in use is thereunto they that will take pains to compare the one with the other may be satisfied To these parallel particulars might be added sundry more wherein there is an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England but ex ungue Leonem The sum of what we have been offering in this matter
Successors therein in any of the Churches of Christ Where read we of their so doing yea are any qualified with Gifts as they for the discharge of such an Office or doth Christ indeed send forth servants in any imployment and not furnish them with Gifts sutable thereunto Credat Apelles Apella would have been printed What more dishonorable to the Lord Jesus can be asserted It remains then that they being neither Prophets nor Apostles nor Pastors nor Teachers that they are not to be found in the Scripture of the institution of Christ. Nor are they dreamed of in the world of several hundreds of years after Christ. Clemens in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth takes notice of no other besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops and Deacons which Bishops he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters or Elders yea Lombard himself confesses Hos solium Ministrorum duos ordines Ecclesiam primitivam habuisse de his solis praeceptum Apostoli nos habere Lomb. l. 4. Sen. D. 24. h. 3. Ext. The primitive Church he tells you had no other Order of Ministers than Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons Nor did the Apostles give commandment concerning any other That their rise and occasion was from the aims and designs of men to accommodate Ecclesiastical or Church affairs to the state and condition of the Civil Government is ingenuously confest by one that was looked upon to be as great an admirer of and as able a Champion for Diocesan and Metropolitical Prelates as any one of late dayes t is Dr. Hammond we mind who in his Dissertations about Episcopacy Sect. 3. hath these words His sic positis illud statim sequitur ut in Imperii cognitione in provinciâ qualibet cum plures urbes sint una tamen primaria principalis censenda erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ideo dicta cui itidem inferiores reliquae civitates subjiciebantur ut civitatibus Regiones sic inter Ecclesias Cathedras Episcopales unam semper primariam Metropoliticam fuisse So far is the Office of Lord-Bishops from being of the institution of Christ that their Primacy and Supremacy was the result of the designs and contrivements of men to accommodate the state and frame of the Church to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations Answ. The thing to be proved was that the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures but the whole Discourse is about another thing not the Office but superiority of Order above Presbyters Primacy or Supremacy of degrees among Bishops the dignity of their Sees or Episcopal Chairs which is quite another thing than what he undertook to prove so that we may hereto apply the Poets words Amphora coepit Institui currente rotâ cur urceus exit Which were enough to answer this whole passage yet there are some things to be animadverted therein 1. It is true we read of Diotrephes 3 Joh. 9 10. and of no other in Scripture that he lâ—ved the preeminence either over or among the Church or the brethren and strangers who were to be received that they might be fellow-helpers to the truth v. 5 8. and that St. John if he came would remember his deeds prating against them with malicious words and not content therewâ—th neither doth he himself receive the brethren and forbiddeth them that would and casteth them out of the Church But this was not the usurping the Superiority of Order of a Bishop above a Presbyter but a proud pragmatique arrogant practice over the Church Brethren Strangers even St. John himself together with very injurious violent proceedings in words and deeds which are nothing to the bare challenge by dispute or assuming by collation either of the Civil or Ecclesiastical Power a Superiority of Order above Presbyters nor is Diotrephes mentioned as one of those Antichrists that were then gone abroad into the world or any mention of Antichrist in that Epistle 2. I know not the reason but I take notice that in this passage reciting Ephes. 4.11 twice he leaves out Evangelists and concludes thus It remains then that the Bishops being neither Prophets nor Apostles nor Pastors nor Teachers that they are not to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ. Which conclusion might be overthrown if it were pleaded that they were Evangelists and so successors to Timothy termed an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and to Titus whose work is alledged for a pattern of Bishops 1 Tim. 1.3 5.19 22. Titus 1.5 But sith that title is declined by pleaders for Episcopal Superiority I let it pass 3. But the term of Pastors and Teachers is challenged by Bishops and what saith he against it This is too great a debasement of their Lordships which is a Satyrical Sarcasm no proof Did any of them say so or count it to be so If any did so he shewed himself unworthy of the name yea forgetful both of what he promised and prayed for alluding to this very Text as his Consecration and which was expresly charged on him by the Arch-Bishop when he delivered him the Bible Nor doth it any whit derogate from the congruity of the titles of Pastors and Teachers as it is given to Bishops that their Parochial Priests over whom they reside are supposed to be Officers in that degree than it doth from the giving of the Title of Teacher to a Presbyter because Assistents or Coadjutors are given them in case age or infirmity hinder them from the frequent doing of that office I omit mention of the living to avoid imputation of flattery but I suppose the Author of this Writing is not ignorant that Jewel Usher and many more have when they were Bishops been truly termed Pastors and Teachers and hope well of others 4. But under the term of Apostles they may not be reckoned True they had extraordinary Commission and Power yet they may be Successors to them Dr. Owen of Schism c. 6. sect 55. Professedly disclaims all thoughts of rejecting those Ministers as Papal and Antichristian who yet adhere to this Ordination in a succession from Popish Bishops being many of them eminently gifted of God to dispense the Word and submitted unto by his people in the administration of the Ordinances and are right worthy Ministers of the Gospel This Author denies not they succeed to them as Christians If so they may be heard as Gifted Brethren which was denied by him to the Ministers chap. 2. But why not in Office was the Apostles Office any other than what Christ injoyned them Mat. 28.19 20. Mark 16.15 and therein they must have Successors though not in the extent of their Commission and in their Power else how should Christ be with them all dayes unto the end of the World But they cannot derive their Succession but through the Papacy and then they are Antichristian I answer They may derive their Succession by proving their consonancy with them in doing the same work after them
determined to be the more excellent of all Episcopal terms the Roman Bishops should alone retain it whereas before it was common to all Bishops hath been judged deservedly the head of Antichrist which Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome had not long before lib. 7. indict 2. Epist. 96. made Antichristian and the Usurper a forerunner of Antichrist yet the Bishops of Rome in the first ages were not so accounted and therefore it follows not though the later Popes be the head of Antichrist that the Office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian there having been Offices perhaps derived from good Popes and continued only in the Church of Rome which deserve not that censure but approbation rather Nor is it necessary that every thing derived from Popes since they have been the head of Antichrist and continued only in the Papacy should be Antichristian the head of Antichrist may institute something that is not Antichristian 2. It is not true that the Office of Lord Bishops is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy It is manifest in the first Nicene Council Canon 6. that then and before were Patriarchs Metropolitan Bishops and Lord Bishops with their Office and that Council was in the fourth Century about the year 326. And that in the Greek Eastern Russian Churches the same Office is continued And therefore though no other of the Reformed Churches had retained that Office besides the English yet there would be no need for the Bishops of England to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast for an Office of Ministery But it is also pleaded that the Lutheran Churches reformed that have separated from the Papacie in Germany Denmark Swethland have retained the same Office under the name of Superintendents which is the same in Latine with Bishops in Greek and that it is false that the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ have in all ages utterly rejected the Office of Lord Bishops and that it hath its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church Yea it is manifest by the many Epistles written to the English Prelates by the reception at the Synod of Dort and innumerable other wayes that there hath been no such rejection or detestation either by any Church reformed or Eminent Writers of them except those of the Separation who have been also averse from the Discipline of the Protestant Reformed Churches beyond Sea and have given opprobrious Language to and of them as well as the English As for the testimonies here cited some of them as the Speeches of Hierome the Helvetian Confession of the Lord Cobham are only about the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters not of their Office most of them as that of Wickliffe used before by Bernard in his Tract to Pope Eugenius those of the University and Church of Geneva Beza's the Belgick French Confessions Marlorat Bale are against the Popish Hierarchy those of Cartwright Fenner and Authors of the Admonition were Speeches of Adversaries which in no Court pass for testimonies to which Arch-Bishop Whitgift and others have given answers long since It is added Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters Object One stone of Offence must be removed out of our way ere we pass on further it is this Though Lord Bishops are Antichristian yet it doth not follow that the Office and Ministry derived from them is so For they are also Presbyters and Ordain as Presbyters Answ. Give me leave to say that were not men resolved to say any thing that they might be thought to have somewhat to say we had not heard of this Objection For 1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of Ordination is false 1. Contrary to their own avowed Principles their Lordships think it too great a debasement to be degraded from their Lordly dignity to so mean an Office 2. Contrary to the known Law of the Land by which they receive power to act therein in which they are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops 3. Contrary to their late practice whereby they have sufficiently declared the nullity of a Ministerial Office received from the hands of a Presbytery in thrusting out of doors several hundreds of Ministers so Ordained Strange That it should be pleaded they act as Presbyters in the matter of Ordination and yet they themselves judge a Presbyterian Ordination invalid But 2. What if this should be granted it would avail nothing except it can be proved that they are and act as Presbyters of the Institution of Christ which these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ will never be to the worlds end Thus far of the third argument Answ. 'T is true to some that have either renounced Episcopal Ordination as Antichristian or refused to hear Ministers Ordained by Bishops as acting by virtue of Antichristian Calling it hath been told that the Bishops were first Presbyters and Ordained Presbyters together with Presbyters and some of them that held that a Bishop and a Presbyter were not superiour in Order but in Degree did Ordain as Presbyters and that therefore if the Ordination of Presbyters be not Antichristian the Ministers should retain their Ordination by Bishops and the people hear them though that were yielded that Lord Bishops Office were Antichristian Now nothing is here replied to the allegation that Bishops Ordain with Presbyters the Bishop with the Priests present are to lay their hands on the Ordained according to the Book of Ordination Nor to this that some of the Bishops have acknowledged Episcopacy not to be an Order above Presbytery Nor to this that though the Bishop imposing hands do act as of superiour Order yet being a Presbyter his act is valid as he that conveighs a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor if he be not Heir yet if he be only Executor and by that hath power to conveigh it the grant is good But he sayes 1. It is false they Ordain as Presbyters it is contrary to their principles Answ. Whether it be so in all is uncertain nor do I know how this Author can prove it unless they did declare it which is more than I have learned 2. It is contrary to the known Law of the Land Answ. 1. It is not true that the Bishops do receive power by the Law to act in Ordination in it are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops for the Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who are not Lords is valid by Law 2. The Law which gives power to act ties not Bishops to think themselves of a Superiour Order to Presbyters nor to act with such an intention or under such a notion 3. They have nullified Presbyterian Ordination and required Re-ordination by a Bishop Answ. They do not nullifie Ordination by a Presbyterie in foreign Churches but in England perhaps because the Laws require Episcopal Ordination and it is conceived necessary to avoid Schism
Kingdom of Christ and the real owners of his Authority and Power Answ. That Bishops or Presbyters should be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ in each City or Parish or select Congregation I find not to be the appointment of Christ in the Scriptures alledged or any other the impertinency of the Allegations to this purpose is shewed before Chap. 2. Sect. 3. In this Chap. Sect. 6. besides what is said in answer to the Preface Sect. 7.22 the only text not before considered Acts 9.26 27. and 16.17 if it were alledged were altogether impertinent there being no election of St. Paul but to be an Apostle and that by Christ not the Church on whom Ananias laid hands at the appointment of Christ only That he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost and to remove the fear of him and non credence of his being a Disciple Barnabas and no other we read of took him and brought him to the Apostles declaring how Christ had converted him Which are altogether impertinent to prove election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church and Ordination thereupon to be the appointment of Christ. It is granted before in the answer to the Preface Sect. 22. that there are relations in antiquity of the election of Bishops by the people which could be no other way then in times of Persecution when the Emperors were Infidels yet withal that even then things grew into such heats that sometimes the Emperor was fain to interpose for quietness and after when Wealth and Power by favour of Christian Emperours were added to Bishops sometimes bloody frayes and other evils made that Election so turbulent that it was found necessary to put it into the hands of fewer until the investiture of Bishops being wrested from the Emperours the Popes seized on it leaving the election of the inferior Clergy unto the Bishops or Patrons that had endowed the Ministers with Estates except in cases reserved to his Romans But where the Reformation is with the consent of Princes much of the power usurped by Popes is recovered by them in other places the people either chuse or consent to the election which being made the whole essence of the Ministerial Call by Congregational men and by Divine Right their opinion is opposed by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici Printed 1654. Chap. 8 9. Nevertheless the Testimonies produced by this Author are not fully to his purpose those out of Clements his Epistle are not home the former speaks of constituting and appointing Ministers after the Apostles by other famous and discreet men as it is in Burtons English translation of that Epistle with the good liking and consent of all the Church which is less then Election constituting their Call The other contains only a voluntary offer to prevent breaches which is nothing to the asserting of a power in them rightly seated if it were such it would be more then this Author I think would yield that upon the command of the multitude a Minister is to relinquish his place The words of Luther Bullinger and perhaps the rest of the Protestants whose words are not set down meant no more than the not obtruding Ministers on the Churches of Christ as the Monks and Popish Bishops did who put on the People Priests unable to Preach the Gospel such as fed themselves and not the flock without choice or consent of the people Which if it be any where practised is unjustifiable as on the other side where people are corrupted with Error or Factiousness or Carnal Relations and Sâ—lf aims or are unskilful to judge of the disposition and abilities of a Minister it is unsafe or rather more dangerous to intrust the Church of Christ though a gathered Congregation with the election of their Minister by Common Suffrage without intervention of some discreet and able Ministers to ratifie or disanul it What Cyprian saith upon the occasion of the lapse of Basilides and Martialis Bishops in Spain of their rejection and the election of Sabinus and Felix was agreeable to the Canons then in use and to the state of those times what he saith of Divine Authority is not rightly proved The Scriptures of the New Testament and Old prove no Divine Institution of a certain way of electing or rejecting Ministers so as that there may not be variation from what he saith was in his time yet it is meet that according to the sayings of Cyprian Lambard Gualter or others respect be had to people that they be heard what they can say for or against their Minister and that he who is criminous or insufficient be not imposed on them to their souls hurt What our Reverend Fathers and Ministers of the Church of England say to these things may be seen in Whitgift's Answer to the first Admonition and Defence of the Answer Tr. 3. p. 170. Bilson of the perpetual Government of Christs Church Chap. 15. Andrews respons ad Bellarm. Apolog. Chap. 13. p. 313. after King James his Premonition Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 5. sect 80. