hearing of the word of God are reckoned and art 6. God is to be worshipped as in private families daily and in secret each one by himself so more solemnly in the publick assemblies which are not carelesly nor wilfully to be neglected or forsaken when God by his word or providence calleth thereunto Upon which and other suppositions it concerns every tender conscience which receiveth these principles to consider how they can acquit themselves from not observing the Lords day in publick assemblies where God is invocated in the name of Christ and the word of God truly taught especially in such places where they may enjoy these performed by the present Ministers and are deprived of their former Ministers and communion and cannot of themselves discharge these duties That which this Authour answers doth not solve the doubt That such persons conceive they cannot spend the Lords day without hearing is not out of any Idolizing the Ordinances of God but from those grounds which are by the declaration afore named and the generality of zealous Preacher pressed upon Christians That it is one duty of sanctifying the Lords day not onely to abstain from labour which makes onely Sabbatum asinorum a Sabbath that beasts have as well as men nor onely to exercise themselves in reading and prayer at home for that is every days duty but also to frequent the publick assemblies where God is worshipped which this Authour conceives injoyned Heb. 10.25 and is gathered from Exod. 20.8 Acts 20.7 Revel 1.10 1 Cor. 16.1.2 John 20.19.26 That many persons cannot in many places find such assemblies of the Saints as this Authour means is a thing out of doubt with me Were publick hearing a sin I confess it were better to do nothing than do that But that is not yet proved and I think it fit to acquaint the Reader That Mr. Norton of New England in that Answer to Apollonius his questions which is commended by Mr. Cotton Dr. Thomas Goodwin Mr. Philip Nye and Mr. Sidrach Simpson ch 13. doth thus determine Such things being observed as are to be observed it may be lawful to use forms of prayers administrations of Sacraments c. prescribed in the Church neither are the Churches which use them guilty of superstition will-worship and violating the second Commandment yea it is lawful to embrace communion with them where such forms in the publick worship are in use neither doth it lie as a duty on a believer that he separate and disjoyn himself from such a Church unless he would partake in the superstitious worship of Images Communion with a Church quâ utitur as it useth worship of it self unlawful is unlawful communion with a Church quae utitur which useth it to wit in other lawful worship is lawful and separation from it is unlawfull And to shew how evil the counsel of this Authour is to men to spend the Lord's day in a corner idle at home rather then go to hear in publick I think good to subjoyn some words of Mr John Paget in his Preface to the Christian Reader before his Book Intituled An Arrow against the separation of the Brownists Of the Brownists there are sundry sorts some separate from the Church of England for corruptions and yet confess both it and Rome and it also to be a true Church as the followers of Mr. Johnson Christian Plea p. 216 217. Some renounce the Church of England as a false Church and yet allow private communion with the godly therein as Mr. Robinson Justifie p. 339 340 247. and his followers Relig. Com. p. 1. c. Some renounce all religious communion both publique and private with any Member of that Church whosoever as Mr. Ainsworth Counterpoy pag. 197. and such as hearken unto him being deepest and stiffest in their Schism The evil of this separation is great First The minds of many are troubled and distracted hereby even of such as do not separate but have some liking thereof especially if it be true which Mr. Robinson writes of them Relig. comm preface to wit That they seeing it not to be for their purposes that the world should so esteem of them do undoubtedly strain and wring the neck of their consciences and courses to look the contrary way c. What can be more miserable then to have the necks of consciences thus broken by the doctrine of separation Secondly for those that separate but do not yet joyn unto them or being joyned do withhold from actual communion living alone and hearing the word of God in no Church as some do How great is their misery also Mr. Robinson himself ibid. p. 36.39 shews it at large noâ—ing them to be Idol-members such as break the commandment of Christ loose the fruit of his ascension and fail their own edification and salvation many ways c. Thirdly for those that being enjoyned to them do also live with them seeing they have in effect excommunicate themselves from all other Churches of Christ and consequently from the fellowship of Christ Jesus himself and from the participation of his grace and glory so far as he reveals the same by dwelling in those Churches It is therefore no wonder to hear Mr. Johnson treat on Matt. 18. Preface A. 2. complaining of the evils among them as emulation debate and other sins which daily arise and spread themselves to the great dishonour of God c. As for the directions given by this Authour how to spend at home the Lords day some of them are such as weak persons women and novices cannot make use of it yea they would be dangerous to them occasioning them to fall into errours Enthusiastick conceits some of them Antinomians count unnecessary and those that are good yet by the deprivation of society and publick teaching and heavily performed and they that take such courses do either very frequently decay in the exercise of godliness grow barren and liveless in prayer and holy conferences or turn Seekers Quakers Ranters Censurers Scoffers Libertines However were they all used yet they solve not the doubt arising from those principles which require publick hearing for hallowing the Lords day which is to be observed not onely for the benefit of our own edification but also for the glory of God and testification of our profession which is not done by private exercise of Religion And although some persons may more benefit themselves in knowledge by reading at home yet the example hinders others from the use of the publick Ordinances whereto we should by our practice encourage them For these and other reasons often urged by those who have been for separation it is not to be expected that such private exercises should be blessed or accepted of God when the publick are to be performed Both certainly should be done in their seasons not one exclude the other I have thus answered all I find in this Authour and do joyn with him in referring the thing to the Reader who if he will not cheat his
them receiving the Sacraments from them or breaking Bread in the Lords Supper with them or submitting to them or joyning in Ecclesiastical Discipline with them which is in effect to make an utter separation from them as no members of a Christian Church Now this assertion shews not a dram of Christian Love but very much antipathy in him who denies not p. 93. but that there are some amongst the present Preachers of this day that are good men and methinks he should tremble to exclude such from Gospel Communion here from whose Company he would be loath to be excluded hereafter But he doth not insanire sine ratione He implies in his first reason that giving up of our selves each to other he means by Church-covenant in the Congregational way is according to the Will of God and Primitive example which is either explicitely or implicitely to engage themselves one to another to walk together and to hold Communion in all Gospel Ordinances I will not say this is unlawful nor at no time necessary but that it is according to Gods Will by way of Institution for Church Communion or according to any Primitive example I do not yet find Gods Command for such a Church Covenant I remember not to have found alledged nor Primitive example besides 2 Cor. 8.5 which is far from the purpose the Macedonians giving their own selves to the Lord and then to Paul and Timothy by the Will of God being no Covenant between themselves to walk together in Christian Communion but a free addicting themselves to the Ministry to the poor Saints elsewhere in Judaea by making a Collection very liberally for them and urging St. Paul and Timothy to prosecute the Collection at Corinth with offer of assistance of some of their own to that end And the assertion whence such a Brother-hood doth result is groundless For though some have made the Church Covenant the Form of a particular Instituted Church as Mr. Norton in his Answer to Apollonius Ch. 2 c. and thence deduced the right to Communion and the relation of Brother-hood yet the Scripture makes all who hold the same Faith and are Baptized into Christ to be Brethren and Members of all the Churches of the World Gal. 3.26 27 28 29. 1 Cor. 12.12 13. and 10.16 17. Ephes. 4.4 5 6. whence it follows that the assertion of the resultance of Brother-hood in respect of Gospel Communion from such giving up