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 54. If the Prelates do any thing unjustly therein they must give an account to God the Ministers who consent not thereto are not chargeable both may be accounted as Subjects of the Kingdom of Christ and the real owners of his Authority and Power notwithstanding what is objected against them especially if the evil be either from the defect or iniquity of Laws Canons and Customs whereby that redress of Grievances in this kind which even the Prelates have complained of is stopped I confess that the continuance in force of so much of the Popes Canon Law or our Common Law as hinders a godly and able Ministry in every Parish hath been deplored and much endeavour hath been to amend things But the experience that hath been of the difficulty therein even when Congregational men have been most industrious to rectifie things should methinks abate the censures of this Author and rather cause men quietly to wait for a remedy using the benefit of the Ministry we have than by separation and popular election in gathered Congregations make things worse than they are Sect. 8. Prophesying is not opposed by the Ministers But this Author hath not yet done but tells us To these many other institutions of Christ may be added which they subject not to What should I mention 6. That Royal Command of our Soveraign King and Lawgiver which the profound self-philosophically wise but indeed foolish and unlearned Doctors of this day wrest to the countenancing of the disorders and confusion of Antichrist darkness so gross that it may be felt that all things be done decently and in Order 1 Cor. 14.40 viz. that the Saints may Prophesie one by one and ought to admonish exhort and build up one another in their most holy faith Rom. 8.26 and 12.6 1 Cor. 4.17 and 5.4 and 11.23 Ephes. 4.7 11 12. 1
Tim. 2.1 and 3.15 Jude 20. 1 Cor. 12.7 11. Mat. 25.24 1 Pet. 4.10 11. 1 Cor. 12.15 and 14.12 24. Ephes. 4.3 7 15 16. Acts 2.42 Rom. 15.14 Ephes. 5.19 Col. 3.16 1 Thess. 5.14 2 Thess. 3.15 Heb. 3.13 to which might be added the frequent examples of the Saints in the Old and New Testament 2 Chron. 17.7 8 9. Job 2.11 Mal. 3.16 Luke 4.16 Acts 13.15 1 Cor. 14.24 to 34. and the practice of the Primitive Church as witness Origen in his Epistle to Celsum Terrullian in his Apologie Justin Martyr in his Apologie and many others Answ. The censures of the Doctors of this day and their wresting 1 Cor. 14.40 are too general and not to be answered save to tell the Author that it is good for a man not to be wise in his own conceit nor to be too free in censuring others lest he fall into Diogenes his evil when he trampled on Plato's pride with greater pride But to the rest of the charge I say That I know none of the Ministers of England that forbid the Saints to Prophesie one by one nor do I know of any at this day that have the gift of Prophesie which I gather from 1 Cor. 12.28 29. and 13.2 8 9 10. and other places to have been an extraordinary gift by immediate revelation of the Spirit whereby some hidden thing is discovered See Lysord's Apologie for the Ministery pag. 27 28. If there were any that could Prophesie indeed neither Prelates nor others may or can hinder them But when persons mistakingly call all speaking to men to Edification Exhortation and Comfort from 1 Cor. 14.3 Prophesying as if these terms were reciprocal and under presâ—nâ—e thereof vent many mistakes and fancies the restraint or regulating of such exerciseâ— may be no transgression of Christs command And though the performing of the duties in the Texts alledged ought to be cherished and furthered and such Meetings as do really tend thereto should be countenanced sith there may be abuses which are to be prevented by Governours though sometimes there be injustice and liberty too much restrained and complaints made to God in secret yet should not invectives be used to alienate the minds of people from their Teachers or Rulers nor any unlawful practice used tending to Sedition or disturbance but by patience and quietness we should possess our souls expecting help from God in due time as did the Primitive Christians with happy success Yet once more saith this Author Sect 9. Ministers service may be Divine and Spiritual in the use of the Liturgy Yea 7. What should I mention that grand Institution of this Soveraign Lord and Lawgiver that nothing be offered up to the Father but what is of his own prescription Divine and Spiritual without affectation of Legal shadows John 4.24 of worldly pomp or carnal excellency 2 Cor. 1.12 and 2.17 1 Cor. 2.12 and 6.13 1 Cor. 12.28 Isa. 33.22 Jam. 4.12 Matth. 15.6 9. Heb. 8.5 1 King 13.33 12 13. Jer. 7.31 Numb 15.39 Deut. 12.1 4 31. It 's evident the present Ministers of England conform not to the Orders and Ordinances Christ as the great Prophet and Lawgiver to his people hath appointed them to walk by and therefore really disown the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. Answ. It is true no Prayers or Praises or other Religious exercises should be offered to the Father but what is of his own prescription in respect of the service it self matter or manner which he hath prescribed But when he hath left it free to use a prescript Form of words or to pray without such a stinted Form where he forbids not the use of Musick in praysing of God and no Idolatry or Superstition is used or furthered by Ordinances and Utensils for the celebration of Gods Ordinances notwithstanding these the service of God may be Divine and Spiritual without affectation of Legal shadows of worldly pomp or carnal excellency contrary to the texts alledged If any be faulty in that way it is to be imputed to the persons not either to others not guilty nor to the Liturgy prescribed much less such Ministers as offer up Prayers and Prayses to the Father in the name of Christ for things agreeable to the Will of God and use the Lords Supper without Idolatry are to be charged to disown really the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. Sect. 10. Things objected against the Ministers are not such as justifie Separation This Author addes But perhaps to these things some may say These are but small matters good men differ among themselves herein To which we answer 1. That they are part of the Instituted Worship of God the Orders he hath left his children to conform to hath already been proved to say That any part of the Instituted Worship of Christ is a small matter is no small derogation to the wisdom of the Lawgiver that gave it forth 2. What if it should appear that as small as these things seem to be they are the grounds of the late Controversies of God pleaded with fire and sword in most of the Europaean Kingdoms This may perhaps a little stay sober persons from so rash a conclusion that these are small matters A serious review of the late Contests of God in the Nations with the consideration of the grounds and rise of them will to persons of sobriety sufficiently evince the truth of the suggestion 3. As small matters as these have been severely punished by the Lord He is a jealous God and stands upon punctilio's if I may so call them in his Worship hence is that expression Ye cannot serve the Lord for he is a jealous God Josh. 24.19 What should I mention the case of Uzziah 2 Chron 26.16 of Corah Dathan and Abiram Numb 16. of Uzzah whose sin lay meerly in whose judgment was singly upon this foot of account his not seeking the Lord after the due order 1 Chron. 15.13 God commands that when the Ark was removed it should be covered by the Priests that no hand touch it that it be carryed on mens shoulders Numb 4.11 15. which Order was violated when they brought it from the house of Abinadab 't was uncovered and upon a Cart after the manner of the Egyptians 1 Sam. 8.7 for which breach of Order Uzzah is struck dead 4. As small matters as these when once commanded by the Lord are of that force as not only to deface the well-being but to overturn the true being of the Worship of God Take one pregnant instance herein The Lord commanded the Israelites by Moses to bring their Sacrifices to the place that he should chuse and offer them there which in it self was but a circumstance of place yet all the Sacrifices offered elsewhere were a stink in the nostrills of God and not accounted by him as any Worship performed unto him 5. But the Objection is altogether impertinent we are not debating the greatness of the sin but the truth of what is charged upon
suppositions as ever objection in so weighty a case was built upon 1. 'T is supposed that Christ hath not determined in the Scripture how the affairs of his house should be managed with decency and order as well as commanded that they be so which is 1. No small derogation to the perfection of the Scriptures 2. To the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ debasing him herein below Moses though the Scripture in this respect prefers him before him 3. Diametrically opposite to the Scripture instanced in which stands as a two edged Sword to cut the throat of their cause in its approaches thereto for shelter of which take this brief account The Apostle having in the beginning of the Chapter prest the Church of Corinth to follow after spiritual gifts but especially that they might prophesie the liberty of the Saints therein being fully asserted and several directions thereabout given he condemns their disorderly practice in respect of this important duty and priviledge ver 26. and gives direction touching its regular performance and this he doth First Generally ver 26. Let all things be done to edifying which with a little alteration he represses ver 40. Let all things be done decently and in order Secondly Particularly by telling them how they ought to manage this affair in a way of decency order and edification wherein several rules are comprised too long to be here insisted on as in cases of speaking in an unknown tongue ver 27 28. of prophesying by two or three ver 29 30. of the duties of women with respect thereunto ver 34 35. that from hence a power invested in the Church for the binding of the consciences of men touching ceremonies in Worship should be regularly deduced is the first born of improbabilities and absurdities 1. Paul speaking by an infallible spirit of Prophecie advises the Church of Corinth that all things be done decently and in order therefore persons that have not pretend not to such a spirit may of their own heads bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the service of God 2. Paul doth not only tell them that all things ought to be done decently and in order but discovers to them wherein that decency and order lies therefore the Church hath power to determine in this matter are such Non-sequiturs as will not in haste be made good I reply as the Argument is framed by me there is moment in the objection which is not built upon the principle he expresseth but this that however Christ hath not only commanded but also determined in generals in the Scripture how the affairs of his House should be managed with decencie and order yet in many particularities he hath not determined how the Worship of God and Rule of his Church should be managed with decencie and order as whether at the Communion there should be a Table spread with a linnen cloth the Service begin with a recital of the Institution or Prayer Publike Prayer begin with Confession of Sin or Thanksgiving or profession of our faith seating of persons in the meeting be with respect to their civil degrees or sexe or promiscuously Sermon begin at the reading of the Text and Prayer be after or before these with many more are indeterminate by Christ or his Apostles in the Scripture and yet are to be determined according to the Rule of Decency and Order either by each person himself in that which is private or by Rulers in that which belongs to the Community and Obedience is due to the determinations of Rulers in these things And it seems to me to use this Authors own phrase the first-born of improbabilities and absurdities that God should charge parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord Eph. 6.4 that we should first of all make supplications prayers intercessions giving of thanks for all men for Kings and for all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty 1 Tim. 2.1 2. that the Bishop should be one that takes care of the Church of God 1 Tim. 3.5 If these have no power in the Worship of God and rule of the Church to make Constitutions about things undetermined or that they may without any sin be disobeyed For as for the exception as if such power reaches only to things Civil not Ecclesiastical the contrary is proved by Bishop Sanderson in his sixth Lecture about the obligation of Conscience Nor is there any derogation to the perfection of Scripture or the faithfulness of Christ by such a grant For the sufficiency of the Scripture being in affording Doctrines of Faith and Rules of Life if as able to make a man wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus as the Apostle speaks 2 Tim. 3.15 its perfection is acknowledged there is no lessening of its use though it be said that notwithstanding its sufficiency to its end yet Laws Domestical Civil National Ecclesiastical are necessary to be added for good order and Government And the faithfulness of Christ Heb. 3.2 is not placed in determining every particularity in Worship yea he was faithful in that he did not for then he should have put upon us such a yoke as Moses bid contrary to his Office Joh. 1.17 but in that he discharged the work his Father had appointed him as our High Priest in suffering and interceding for us and as the Apostle of our Profession in teachinng us the counsel of God fully in the Doctrine of the Gospel and that above Moses as being not as a servant in Gods house only as Moses but as a Son over his own house And it is to be considered what Bishop Sanderson observes that if Christs faithfulness must have been extended to the determination of all particularities equally to Moses he must have set down all particularities of Civil Government as Moses did in the judicial Laws of the Jews and so those Laws must be observed as some have attempted and the Common Law of England must be evacuated and a yoke put upon our necks from which Christ hath freed us And therefore a good Argument is hence deducible that God would have the ordering of things undetermined left to Governours because otherwise Christ should not have been faithful as Moses sith he hath not determined them yea should have been unfaithful if he had sith it was the Will of God that Christians should not have such a yoke of Rites put upon them as Moses did put upon the Jews Acts 15.9 10 Gal. 5.1 2 3 4. But the Text 1 Cor. 14.40 requires more consideration sith he saith it is diametrically opposite to that principle it is alledged to establish which is but a meer Dictate of his for which he brings no proof For neither is his account of the Apostles dissertation right it being not true that he asserts the liberty of the Saints in prophesying as if prophesying were the liberty of the Saints as such which
was the peculiar gift of Prophets v. 31 32. which now the Saints have not noâ— can now claim as many do arrogantly as if it were their liberty inferring from v. 3. that because it is said he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort therefore every one that speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort did prophesie which is like as if because it is said 1 Cor. 8.1 charity edifieth therefore it should be inferred that whatever edifieth is charity nor is it right that the Apostle v. 40. represseth his direction v. 26. that being another direction and a general one after and besides the particulars v. 27 28 29 30 34 35. Nor if it were as he saith is there any thing to prove that all the particular wayes of Decency Order and Edification are there set down or that none are permitted to the care of After-Rulers Nor is the Argument as I have framed it evacuated who have not endeavoured to prove thence a power invested in the Church for the binding of the Consciences of men touching Ceremonies in Worship but do wave the controversies about the Ceremonies of the Cross Surplice and Kneeling about which the Writings of Bishop Morton Burges Ames and others are extant nor do I alledge the words as Doctor Hammond expounds them rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to appointment in which he is opposed by Mr. Jeans but only thus argue There 's a general rule after divers particulars instanced in left by the Apostle in the close of his dissertation which were of no use if he had set down all wayes of Decency and Order and left none to be determined by others therefore yet there remain particularities of Decency and Order about Divine Worship and Church-Rule to be determined by men which that it belongs to Rulers I gathered from other places As for the Arguments as he frames them I know none that avows them neither do I think any doth express himself thus Paul speaking by an infallible spirit of Prophesie adviseth the Church of Corinth for though I doubt not but Paul spake by an infallible Spirit in that advise yet that is fitter to be termed Apostolick than of Prophesie nor do I conceive any of them whom he opposeth would unadvisedly thus conclude Persons that have not pretend not to such a spirit may of their own heads bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the service of God nor do I think any would say Paul doth not only tell them that all things ought to be done decently and in order but discovers to them wherein that decency and order lies For they conceive this false except about the point of Prophesying in that place and that the Apostle gives only a general rule and leaves the particularities of Decency and Order to be determined by others chiefly Rulers nor would they thence inferr therefore the Church hath power in this matter but rather thus plead That which belonging to Decency and Order is commanded in general but not in the particularities determined is in respect of Communities left to be determined by their Rules but so is the Apostles command 1 Cor. 14.40 Therefore c. The major rests on this That what is to be determined in or for a Community is supposed to belong to their Rulers This Author goes on thus Sect. 5 All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred are not determined in Scripture But let this be granted suppose that 't is the priviledge and duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the consciences of men in matters of Decency and Orders this Church herein is bounded by the Scripture or it is not If it be for which he cites in the Margin these words of Macovius in loc com cap. 83. p. 851. The Laws by which the Governours of the Church are to judge are such as are prescribed in the Word of God bounded by the Scripture then when it hath no prescription therein for its commands it s not to be obeyed and so we are where we were before that Decency and Order is to be determined by the Scripture If it be not bounded thereby then whatever ceremonies it introduceth not directly contrary thereunto they must be subjected to which how fair an inlet it is to the whole farrago of Popish inventions who sees not Answ. I say not 'T is the priviledge and duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of mâ—n in the matters of Decency and Order but that the particularities of Decency and Order not determined in Scripture may by Canons to that end be prescribed the general rules in Scripture the Laws of Nature Right Reason other laudable Customs and just Laws being duely observed and that persons are to obey them not as bound in conscience directly and by the things themselves but indirectly and by accident because appointed by Rulers to whom God requires obedience in those things which being rightly understood both horns of the dilemma are avoided they being bounded in the Scripture in the general are to be obeyed as other humane Laws and the particularities not being there determined the wayes of Decency and Order not determined by Scripture are to be received and yet it follows not that whatever Ceremonies Rulers introduce not directly contrary to Scripture must be subjected to much less a fair inlet made to the whole farrago of Popish inventions For if indirectly they be contrary to Scripture or otherwise hurtful or not subservient to the ends of such Laws or become by reason of their number or imposition such a yoke as Christ hath freed us from there may be a relaxation from them more than from other humane Civil Laws and for all or some of these reasons the whole farrago of Popish inventions is to be excluded though other Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of England be subjected to Wherein I meddle not with the Question about the Ceremonies controverted and therefore may let pass that which this Author adds yet were this also yielded them they were never a jot nearer the mark aimed at except it can be proved that supposing a power of introducing Ceremonies to be invested in the Church thence a power for the institution of new Orders and Ordinances the introducing of Heathenish Jewish and Superstitious practices in the Worship of God may be evinced there being no necessity that in answering his Argument I should avouch the imposition or use of those Ceremonies which the Non-conformists argue against Nor need I reply to what he adds And yet should all this be yielded them none of which will they be able to prove to the Worlds end how will they manifest those Lordly Commands and Constitutions are the Constitutions of a truly constituted Church of Christ a strong supposition hereof is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the present Objection and yet sail they in the
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
is with the Spirit pray that he may interpret that is not only speak with the Spirit but also with the Mind Therefore it is manifest that the prayers Rom 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 are meant of such as are in extraordinary raptures and ecstacies such as the Prophets sometimes had and St. Paul speaks of 2 Cor. 12.1 2 3 4. and cannot be applied to the ordinary publike prayers of the whole Congregation Thirdly the help of the Spirit cannot be meant of suggesting a Form of words because it is said the spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable and 1 Cor. 14.15 is such praying in the spirit as may be without the understanding of him that prays or others even such as he that occupieth the room of the unlearned cannot say Amen to seeing he understandeth not what the Speaker saith Fourthly The praying with the Spirit is such as is unfruitful of it self v. 14. and not to be affected of it self nor can be a matter of duty sith it is motus liberi spiritus as the School-men speak rightly a motion of the free Spirit such as lumen propheticum prophetical illumination is which is such a gift as that it may be our duty to use it when we have it not our duty to acquire it Upon all which reasons it is apparent that these Texts are much perverted against the use of a prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man because of the Spirits help Rom. 8.26 praying in the Spirit 1 Cor. 14 15. sith they cannot be meant of ordinary publike prayers and of praying in words unpremeditated as immediately suggested by the Spirit of God Sect 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion justifies not separation 8. That wicked and ungodly persons and their seed are lawful members of the Church and if they consent not willingly to be so they may be compelled thereunto contrary to Psal. 110.3 Acts 2.40 41 47. and 19 9. 2 Cor. 6.14 17. and 9.13 Answ. This Author shews not where the Law is nor when or how the Ministers subscribes to a Constitution of this instance not know I where to find either It is said Psal. 110.3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power But it doth not therefore follow that men may not be compelled by pecuniary mulcts or other penalties to come to Common Prayer or the Communion For however the question be resolved about liberty of Conscience and toleration in the New Testament yet David meant not that there must none be then compelled if so neither Asa nor Josiah did well in urging the people to swear to cleave to God and to stand to it 2 Chron. 34.32 If understood of the times of the New Testament it proves that members of the Church should be a willing people but not that no other may be lawful members or admitted or caused by commands of Rulers or penalties to joyn with the Church in Gods Worship For then it must be the duty of them that admit members into the Church to know that they whom they admit are a willing people which I think none now can do It is true Acts 2.40 Peter exhorted the Jews to save themselves from that perverse generation of them that opposed Christ and v. 41. Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized and v. 47. The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved but how this proves that wicked and ungodly persons may not be admitted as lawful members of the visible Church Christian nor compelled thereunto I discern not Sure Judas was admitted to the Apostleship and to the Passover if not to the Lords Supper Ananias and Saphira were taken as lawful members Simon Magus baptized we find none blamed for admission to the Lords Supper of disorderly Corinthians And for compulsion from Idolatrous Worship and other evils if Parents may correct these in their children Princes may do it in their Subjects and if Parents may by penalties compel their children to conform to true Religion so may Princes The separation Acts 19 9. is nothing to countenance the separation from the Service and assemblies of the Church of England for that separation was not because of the presence of professed Christians of vitious life but because of divers who were hardned and believed not but spake evil of the way of Christ before the multitude and so endeavour to disturb them in the practice of Christian Religion The words 2 Cor. 6.14 whether we read it be not unequally yoked or unevenly ballanced to the other side with Infidels and whether we expound it of marriage or familiar converse or as the words v. 16. What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols do plainly evince it to be meant do not joyn with the Idolaters in their Idol Temples to eat there things offered to Idols which he had forbidden 1 Cor. 8.7 10. to partake of the table of Devils 1 Cor. 10.21 it is manifest from v. 15. to be meant of professed Infidels opposite to him that believeth and therefore cannot be understood of not joyning in prayer and the Lords Supper with a professed Believer though of vitious life Nor can the separation from among men v. 17. be understood of any other than professed Infidels nor the the touching the unclean thing be any other then joyning in service of Idols mentioned v. 16. and therefore is manifestly impertinent to the separation from Believers by profession in the service of God by reason of their personal wickedness The last Text 2 Cor. 9.13 is less to the purpose For what shew of consequence is there in this Christians glorifie God for others professed subjection or the subjection of their Confession or consent to the Gospel of Christ therefore wicked persons and such as consent not willingly are not to be taken for lawful members of the Church nor may be compelled thereto It is added 9. That women may administer the Sacrament of Baptism contrary to 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.12 Matth. 28.18 19 20. Ephes. 4.11 Answ. That it is true that in Q. Elizabeths time Baptism by Women in supposed case of necessity was in the English Churches either tolerated or allowed and the like hath been in the Lutheran Churches and Mr. Hooker in his fifth Book of Ecclesiastical Policy sect 62. saith somewhat for it yet since the Conference at Hampton Court in the beginning of King James his reign to the Rubrick of private Baptism in the Common Prayer Book the words lawful Minister were added which still continue the Baptism of Women is not allowed by any constitution nor owned by the present Ministers that I know and therefore this instance is unjustly here recited Yet thus much may be said that notwithstanding Women are excluded from any Ordinary Ministery of the Word or Sacraments in the Church by the Texts alledged 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.12 and from baptizing Mat. 28.18 19 20. Ephes. 4.11 Sith we find that Philip the Evangelist had four
Canon of his standing for fear of shedding ought But I deny that kneeling in the very time of receiving was ever in the Church of Rome any Rite of or for adoration of the Sacrament it self or any creature and therefore not Idolatrous I deny not the errour of their minds concerning that they received into their mouths But I deny that they ever intended adoration of the species at that moment of time when they took it in their mouths But then turned themselves to God rather to give him thanks which was not uncomely Of which he gives three reasons 1. Because it was never yet enjoyned by any Pope that they should then kneel 2. In the Mass there is no direction for adoration of the Sacrament when it is received 3. For that it is an incongruous thing in their superstition to adore a thing which is not higher than their polls when they adore it because they cannot be said to humble themselves to that which is lower than they can cast themselves To this last reason nothing is returned by Dr. Ames in his Triplic ch 4. p. 429. and Dallaeus adv lat cult l. 9. c. 13. Id quod adoratur eo à quo adoratur celsius ac sublimius aliquid esse debere insito à natura ipsa sensu omnes mortales confitentur atque consentiunt To which is to be added that kneeling is used according to the Common Prayer Book with Prayer to God and at the receiving of the Wine as well as at the Bread which are not so with the Papists and therefore kneeling is not to be taken as adoration of the Bread as the Papists do And for that which is said that the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling is directly opposite to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after Christ to the time of the invention and introduction of the Popish Breaden-god it is denyed by the same Dr. Burges in that and other following Chapters by the Bishop of Rochester Paybody and others about which and the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches at this day it is not necessary that I should make inquiry sith if it were so yet it proves nor that the present Ministers of England do oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ by their submitting to kneeling at the Lords Supper Sect. 10. Forbidding to marry or eat flesh at certain times are not characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant It is added What should I mention the Constitutions and Canons before pointed to wherein 't is forbidden to any to Preach not licensed by the Bishops thereunto to marry or eat flesh at certain times with many more of the like nature all directly contrary to the soveraign edicts of Christ and some of them evident characters of the last dayes Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 from whom Saints are warned by the Lord to turn aside ver 5. These we have produced carry an undeniable evidence with them that the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ and therefore deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office Answ. To that of forbidding to Preach answer is made in the examining this Chapter Sect. 2. Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from flesh at certain times upon politick considerations or for the better observing a religious Fast are not characters of the Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 But may be justified by such passages of Scripture as Jonah 3.7 Joel 2.16 1 Cor. 7.5 Dan. 10.3 Nor do I think the most zealous Separatists but would restrain from Marriage and Flesh the members of their Churches in the times of solemn Fasts or would count it evil that the Magistrate forbids for civil ends abstinence from some kind of food which being the case of the prohibitions of the Civil Laws of England rather than the Canons of the Church which make it not a sin against God to marry or eat flesh then is unjustly made the character of Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 which is more justly charged on the Monks and Popish Votaries who account it sinful to marry as if it were unchastness and more lawful to use Concubines than Wives for Priests as if they joyned with Pope Siricius terming such persons in the flesh and such as could not please God and place more holiness in eating Fish than Flesh which sort of people are very accurately proved to be there characterized by Mr. Joseph Mede in his Book of the Doctrine of Daemons intituled The Apostasie of the later times That the present Ministers of England are such or that precept which is not 1 Tim. 4.5 2 Tim. 3.5 From such turn aside belongs to them is not proved by this Author nor that they do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ or deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office French Protestants in the Synod of Charenton 1644. chap. 13. art 24. The Church shall not solemnise marriage in the dayes on the which the Lords Supper is administred nor on the dayes of a publick Fast. See this crimination retorted on the Separatists by Paget in his Arrow ch 6. sect 3. p. 155. n. 5. Yet he hath not done with this Argument Sect. 11. No such Headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices To all that hitherto hath been offered in this matter we shall yet add as a further demonstration of the truth we are in the disquisition of Arg. 3. Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office but the present Ministers of England do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ Therefore If the assertion of another King in England that as the Head thereof hath power of making and giving forth Laws to the free-born Subjects therein be a denial of his Kingly Authority as no doubt it is the major or first Proposition cannot be denied If Christ be the alone King of his Church as such he is its alone Head and Lawgiver If he hath not by any Statute-Law established any other Headship in and over his Church to act in the Holy things of God from and under him besides himself who sees not the assertion of such an Headship carries with it a contempt and denial of his Authority If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ let us know when and where it was instituted whether such a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom with respect to Worship be granted by them to any of the sons of men absolutely or conditionally if the first then must the Church it seems be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ trampling upon his royal Commands and Edicts for so it 's possible it may fall out those that aâ—tain this Headship may do as it 's evident many Popes of Rome the great
pretenders hereunto have done If the second let one iota be produced from the Scripture of the Institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto and we shall be so far from denying of it that we shall cheerfully pay whatever respect homage or duty by the Laws of God or Man may righteously be expected from us But this will not we humbly conceive in hast be performed and that because 1. The Scripture makes mention of no other Head in and over the Church but Christ Ephes. 1.22 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 2. If there be any other Head he must either be within or without the Church The latter will not be affirmed Christ had not sure so little respect unto his flock as to appoint Wolves and Lions to be their Governours and Guides in matters Ecclesiastical nor can the former for all in the Church are Brethren have no dominion over each others Faith or Conscience Luke 22.25 3. If any other be Head of the Church but Christ then is the Church the Body of some others besides Christ but this is absurd and false not to say impious and blasphemous 4. There was no Head of the Church in the Apostles dayes but Christ. 5. If any be Head of the Church beside Christ they either have their Headship from an Original Right seated in themselves or by donation from Christ. To assert the first were no less then blasphemy if the second let them shew when and where and how they came to be invested in such a right and this Controversie will be at an end 6. He that is asserted in Scripture to be the Head of the Church is said to govern feed and nourish it to eternall life is her Spouse and Husband 2 Cor. 11.2 In which sense none of the Sons of men one or other can be the Head thereof and yet of any other Head the Scripture is wholly silent But of this matter thus far It cannot by any sober person be denied but an owning of a visible Head over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship such an Headship not being of the institution of Christ must needs be a denial of his Soveraign Authority and Power Answ. This Author in this Argument seems to me to hide his meaning as they say the Fish Saepia doth by casting out some black colour whereby the water is infected and she not discerned A Headship over the Church besides Christ's he makes the present Ministers to acknowledge in some of the sons of men but who they are he means what the Headship is and how it is opposite to Christs Kingly and Prophetical Office is not plainly expressed nor in what Subscription Oath or Conformity they own and submit to it Headship is a Metaphor and sometime notes Origination vital influence direction or guidance superiority power authority or government which may be in many things No Minister I think gives such a Headship to any of the sons of men as to Christ over his whole Body either so as to derive their being members having their faith or eternal life or dominion over their Consciences or Sovereign power authority to rule or dispose of soul or body as Christ hath And that which the Bishop of Rome claims over the Universal Church is utterly disclaimed by the present Ministers The Headship which is made a denial of Christs Headship ascribed by the present Ministers to some person on Earth is expressed in various phrases A Headship in and over his Church to act in the Holy things of God a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of Christs Kingdom with respect to Worship a visible head over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship which it 's said they own by conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads and Governours of the Church thâ—y own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a a Law making and Law-giving power touching Institutions of Worship that never came into his heart Headship over the Church to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship This can be conceived to be ascribed by the present Ministers to no other than the Bishops or Convocation or the King whose Supremacy in Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical seems to be that Headship here meant by the answer to the second Objection What Headship is ascribed to the Bishops or Convocation in making Laws or Constitutions about Worship to wit the accidentals thereof undetermined in order to the orderly decent performance of it to edification by the present Ministers hath been examined all along in the answer to this Book specially to the 4. and 5. Chapters Sect. 3. and as yet no such Headship is proved by this Author to be ascribed by the present Ministers as amounts to a denial of the Prophetical and Kingly Offices of Christ that the taking of the Oath of the Kings Supremacie or submission to his Edicts about matters of Worship is not owning such a Headship is further to be cleared And first I deny his major That those who acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ by acknowledging the King as Supream Governour in Causes Ecclesiastical or Spiritual as the Oath of Supremacy is proved by me in my Book of the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy ought to be understood particularly that he or with him the Bishops or Convocation may make Laws or Constitutions in the accidentals of Worship undetermined in Scripture observing the rules of Order Decency Edification deny Christs Prophetical and Kingly Office and to the proofs of it I answer This Author doth most injuriously suppose the power and authority asserted to the King of England in the Oath of Supremacie to make Laws or Canons about the Worship of God with the Counsel of a Synod or Convocation or Parliament is making another King besides Christ over his Church For there is no such thing acknowledged thereby which is proper to Christ to wit to be the universal Monarch of the whole Church to prescribe what Faith or Worship shall be given to God to be Infallible Interpreter of Gods Will and the Supreme Judge and Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy or which is arrogated by the Popes of Rome and thus acknowledged by Hart the Jesuite in his Conference with Dr. John Rainold in the Tower of London ch 1. div 2. in these words The power which we mean to the Pope by this title of the Supream Head is that the Government of the whole Church of Christ throughout the World doth depend of him in him doth lye the power of judging and determining all causes of Faith of ruling Councils as President and ratifying their Decrees of Ordering and Confirming Bishops and Pastors of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the coasts of the Earth of reconciling any
that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations Finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either Preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ. Which his practice sheweth to be such as to dispense with the Laws of God as by legitimating incestuous Marriages releasing of lawful Oaths granting Indulgences releasing out of Purgatory Canonizing of Saints Consecrating of things for the expulsion of Devils with many more and iâ— it be true which is related in a Book lately printed to have been asserted by the party of Jesuites in the Colledge of Clermont in France that the Pope is not only infallible in matters of Faith but also in matters of Fact he is elevated to that height as to accomplish the prophesie which is 2 Thess. 2.4 But the present Ministers of England do abhorr the giving such power to the King Bishops or Convocation yea it is disclaimed by the King Bishops and Convocation as blasphemous and that power they ascribe to the Church is set down in the 34. Article of Religion Every particular or National Church hath authority to Ordain Change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying And that which they acknowledge belonging to the King as the only Supreme Governour of the Realm of England and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as temporal is thus explained Artic. 37. We give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers Which is so far from being no other than the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome as this Author saith p. 47. that to shew the calumny of it I need use no other words than those of Dr. John Owen in his answer to a Popish Book entituled Fiat Lux ch 13. p. 271. The Declaration made in the dayes of King Henry the 8. that he was Head of the Church of England intended no more but that there was no other person in the World from whom any Jurisdiction to be exercised in this Church over his Subjects might be derived the Supream Authority for all exteriour Government being vested in him alone that this should be so the Word of God the Nature of the Kingly Office and the ancient Laws of this Realm do require And I challenge our Author to produce any one testimony of Scripture or any one word out of any general Council or any one Catholick Father or Writer to give the least Countenance to his assertion of two Heads of the Church in his sense an Head of Influence which is Jesus himself and an Head of Government which is the Pope in whom all the sacred Hierarchy ends This taking of one half of Christs Rule and Headship out of his hand and giving it to the Pope will not be salved by that expression thrust in by the way under him For the Headship of Influence is distinctly ascribed unto Christ and that of Government to the Pope which evidently asserts that he is not in the same manner Head unto his Church in both senses but he in the one and the Pope in the other I add that Mr. Philip Nye in his Book of the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy and power of the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical affairs and subordination of Churches thereunto Printed 1662. though not published hath these words p. 46. For Persons and Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical that are properly and indeed such as first Table-duties which contain matters of Faith and Holiness and what conduceth to the eternal welfare of mens souls an interest and duty there is in the Civil Magistrate more suâ— to give Commands and exercise Lawful Jurisdiction about things of that nature And for Persons there is no man for his graces so spiritual or in respect of his gâ—fts and Office so eminent but he is under the Government of the Civil Powers in the place where he lives as much in all respects as any other subject Yea in the Apology of the Brownists Printed 1604. these words are alledged for their common defence out of the Letter of Henry Barrow to a Lady 1593. p. 92. I have every where in my writings acknowledged all duty and obedience to her Majesties government as to the sacred Ordinance of God the Supreme Power he hath set over all causes and persons whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within her Dominions Out of these things I infer that asserting the Kings Supremacy or the power of making Laws owned by the Ministers of England is not making another King besides Christ over his Church nor ascribing such a Headship to the King or Governours of the Church as is pleaded for by the Church of Rome and that for the Kings Supremacy those that dissent about Ceremonies and Church Government do acknowledge it as it is meant in the Oath taken by the Ministers Concerning which Supremacy if what I have written in the little Treatise Printed 1660. intituled A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremncy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions be not sufficient to produce from the Scripture the institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto methinks Dr. Rainold his argument which convinced Hart in the conference with him ch 10. div 1. and such other writings as have been written by Bilson Mason Bramhall and many more should have prevented this calumny of making thereby another head besides Christ equivalent to a denial of his Kingly Office And to his Objections I answer 1. to the first That we use not the title of Head but Supreme Governour yet when it was used it meaning the same it might be used as it was given to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 though not as it it is given to Christ Ephes. 1.22 and 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 Nor is the title of Head so appropriate to Christ but that it is given to the Man over the Woman 1 Cor. 11.3 to the Husband over the Wife Ephes. 5.23 and may in a qualified sense in respect of Government be given to the King over the Church in his Dominions as to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 to the chief of Families as Parents or others of greatest authority or esteem as the heads of houses Exod. 6.14 in which sense Parliament men Judges Ecclesiastical Governours may be termed Heads of the Church or State they represent
or are subject to them To the second though all in the Church are Brethren have no dominion oâ— authority over each others faith or conscience yet neither are all equal in the Church nor doth Luke 22.25 prove it The Apostles sure had power over the members of the Church to command 1 Cor. 7.10 to give orders 1 Cor. 16.1 to judge 1 Cor. 5.3 though no superiority over one another And though the King and Bishops or Convocation are Brethren yet are they Superiours Rulers Rom. 13.1 Heb. 13.17 and though they have no dominion or authority over each others faith or conscience so as that their Laws shall bind the conscience immediately and must be obeyed as precisely and fully as the Laws of God and Christ yet their Laws Edicts Commands Canons or Rules even in the worship of God in things undetermined by God and according to such Rules as the Scripture directs them to observe bind in some sort the conscience as the commands of Parents and Masters by virtue of the authority given them by God Rom. 13.5 1 Peter 2.13 14 16 18 19. though not in respect of the things commanded by them To the third the Church is not the body of any other than Christ as joyned to any or depending on any or subject to any absolutely as unto Christ yet may particular Churches in respect of that Ministration and Government which their Governours afford them be said to be the bodies of their Governors as a wife is in some râ—spect the body of her husband Ephes. 5 28. nor is there any impiety or blasphemy in so saying And in this sense the Apostles and Bishops or Elders were heads of the Church in the Apostles dayes which answers the fourth To the fifth their Headship is by donation from Christ in the places often alledged and in answer to the sixth though not as Christ is termed the Husband of Believers 2 Cor. 11.2 can any be termed Husband nor to govern feed and nourish to eternal life as Christ by influence of his Spirit or power to give eternal life 1 Cor. 6 17. John 17.2 nor their Father as God is said to be Ephes. 4.6 1 Cor. 8.6 Jam. 1.18 Joh. 1.13 yet the Apostles and all others may be in a qualified sense who are instruments to convert or build up others by the Word or Discipline be termed their Fathers in Christ 1 Cor. 4 15. and to govern feed and nourish them to eternal life as 1 Thess. 2.7 11. the Apostle saith of himself Whence I conclude in answer to his major that notwithstanding what he hath said it may by a sober person be denyed that an owning of a visible head or heads over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to worship as the King Parliament Bishops or Convocation do may be no denial of Christs Soveraign authority and power Le ts view that which remains Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christ's proves not owning another King coordinate to him That saith he the present Ministers of England do own and submit to such an Headship is undeniable witness their Subscription Oath Conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads and Governours of the Church which are not onely foreign to but as hath been already demonstrated lift up themselves in opposition against the royal institutions of Christ. This being matter of fact the Individuals charged herewith must either acquit themselves by a denial of what they are impleaded as guilty or prove what they do is not criminous but lawful to be done The former being too notoriously known to admit of a denial 't is the latter must be insisted on what is therein offered is nextly to be considered Answ. Though I cannot justifie all that the present Ministers of England do in their Subscriptions and Conformity as if it were no way criminous but in every thing lawful to be done nor perhaps will all of them plead so for themselves as being mindful of the Psalmists words Psal. 19.12 Who can understand his errours cleanse thou me from secret faults Yet for the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which are the only Oaths I know they have taken as I have so I do still plead that the taking of them is not criminous but may be lawfully done And I further say that were it yielded that the Laws and Edicts made and given forth by those sons of men he means as Heads and Governours of the Church not only foreign to but which I utterly deny he hath demonstrated that they lift up themselves in opposition against the royal Institutions of Christ yet might the Ministers be free from that which he chargeth them with as denying Christs Kingly Office and setting up another King besides Christ as his Peer sith it is clear that such Conformity and Subscription may be out of weakness or errour not out of Faction or Rebellion nor doth he who conforms or subscribes to the Laws or Edicts of an Usurper own his power when he yields subjection to his commands Those who obeyed the Laws of Richard the 3. of England did not thereby acknowledge him to be the King of right nor do all that submit to the decrees of the Trent Council or the Popes Edicts either own the one or the other as being just or the power as rightly claimed but for peace sake submit to what they cannot remedy Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ is not monstrous It is added This is that some say Obj. 1. That they acknowledge another Head besides Christ cannot indeed be denied but the Headship owned and acknowledged by them is an Headship only under Christ. To which we answer Answ. 1. But this Headship is either of Christs appointment or 't is not if it be let it be shewn where it was instituted by him and as we said this controversie is at an end if it be not the assertion of such an Headship even in subordination to Christ over his Churches as such hinders not but persons owning submitting thereunto are guilty of denying the Kingly Office of Christ. 2. The Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other 3. 'T is not so as is pretended they own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a Law-making and Law-giving power touching institutions of Worship that never came into his heart are flatly against his appointments as hath been proved 4. One Head in subordination to another doth as really make the Body a Monster as two Heads conjoined Answ. 1. The term Head of the Church is not used in the Oath of Supremacy but Supreme Governour and this is agreeable to Scripture Rom. 13.1 1 Tim. 2.2 1 Pet. 2.13 and how out of these and other Scriptures his Government is proved in that sense in which it is asserted by the Ministers is shewed by me in my Book of the serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings
Supremacy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions and if the Church as the Church be comprised under every soul Rom. 13.1 they are Governours of the Church as the Church that is as they are a Company of mâ—n that profess Faith in Christ. Not as if we acknowledged that Kings had a lawful power to prescribe another Faith or Worship besides Christs but as Physitians are said to be subject to the King as Physitians because he can prescribe rules with penalties in the use of that Art they practise according to Hippocrates his Aphorisms so the King is Governour over the Church as such by prescribing rules about the profession and exercise of that Faith and Worship they learn only from Christ in things undetermined by him and serving for the ends which they are to aim at Nor do I perceive that in so doing any more iâ— usurped by them than is ascribed by this Author unto the Church from Mat. 18.17 18. mistaken by him and therefore owning such a power under Christ as given to the Church is as much a denial of Christs Kingly Office as when it is given to the King yea it is more absurd to ascribe such a power to the Church over the Church as such than to ascribe it to the King it being a confounding of Governours and Governed Head and Body which were monstrous 2. Though I deny not that the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is pretended to be under Christ and the Pope terms himself Vicar of Christ yet it is in the foregoing Section shewed that they usurp a power not only equal but in some respects rather superiour to Christs in their dispensing with the keeping of lawful Oaths and allowing of incestuous Marriages none of which is claimed by those whom the Ministers acknowledge as Heads besides Christ and therefore it is false that the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other than what the Ministers own 3. His proofs have been examined before and shewed defective 4. The terms Head and Body being used only metaphorically there 's no more monstrosity in making a Head under a Head than in making a Governour under a Governour used by St. Peter 1 Epist 2.13 14. or making more Fathers of the Church one under another Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel He ends this Chapter thus If it be said Object 2. That the Kings of Israel were the Heads successively of the then Church and therefore a visible Headship over the Churches of Christ in the New Testament is lawful We answer 1. That betwixt the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel there is a vast disproportion many things were lawful in that day which to do or subject to now were no less than a denial of Christ come in the flesh 2. The Kings of Israel were types of Christ. 3. That the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church is false God was its alone Head and King Hence their Historian saith their Government was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when they would needs chuse a King God said they rejected him to whom even as to their political Head a Sicle was paid yearly as a Tribute called The Sicle of the Sanctuary True indeed as they were a political Body they had visible Political Governours who when they ceased their Policy was at an end but that these had any Headship over them to make any Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship will never be proved Answ. 1. That there is any such disproportion between the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel as makes the same power which the Kings of Israel exercised lawfully to be now unlawful to the Kings of England is falsely and vainly asserted sith there is nothing therein ceremonial and temporary peculiar to the Jewish Oeconomy as appears in that all Nations have ascribed to their chief Rulers dominion about things sacred as is proved by me in the Assertion of the fifth Proposition in my Book of the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy from that which is ascribed to Cyrus Isa. 44.28 and 45.1 to the King of Niniveh Jon. 3.7 8. and others Ezra 6.7 c. and 7.13 c. Dan. 3.29 6.26 and that Christianity alters not civil relations or Estates 1 Cor 7.24 Parents and Masters have the like power Ephes. 6.4 5. Gen. 35.2 4. which things are more fully vindicated by Mr. Selden in his first Book De Syned Hugo Grotius in his Book De Imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra and others 2. It is true that David is made a type of Christ but that all the Kings of Judah much less that all the Kings of Israel are made types of Christ or that Christ alone was to have that power which they used or that the Kingly Power used by them ceased upon the coming of Christ in the flesh are all most palpably false sith the Scriptures of the New Testament do plentifully assert the Dominion of Civil Powers and our Lord Christ himself and his Apostles yielded subjection to them 3. That the Church of Israel was different from the Kingdom or people of Israel is one of the Placita or proper opinions of those who would establish from that example an Ecclesiastical Independent Government in the Church distinct from the Civil Government of the State But neither the arguments of Mr. Gillespy in his Aarons Rod blossoming Book 1. c. 3. nor any other I have met with convince me that it was so Sure both David and Solomon and other Kings did exercise power over Ecclesiastical persons as in deposing Abiathar and in Ecclesiastical things about keeping the Passover 2 Chron. 29.30 30.2 and many other things which were approved by God being related in the holy Story without reproof as arguments of their integrity And therefore if the Kings of Israel were as it is said of Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 heads of the tribes of Israel they were also heads of the Church of Israel being Governours of the same persons whether of the tribe of Levi or of other tribes and about the same things to wit those of the Worship of God though they were not to meddle with the peculiar Ministry of the Priests and Levites It is true that God alone was the Head and King of the Church of Israel in some sense He was their sole supreme absolute King that had power Legislative to assign what Faith Worship Judicatories and what other things were necessary for that Congregation originally and of himself de jure communi of right common to all Nations as their Creatour and de jure speciali out of right peculiar to that people as being brought forth out of the Land of Egypt Lev. 25.55 and being joyned in Covenant with him were not to set up a King over them without his appointment and de facto he was actually their sole King till the people weary of Samuels
Government because of his sons iniquity and out of fear of Nahash King of the Ammonites desired a King as other Nations because Moses Joshuah and all the Judges were immediately chosen by God and raised up extraordinarily for a time to do special services without ordinary succession and accordingly acted and ruled by extraordinary immediate motions and revelations from God in which respects the Government of the Israelites before Sauls reign was not unfitly termed by Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods rule and when they would needs chuse a King or have Samuel to make them a King to judge them like all the Nations 1 Sam. 8.5 19 20. God said they rejected him that he should not reign over them v. 17. where the desire of having a King is not simply condemned as unlawful nor because they desired a Kâ—ng over the Church as such as if they might lawfully enough have desired a King over them as a political Head but not as Head of the Church as such for neither is there any intimation of any such limitation of their desire but on the contrary they desired that they might also be like all the Nations and that their King might judge them and go out before them and fight their Battels 1 Sam. 18.20 Nor is there the least hint of any reprehension of their desire that they would have a King over them as a Church to appoint them Religion and Worship as other people neither was it spoken that they rejected God as though the Lord did not reign where there is set up a Monarchical Government for it is Gods Ordinance and Kings have their power and authority from him according to that Prov. 8.15 16. By me Kings reign and Princes decree justice c. and they are his Deputies and Lieutenants by whom he ruleth In which regard the people might have lawfully desired a King if they had done it with upright hearts oâ— lawful grounds to good and warrantable ends in a right manner and in due time For the Lord had promised that when they were settled in the Land of Canaan he would when he thought good set a King over them out of whose loyns the Messiah should come and also sheweth how he would have him qualified and what he required of him Deut. 17.17 18. and he had promised unto Abraham that Kings should come out of him Gen. 17.6 And Jacob in his prophetical blessing saith That the Scepter should not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his feet until Shiloh did come i. e. the Messias Gen 49.10 And David speaking of himself as a type of Christ saith Psal. 2.6 Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion And therefore this is not simply condemned as a sin in it self to desire a King but because they did it with an ill mind affecting innovation as being weary of Gods Government which he had established till himself pleased to change it and in a prâ—posterous and tumultuous manner before he had given any intimation of his pleasure and to a wrong and evil end that they might be like to the Heathen Nations and out of their confidence in a King as able to protect them and their diffidence in God as insufficient to defend them in his own way unless he would be directed in a course of their prescribing and finally because they would not wait upon him for the accomplishment of his word in his own due time but with all importunity press him to do at their own pleasure Thus the Assembly Annotations Whence the impertinency of the allegation of this Text either against Kingly Government or their Headship over the Church is manifested Noâ— is it more to the purpose which is added that to God even as to their political Head a sicle was paid yearly as a tribute called the sicle of the sanctuary For 1. If this payment be meant of that which is mentioned Exod. 30.12 13 14 15 16. it doth not appear by the Text that it was a yearly tribute paid to God as their political Head but a Tax put on them when Moses took the summ of the children of Israel after their number then they should give every man a ransome for his soul unto the Lord when he numbred them that there might be no Plague among them half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary the offering of the Lord to make an attonement for the souls which he was to appoint for the service of the tabernacle of the Congregation that it might be a memorial unto the children of Israel But if it be yielded that it was after made a yearly tribute as the Jewish Doctors say and a perpetual Ordinance according to what Mr. Ainsworth on Exod. 30 16. out of Maimony cites and that it continued so till the destruction of Jerusalem as Josephus relates in Book 7. ch 28. of the Jewish War yet this proves not that it was paid to God under that notion as to their political Head It is true that the tribute or custome called Didrachma that is shekels mentioned Mat. 17.24 25. is conceived by very many learned men to be that which was paid to the Lord for the use of the Temple as a tribute to him which is largely argued by Cameron in his praelections on that Text with whom Diodate Hugo Grotius Dr. Hammond concurr and before them Hilarius cited by Maldonat who thinks it was paid to the Romans and cites Hierome Bede and of this mind are many others as Beza Piscator Pareus But if Camerons opinion were certain yet it may seem rather to be paid to God as Head of the Church then as a political Head as this Author speaks sith it was paid for the service of the Temple 2. Were that which this Author saith granted him it should rather seâ—ve against him than for him For if it were paid to God as their Political Head it rather proves God to be the alone political Head and so against that which he saith true indeed as they were a political Body they had visible political Governours who when they ceased their policy was at an end than that God was the Churches alone Head and King and that it is false that the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church and therefore his sayings do interfer That the Kings of Israel had a Headship over them to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship is conceived to be proved from 2 Chron. 20.3 21. 29.27 30.1 2 4 5 23. 31.2 3. with many more which I find not yet to be enervated by the Answers I have met with I proceed to examine that which follows CHAP. 6. ARG. 5. Sect. 1. False doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard HE thus writes Argument 5. Those who have the characters and properties of false Prophets and Priests upon them are not to be heard but separated from But the present Ministers of England have
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
of the practice of some leading bretheren in this matter against the checks of their own consciences to a conformity herein to their after grief and wounding Vpon whose doors 't is to be feared and we wish they would in the fear of God lay it to heart may be written The bloud of souls Answ. The term of visible Saints hath been too much contracted by being almost appropriated to the members of those Churches which are termed Congregational in contradistinction to Presbyterial and Prelatical or if applyed to any of the more zealous of the Presbyterial way of disciplin yet scarce vouchsafed to any of them who are for Episcopal government or conformable to the worship and ministry of the Church of England who are commonly termed Antichristian persons without in Babylon and for men to profess thâ—mselves visible Saints is in effect all one as to say they are of a gathered Church all others being counted without Which abuse of words as it smels of arrogance in appropriating to themselves the title which is common to all true believers and uncharitableness in conceiving of others as no visible Saints because they are not entered into that which is termed Church covenant so is it injurious to others though godly from whom such are estranged as no visible Saints but they are censured and declined as persons without that have nothing in them of God yea as adversaries to the power of Godliness meer formalists if they speak for the common-prayer book or any thing favourably of any of the Bishops and this serves for a design of keeping them to themselves without joyning in prayer and hearing in publique which they call hearing with the world out of the Church This I conceive to be the reason of this Authors expressions here of the saints visibly so scandalizing their bretheren by their hearing the Ministers that now preach publickly By which it may be seen that he regards not much who do hear the present ministers of England so that they do not as if it were not necessary to deterre all others from hearing them if they be false Prophets and Idolaters as this Author accuseth them yea and to oppose them even unto the death if they be such so that this argument is unnecessary if the other be good and rather supposeth all that is formerly disputed to be weak yet this point of scandal may serve turn to affright them from communion with the publique Ministery and keep them to themselves though it prove never so injurious to their peace and outward estate and sinful by reason of the Schism that is continued by it For this reason I shall examin this Argument also as it is here delivered and so much the rather because I have found by experience that when in this and other doubts of conscience I have in conference with honest but scrupulous christians satisfied them concerning the lawfulness of that which they doubted of yet in this I could hardly quiet their consciences that they might do without sin what they scrupled to do because they should offend good people the scandalizing of whom our Saviour and the Apostle Paul make a hainous sin and procuring an heavy curse For which reason I printed the treatise of scandalizing forementioned more then twenty years ago in the epistle dedicatory whereof are these words In my small reading and experience I finde few doubts of conscience concerning mens patent actions in the resolving of which the difficulty hath not most of all rested on this point of Scandal At present I shall not open the word scandal nor insist on the definition of Scandal nor the sorts of scandalizing or causes of it or the various cases concerning it leaving the Reader to that Treatise or to what else hath been since written by D. Henry Hammond of scandal Ma. Henry Jeanes of abstinence from appearance of evil and others for a fuller understanding of this point but assert that notwithstanding what is here said of the offence of brethren and the sad consequence of blood guiltiness which this Author would have it conceived the hearing the present Ministers tends to yet neither the so termed visible Saints nor any other by hearing the present Ministers do sin against the precepts of non-scandalizing given by Christ or his Aposte St. Paul Matth. 18.6 Luke 17.1 2 Rom. 14.13.15.20 1 Cor. 8.8.9.13 and 10 24. Which I prove thus 1. That is not scandalizing forbidden in these texts which is neither by giving evil example in doing that which is intrinsecally or of it self evil though none were offended nor by enticing practices or persecution impelling to evil nor by abuse of liberty in things lawful to the harm of another which are all the wayes I know of scandalizing there forbidden if there be any other shewed I think however it will not reach to the present case that which this Author seems to reduce it to is the last in that he puts in a Parenthesis in the minor these words there is no positive precept in Scriptures for it But it is not to be reduced to that sort of scandalizing for the hearing of the present Ministers of England cannot be accounted a matter of liberty or indifferency but either duty or sin hearing the word of God being an express precept in the general and so is obeying them that are Rulers now the ministers preaeh the word of God and our Rulers command us to hear them and this they have power to do and in this they have power over their subjects as parents have over their children and masters over their servants and are to be obeyed in that which is not evil but good and therefore the scandalizing is not by abuse of liberty in things indifferent nor is it scandalizing in doing a thing in it self evil or impelling to it as hath been shewed in the foregoing chapters of this answer Therefore the offending Bretheren what ever it be by hearing the present ministers is not the scandalizing forbidden 2. That is not Scandalizing forbidden in those Texts which doth not tend to any of those evils for preventing of which those precepts of not scandalizing were given But the hearing of the present Ministers tends not to any of those evils for prevenâ—ing whereof those precepts of not scandalizing were given This is proved because it tends not to any sin but to the performance of duty in hearing Gods word nor to any such sorrow or vexation as the precepts would have prevented which were such as made either persons to be discouraged in Christianity or to walk uncomfortably in the profession of it as by view of the Texts may appear But to neither of these effects doth the hearing of the present Minister tend This Author saith It makes visible Saints to grieve as their grones and tears alone and together demonstrate But how doth the Hearing the present Ministers tend to it Sure neither in the nature of the action noâ— in the will of him that hears if the person
Sect. 2. Meeting of separated Christians as a distinct body is not Christs institution Secondly That Saints separate from the world should frequently meet togâ—ther as a distinct body therefrom for the edification and building up of each other in the way and will of God according to the gifts bestowed upon them is so evidently asserted as the institution of our alone King and Law-giver in the Scripture that it cannot be gainsaid Mal 3.16 1 Thes 5.11 Heb. 3.12 Jude 20. Heb. 10.24 25. 1 Cor. 12.9 Acts 12.12 18.23 Ephes 5.19 James 5.16 1 Thes. 5.14 Answ. It is granted That Saints separated from the world that is professed unbelievers should frequently meet for the edâ—fication and building up of each other in the way and will of God But it is neither agreeable to Scripture nor allowable that one party of Christians should call another part of Christians the world and the men of the world who own the true Faith of God and worship him because they are not of the same way of Church-government and worship Nor is it either in the Scriptures alleged or any other that such should meet as a distinct body from other Christians holding the true Faith and worshipping the true God in Christ as if they were a severed body from other Christians The Separatists I think do not rebaptize but hold Baptism in the Church of England as being into the universal Church right so in the Brownists Apology p. 91. Robinsons Justification against Bernard p. 349. and else-where which if this Author hold he must hold that the Saints of the gathered Churches are one body with other Christians according to that of St. Paul Ephes. 4.4 5. There is one body and one spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all who is abâ—ve all and through all and in you all 1 Cor· 12 12 13. For as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free And therefore it is against the institution of Christ that Christians of one profession in point of Discipline and Worship should meet as a distinct body separate from other Christians of different perswasions unless there were another Faith Lord Baptism God whom they worship Nor do the Texts justifie such separate meetings Not Mal. 3.16 in which is mention of speaking one to another but not as a distinct body from other believers The same may be said of 1 Thes. 5.11 Heb. 3.12 13. Jude 20. The Assemblies Heb. 10.24 25. were not meetings of a distinct body from other believers but from Hebrew Infidels 1. Cor. 12.9 or rather it speaks of gifts given to profit withall but not of meeting much less as a distinct body from other believers Acts 12 12. mentions a meeting for prayer but not as a distinct body from other believers Acts 18.23 Ephes. 5.19 James 5.16 1 Thes. 5.14 mentions employing of Gifts for our own and others good not a Church meeting as a distinct body from other Christians It follows Sect. 3. Separated Congregational Churches in opposition to National are not of Christs institution Thirdly That particular Congregations or Assemblies of Believers gathered into one body for the celebration of the worship of God in opposition to any National Church or Churches whatsoever is of the appointment of Christ is alike evident as the former Act. 1.1 3. 12.1 13.14 15.22 18.22 20.14 28. 1 Cor. 1.2 6.4 Act. 9.1 1 Cor. 16.19 Rom. 16.4 2 Cor. 8.1 Gal. 1.2 Acts 16.4 5. 14.23 1 Cor. 11.12 14.4 5.12 19 2 Cor. 1.1 Rev. 1.2 3 11. Answ. In these Texts there is mention made of Churches where the Christians in different cities or in a Province are mentioned and of the Church where Christians of one city are mentioned though it be made a question whether the Church Acts 15.22 18.17 be not a Provincial Church But that this proves an appointment of Christ That the Assemblies of Believers gathered into one body for the celebration of the worship of God by their voluntary agreement under Pastours of their own choice in opposition to any national Church or Churches whatsoever should be accounted the only lawful and regular Churches of Christ appears not For there is no mention in any of the Texts of any institution of Christ or his Apostles but only thence may be gathered that it was then the manner of speech to call the Christians that dwelt together in one Town the Church of such a place though it is probable they were not gathered into one body or congregation for the celebration of the worship of God under select Officers but that they were called the Church of such a city as that of Jerusalem from their habitation where they had many meetings from house to house for celebration of the worship of God as from Acts 2.46 47. and other places was gathered by the Presbyterians in their Answer to the dissenting Brethren Nor was then any such distinction of congregations of Christians as that in one city as the Independents in London and elsewhere did distinguish them such a number should belong to such a Pastour and be termed his Church and another number be another Church in the same city but the Elders of the Christians in Jerusalem are termed the Elders of the Church there Acts 15.4 23. 21.18 Not one an Elder of one part another of another part Sometimes there is mention made of the Church in the house of such persons 1 Cor. 16.19 Rom. 16.5 Philem. 2. And yet this proves not that particular congregations or assemblies of believers gathered into one body in a house for the celebration of the worship in opposition to any city church or churches whatsoever is of the appointment of Christ and therefore no such appointment of Christ as here is asserted can be gathered from the phrase of calling the christians in one city the church there the christians in a Province or Nation the churches A national or universal church may be as well collected from 1 Cor. 12.28 where it is said God hath set some in the church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers sith the Apostles were for the universal church But for my part I conceive the distinction of churches only prudential not by any constitution of Christ or his Apostles And that however Mr. Robâ—râ—sâ—n in his Catechism Mr. Cotton in his Way of the Churches of New-England have put it into their definitions of the visible Church that it consists of so many as may meet every Lords-day for all Ordinances And Mr Norton in his Answer to Apollonius ch 3. makes such a church the only lawful political church And this hath been continually inculcated that it is necessary
as a wine-bibber and gluttonous person in his miracles as one that wrought them by the Devil who are therefore condemned by Christ as guilty of the very sin of blasphemy against the holy Ghost Matth. 12.31 is known as being what is frequently remarked in the Scripture 4. We no where find the disciples attending upon the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees notwithstanding this supposed command or permission of Christ. Nay 5 We cannot but think the supposition hereof not onely inconsistent with and opposite to that expression concerning Christ Mar. 6.34 And Jesus when he saw much people was moved with compassion towards them because they were as sheep not having a shepherd what without a shepherd and yet the Scribes and Pharisees whose feeding they might lawfully attend upon doth Christ pity them in this desperate state and not give them one word of direction to wait upon these profound and worthy Doctors but also contrary to that solemn command given forth from the Lord Acts 2.40 Save your selves from this untoward generation and the practice of the disciples who continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer Acts 2.42 6. Were that the intendment of Christ as is suggested and the argument of our brethren valid a lawfulness to hear the veriest blasphemer in the world that denies that Christ is the Messiah affirms that he was a deluder of the people a gluttonous person a winebibber one that did miracles by Belzebub the prince of Devils that persecutes even to death Christ in his people might by a like parity of reason be deduced Christ commanded or at least permitted his disciples to hear the Pharisees who were such as hath been proved therefore 't is lawful to hear persons with the same characters upon them But God forbid any such injurious dealing should be offered to Christ or that any who pretend to fear God and I hope do so in reality should stand by a cause which hath no better arguments to defend it than what may be as righteously every way made use of for the attending upon the Ministry of the greatest blasphemer or opposer of Christ in the world Evident then it is notwithstanding the great flourish that many make with this Scripture for the abetting their attendance upon the present Ministers of England that it refuses to admit the least sanctuary thereunto The Scribes and Pharisees mentioned Matth. 23.1 2. may for ought we know be Magistrates not Ministers if Ministers they were as hath been proved lawfully so Christ says concerning them Whatever they bid you observe and do that observe and do Therefore 't is lawful to attend upon the Ministers of England whose lawful calling to their office cannot be proved yea though there is not the least intimation of a command from Christ or so much as a permission to his disciples to hear the Scribes aad Pharisees Nugae tricae siculae If this be to dispute a man need not fear but to be able to multiply arguments at an easie rate for whatever he hath a mind to undertake the defence of Yet this is supposed by many to be of greatest moment in this controversie I reply If by attendance on the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees be meant a constant and ordinary hearing of them as their ordinary shepherds as this Authous words seem to import doubtless neither Christ did command nor permit his disciples such an attendance both for the reasons given by this Authour and specially because he asserts himself as their onely Master or Doctour Matth 23.8.10 yet the mention of their sitting in Moses his chair or seat notes more then their discourse upon particular occasional meeting to wit their ordinary expounding the Law of Moses in their Schools where our Lord Christ permitted his disciples and the multitude to hear them with this limitation and proviso in and as they taught the Law which hearing he did not forbid them but allow them with such caveats as are there given in that Chapter And against such hearing none of the reasons of this Authour are of force Not the first for though such personal evils were sufficient motives to keep back people either from following their example or private counsels yet not to keep them back from hearing Gods Law expounded by them The same answer is for the second reason The permission of Christ is not to hear the Pharisees teach all the Doctrines of their Sect he had before warned them of receiving their traditions Matth. 15.14 the leaven of their doctrine Matth. 16.12 In which no doubt they understood the doctrine about justification by the works of the Law to be comprehended But the permission of hearing them is onely as they sate in Moses his seat that is as they taught them the duties of Moses his Law which he said Matt. 5.17 He came not to destroy but to fulfil which is manifest from the illative particle therefore v. 2. because they sit in Moses seat and bid you observe what Moses did you are to observe what they bid you observe and consequently may hear them so teaching The third reason hath the same answer with this overplus That to prevent any conceit of allowing the hearing of them in their blaphemy he avoucheth himself to be their Master and Teacher v. 8.10 To the fourth it is but from a testimony negatively and so of no force We read not that they used the Lords Prayer yet none will say they did not less that they might not we read not of their alms or fasting yet they might do both To the fifth it was but a limited permission of hearing them as they taught Moses Law not as allowing constant attendance on them as their shepherds Christ did conceive the people to be without a shepherd notwithstanding the Pharisees teaching the duties of the Law because though that doctrine were right and to be observed yet it was not sufficient to feed them to eternal life Acts 2.40 St. Peter did well to exhort his auditors to save themselves from that untoward generation of opposers of Christ as his Master before would have him and all his disciples do not doing after their works nor following their perverse doctrine and the Church did rightly practice in continuing in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer yet he neither did nor was to disswade them from hearing or practising the Pharisees doctrine of the observing the duties of Moses his Law which they were obliged to observe To the sixht I grant it lawful to hear any man teach truth which is Gods and may be heard from the mouth of any man with whom God allows us converse and communion as they are men though we are to hold no communion with them in wickedness nor willingly hear their blasphemies That the Pharisees as such were not Magistrates nor lawful Ministers nor considered as such is shewed before Neither do we say that Christ permitted attendance on the Ministry
be termed for distinction sake St. Peters day c. yet saith Archbishop Whitgift in his answer to the second Admonition the 3 d. reason The Papists Saints days were appointed for the honouring and worshipping of the Saints by whose names they were called ours be ordained for the honouring of God for publick prayer and edifying the people by reading the Scriptures and Preaching neither are they called by the name of any Saint in any other respect than that the Scriptures which that day are read in the Church be concerning that Saint and contain either his calling preaching persecution martyrdom or such like The like is alleadged by Rainold conference with Hart ch 8. divis 2. Hooker Eccles. Policy l. 5. Sect. 71. yea T. C. the defender of the Admonition confesseth that the Church of England meaneth not that in these holy days the Saints should be honoured and Rivet on Exod. 20. praecept quartum acquits the Church of England from Idolatry by reason of our form of service and our doctrine of worshipping God onely Of which more also may be seen in Zanchius tom 4. in praece quartum loc 1. q. 2. c. As for the 10th errour That Christ descended into hell is in the Creed called the Apostles and is the 3d. Article of the Confession of the Church of England and is deduced by Augustin Epist. ad Evodium 99. from Acts 2.26 27. and how to understand it of other descent then the place of the damned or Limbus Patram which is the Papists tenent may be seen in Archhishop Vshers answer to the Jesuites challenge ch 5. Dr. Pearson his Exposition of the Creed on that Article and others The 12th I think neither the present Ministers nor any of the Bishops will assert The two last let them that hold them answer for themselves I say onely that they are such as hearers are not necessitated to assent to nor such as can justifie separation But it follows Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers Object 5. Judas preached though a wicked man and no doubt 't was lawful yea the duty of Saints to hear him To this we say no doubt it was so But 1. Judas was not a visible wicked man at the time of his preaching but so close an hypocrite that he was not known to be so no not to the disciples but some of the present Ministers of England are visibly wicked and profane 2. Judas was chosen and called by Christ to be an Apostle commissioned by him to preach but the present Ministers of England are not so as hath been proved So that this is not at all to the business in hand I reply It is confessed that the present Ministers are not chosen and called by Christ to Preach as Iudas was and it may be also proved concerning the Ministers of the Congregational Churches whose calling may be questionable as well as theirs being often by a small company of ignorant persons many of them women who challenge power of election without Ordination or other help or giving the right hand of fellowship by Elders of other Churches nor are they all free from visible wickedness and prophaness And this may be somewhat to the business by allaying the vehemency of this Authours spirit against others But the chief use of this objection is to answer one exception of this Authour ch 2. That the present Ministers are not to be heard as gifted brethren because they walk disorderly For Iudas did walk disorderly and yet might be heard 'T is true Iudas was not so apparently a thief as others that are openly vitious yet Christ knew him to be a thief and a traitour when he appointed him to preach and forbade none to hear him preach the Gospel and therefore allowed hearing of evil men preach truth which is denyed by the Author of Prelatical preachers none of Christs teachers p. 43 44. and is frequently the reason of many people 's not hearing them that preach truth It is to be added that Christ had given some intimation of Judas his wickedness John 6.70 71. He goes on Sect. 10. It is a sin not to encourage good men in their Ministry Object 6. But there are some good men amongst them and such as belong to God may we not hear good men To which briefly Answ. 1. That there are some among the present preachers of this day that are good men we shall not stand to deny Yet 2. We crave leave to say That they are all of them such as are sadly polluted and defiled by their complyance in respect of their standing in the Ministry Antichristian whose teachings Saints have no warrant to attend upon 3. The greater hopes we have of their goodness the more cautelous should we be of encouraging them in a false way that they by our relinquishment of them and separating from them after we have discharged all other duties we are satisfied are incumbent upon us to perform towards them may come to see their sin repent and do their first works that God and we may again receive them 4. Yet the goodness of any as to the main is no warrant for any to hold communion with them or attend upon their teachâ—ngs There are brethren that walk disorderly whom 't is the duty of Saints to separate from that the very best of the Ministers of England do so will not be denyed The incestuous person 1 Cor. 5. was as to the main for ought I know a good man yet were not the Saints at Corinth to hold communion with him till upon his repentance he was again received 2 Cor. 2 6. 5. 'T is utterly unlawfull to communicate with a devised Ministry upon what pretext soever 6. So is it for any to partake in other mens sins as hath been proved but every usurped Ministry is the sin of him though never so holy a person that exerciseth it I reply this objection being an argument ad hominem against this Author who hath represented all the present Ministers as walking disorderly deniers of Christs offices Antichristian Idolaters Scandalous even the best of them which what face he can say of them and yet acknowledge them good men is not easily conceivable they seem to me inconsistent speeches That their Ministry is Antichristian when they minister the word of God is also in my understanding oppositum in apposito a contradiction That they stand in that Ministry which they had by Episcopal ordination is so far from being their defilement that it seems to me their vertue and wisdome it being alwayes judged by me a great sin to renounce that ministry sith it is no other then of the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church and Realm hath received the same according to the Commandements of God which for any to disclaim is to go back from the service of Christ and if the present Ministers do stand in this Ministry the Saints are
that are erroneous if they try them they may hear pretenders prophesying if they prove it much more those Ministers who preach the truth it is each Christians duty to try their doctrine nor their sin to hear their Sermons 29. This Authour himself ch 2. in the words before cited alowed the hearing of gifted brethren though not solemnly invested into office nor do I think he would think it unlawful to hear Parents or Masters Catechize or Readers in the University when they read Divinity Lectures or dispuâ—e in Divinity Schools and therefore by a like reason must allow the hearing of such Ministers who Preach the Gospel and are found in the faith and are regularly ordained according to the discipline of that Church in which they live and are taken for true Ministers by the godly and learned at home and the most able and pious Pastours and brethren of the Reformed Churches abroad 30. The reasons of this Authour and other Separatists against hearing the present Ministers may be retorted against themselves Mr. William Bradshaw having answered Mr. Francis Johnsons Arguments to prove this conclusion It is not lawful to hear or have any spiritual communion with the present Ministry of the Church-assemblies of England added Reasons or Arguments tending to prove That it is a sin to separate from the publick Ministry of the Church-assemblies of England directly contrary to Mr. Johnsons own Reasons and usually in that regard made in the same mood and figure which are to be seen in the unreasonableness of the separation p. 126. c. Printed 1640. in Mr. Gatakers Rejoynder against the Reply of Mr. John Canne And as for this Authours 12. Arguments it were no hard matter to prove That the Ministers of the separated Churches are not to be heard by some if not by all the middle terms he hath used to prove That the present Ministers of the Church of England are not to be heard As for instance That they come not in by the door but climb another way by usurping Ministry without any regular Ordination by other Ministers That they walk disorderly in separating themselves from true Churches they have Antichristian names or titles in being called Masters That they deny Christs Offices in submitting to and imposing Orders or Ordinances about worship not appointed by Christ as Church-covenant Paedobaptism c. That they are false prophets that deny them to be true Churches of Christ who hold the faith of Christ That some commands of the Ceremonial Law of Moses are Rules to us Christians That they are Babylon and Antichristian in their constitution and their practice in dividing from other Churches not submitting to their Teachers those who have begotten them through the Gospel without any well setled order among themselves that they therefore long agree not but crumble into many small companies and sometimes take them to be members of their Churches who dwell in remote places so that their gathered Churches extend as far some times as a Bishops Diocess that they ascribe the power of the keys to the whole Church confound Governours and Governed allow men not set apart to that function to teach publickly and that frequently if not constantly those to take upon them to prophesie who are no Prophets That they scandalize their brethren their Governours by their invectives That they partake of the sins of others in allowing them to usurp that power which Christ hath not committed to them That they cast contempt upon the ways of Christ to wit the Prayers and Preaching of the Ministers of the Church of England That they go to the places of false worship as Mr. Iohn Paget in his Arrow against the Separatists proves against Ainsworth that they cannot expect a blessing from God upon their separation it having no promise of God but is against the union that should be among Christians That it is a step to Apostacy is a forsaking of the assembly of the Saints to refuse to hear the present Ministers and to joyn in Prayers with them and too much experience hath proved what backsliding if not to Popery yet to other errours of Antinomians Familists Quakers Seekers Ranters hath been the fruit of Separation But I forbear recrimination and touching the sore which I rather desire may be healed and that our breaches may be made up and not widened to which this Authours reasonings tend 31. The grounds upon which this Authour and other Separatists deny the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers are either false or doubtful as That nothing is to be done in the worship of God and Church-discipline without a particular institution That onely a Congregational Church is of Christs institution That a true Ministry cannot be in a false Church That a prescibed form of prayer by men is unlawful That we may not use any thing in Gods worship which hath been composed by Popes or used in the Church of Rome with many more whereof many are shewed in this answer to be false or uncertain and insufficient for this Authours separation and the fallacy of them manifested in so many other Treatises of Conformists and non-conformists extant in Print that I need not add any more in this place 32. On the other side the Ministers of the Church of England have so sufficiently proved the truth of their Ministry against Papists and Separatists and so firmly by wrirting and otherwise opposed Popery even the Prelates whom the Separatists do so much cry down as Antichristian Popish c. that were not men resolved never to lay down a calumny they have once taken up they would lay this down and forbear pressing separation upon such exceptions and imputations as this Authour hath gathered together in this his dung-cart to furnish the inconsiderate though perhaps otherwise well-minded in matters of Religion to cast into their faces 33 If it be not lawful to hear the present Ministers because they are not rightly Elected Ordained in and by a Congregational Church according to Christs institution as this Authour conceives or because they use the Common-prayer-book are faulty in their lives or some evil consequences as offence of some Saints contempts of some ways of God by accident ensue thereupon then it will follow that every hearer before he hears a Minister must 1. be able to judge of the validity of these Reasons whether they can warrant his not hearing 2. He must be able to judge every Minister or Preacher he hears whether he be rightly thus Elected Ordained or qualified 3. He must actually examine him afore he hears him 4. He must have power either to silence or withdraw from him if he be not so qualified and must use that power But 1. Such ability is not in every hearer nor indeed is it as the estate of things in this life is ordinarily possible it should be 2. Then Ministers Preaching and Ministry should be at the will of their Auditors For if one may forbear hearing all may upon the same reason and so
pretence whatsoever nor in any other sin by joyning in the practice and if the present worship of the Ministers of England be any such fornication or the hearing or joyning with them must be a partaking with them in any sin so farre at least they are to be separated from But neither the Texts alledged nor any other do require separation from the worship of God or the Ministers that are in some things corrupt even in their ministration when Hophai and Phinehas did corrupt the worship of God yet Samuel did lawfully minister before the Lord and Hannah did well in presenting him thereto and her self at the solemn Feasts and even-while there was burning incense and sacrificing in the High places those of Judah were not to separate from the service at Jerusalem which was to God and though the High Priests were unduly set up and sundry corruptions and superstitions in the Pharisees and the services of the Jews in our Lord Christs time on Earth yet did our Lord Christ joyn in the publick service of the Temple and perswaded the cleansed Leper to offer to them the gift that Moses commanded Wherefore I inferr that though there should be some degree of Corruption in Worship and that this should be a breach upon the soveraign Authority of God as every sin is and a grievous sin it is yet this might not be a sufficient cause of separation from the Worship Church or Ministers of it and that the allegation of the Texts produced will not be sufficient for the design of this Author in urging separation from the Ministers and Church of England But let us further attend his motions He adds Sect. 14. The arguing by analogy in positive rites not rational What may rationally be inferred from these positions so evidently comprized in the Scripture and by way of Analogy at least may be argued from them is evident to any ordinary understanding for our parts being resolved as was said to trie out the matter in controversie from such rules and soveraign Institutions as our dear Lord hath left his New Testament Churches to walk by we shall not stand to make that improvement of them as otherwise we might A few Queries upon the whole that hath been offered shall put a close to this Preface Answ. Whether the positions before set down be evidently comprised in the Scripture may be perceived by the examination of them what may be rationally inferred from them for his purpose of condemning the hearing the present Ministers of England is not evident to my understanding which I do not conceive to be any other than ordinary As for arguing by way of Analogy from the institutions of the Old Testament to those of the New Testament from supposed parity of reason how little rationality or force there is therein I presume he may perceive if he read the second part of the Review of my Dispute about Paedobaptism Sect. 2.3 wherein how infirm the way of arguing from such Analogy is is so far evinced that I judge that if the improvement he thinks he might make of his positions for his purpose be by that way of proof it will be found insufficient by an ordinary understanding whether he hath kept to his resolution of tiying the matter in controversie by the rules and institutions of the New Testament will appear by the examining of the ensuing Discourse I judge that to be the way whereby to settle mens Consciences about mere positive Duties or Sins under the Gospel and therefore am resolved to pursue his dispute pede pes yet clearing the way by considering his Queries in a velitary Skirmish before I set upon his Triarii or main Battle Sect. 15. The first Querie about a National Instituted Church answered His first Querie is Whether since the Apotomy or Unchurching the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath ever since so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his Church Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel If so Let it be shewed when and where it was instituted by the Lord What is produced by some to this purpose is but upon a slight view thereof of no moment it is Isa. 49.21 Kings shall be your Nursing Fathers c. which Prophesie waits the time of its accomplishment hitherto both before and since the rise of Antichrist being made drunk by the Whores intoxicating Cup they have been for the most part cruel Butchers of the Saints and were we under its accomplishment a National Church would be far enough from being its result Of a Nations being born at once we shall not sure hear pleaded in this matter it being a Prophesie expresly relating to the Jews and their miraculous conversion if there be no such thing as a National Church of the Institution of Christ as most certain it is there is not the assertion whereof is wholly destructive of Gospel Administrations then Answ. As King James in his Remonstrance against Cardinal Perons Oration saith that the appellation and name of the Church serveth in this corrupt Age as a Cloak to cover a thousand new inventions meaning this of the Popish party so may we say also of others that by reason of the ambiguous use of the appellation and name of the Church and the dictates of men about it the minds of many are perplexed and perverted Wherefore in answering this first Querie which the Separatists do so much harp upon it is necessary that there be a distinct understanding of the notion of the Church and its Institution The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by use is now almost appropriated to the Christian Church hath been variously used both in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament in the Apocryphal Writings and in the New Testament It seems to me of little concernment in the present question to collect them all the Queries to be answered beâ—ng of the New Testament use Now in the New Testament excepting what I find Act. 19.32 39 40. where it is applied to Assemblies of Unbelievers whether tumultuary or orderly and Act. 7.38 where it is applied to the Congregation of Israel in the Wilderness in all places in the Acts of the Apostles the Epistles of the Apostles and Revelation of St. John it is meant so far as I discern of the Christians or People of God or their Meeting or Assembly As it notes the Christian Believers or People of God so it is taken sometimes for the Universal Church whether invisible or visible as 1 Cor. 12.28 Heb. 12.23 Ephes. 1.22 sometimes for the visible Church indefinitely but not universally as 1 Cor. 15.9 sometimes for the Church Topical and then it is taken for the Church of a City or Town or House and so we read of the Church at Jerusalem Act 8.1 of Corinth Ephesus c. in Philemons house Philem. 2. or of a Country or Nation and then
Elders who were worthy of double honour 1 Tim. 5.17 had some preeminence above the rest nor doth the relation of Brotherhood hinder but that though in respect of the common Faith all of them are equal yet some may have some Power or Office committed to them which others have not and so may have authority over them That some Offices or Services may be added to those mentioned may be gathered from 2 Cor. 8.19 whether all the Officers or Offices be rightly ordered in the Church of England is not our present enquiry Much hath been said before in answer to the second and third Chapters of this writing which need not be here repeated That the present Ministers of England have neither name nor thing required by Christ in this law is notoriously false the names of Pastors Teachers or Doctors Deacons or Ministers and the Office of Preaching the Gospel continues therein both in the name and thing That they have set up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of Christs authority cannot be said but very unrighteously nor do the alterations or additions any more prove it then the setting up Catechists or Expositors or Lecturers in the primitive or later times proves open defiance and contempt of Christs authority He goes on in the same vein of crimination thus Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the Common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment 5. That these Officers be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ and solemnly set apart by Fasting and Prayer this is evidently comprised in the ensuing Scriptures Act. 1.15 and 6 1 2 3 5. and 14.23 and 1.23 26. and 9.26 27. In conformity whereunto we find the Saints for many centuries of years after Christ in the peaceable possession of this their priviledge and right Clemens in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth p 57. saith Our Apostles also knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that Contention will be about the name of Episcopal charge Therefore for this reason having received a full predetermination they constituted such as were forenominated and in their instructive distribution delivered that if they were negligent other approved men should receive their Ministration being ordained by them or in the mean time by other choice men all the Church consenting thereunto Yea afterwards let some one among you Ingenious Merciful filled with Love speak if through me Faction and Contention Schisms I will depart Of which if you are willing I return and will do the things appointed by the multitude Wherein he fully asserts the priviledge of the Church or People of Christ we are pleading for And afterwards during the raign of Antichrist Christ hath not left himself without a witness nor his people without Champions to plead their right in this matter To instance but in a few That lively witness of Christ Martin Luther loudly proclaims That the voice of the People ought not to be severed from the chusing of Ecclesiastical persons And long before him Cyprian who lived about 260 years after Christ sayes Plebs obsequens c. The people that obey the commands of God and fear him ought to separate themselves from a wicked Pastor seeing the people themselves chiefly have either power to chuse Pastors that are worthy or to refuse those that be unworthy Cypr. Epist. 68. and tells us plainly That this is bottomed upon the authority of God That that is a just and lawful Ordination which is tryed by the judgment and voice of all viz. that fear and obey God Of the same mind long after was Francis Lambard the Companion of Luther in Germany in the Preface of his Book intituled The sum of Christianity who sayes Verily every Parish ought to have his proper Bishop the which should be chosen by the People and confirmed by the Commonalty of every Parish who if they swerve one jot or tittle from the Doctrine of the Gospel of the Kingdom ought to be deposed by the people and others more fit to be elected by them And in Chap. 5. of the said Book he professes That 't is the most gievous crime and by no means to be suffered that many children of Perdition do deprive the people of God of their just right and title viz. to chuse them a Pastor Peter Martyr in his common places refers the chusing and election of Ministers to the People as their undoubted right To whom we may joyn Mr. Bullinger who sayes That the Apostles exercised not tyranny in the Church in Ordaining Ministers without the consent of the People Bullin Decad. 5. Serm. 4. Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5. Gualter also upon Act. 1.25 saith That those that profess the Gospel handle the matter as evil as the Monks and Popish Bishops in that they restore not again to the Church the liberty of chusing Ministers which by tyranny they took from them Of the same mind is Zanchie Calvin Beza Danaeus Tilenus Tyndal the Martyr with many others as Mr. Fox Cartwright Mr. Jacob c. We cannot omit the famous case of the united Brethren of Bohemia who concluding the whole Papacy to be purely Antichristian could not allow of the Ordination of their Ministers by any in communion with it and yet being perswaded of a necessity of continuing that Ordinance in a way of succession send some of the Greek and Armenian Churches who returning with dissatisfaction they thereupon commit themselves and their cause to God and chuse Elders from among themselves and by Fasting and Prayer solemnly set them apart to the work of the Preaching of the Gospel To these many more might be added The practice pleaded for as is evident is as antient as the dayes of the Apostles and the first election of ordinary New-Testament Officers continued in the Church till after the dayes of Constantine when Pride and Tyranny soon brought all things into horrible Confusion upon the pretext of Decency and Order yet in the worst of times have the witnesses of Christ born their testimony hereunto What say our Reverend Fathers and Ministers of the Church of England to these things Have they not an equal respect to this appointment of Christ as to those before instanced in Is there any thing like it almost practised by them in this great concern of separating persons for the Preaching of the Gospel of Christ Is not the liberty of the Brethren and Churches of Christ as much as lies in them wholly disanulled and broken by them Have they any such Call to the Ministry Do they at all value or esteem of it Are they in the practice of the Primitive Church or of the Reformed Churches of this day in this matter Is not the print of the feet of the old Strumpet of Rome the bloody persecutor of the Saints the cunning Deviser of a new self-invented and whorish Worship to be solely found in the paths they are in this matter traversing and can such be accounted as the subjects of the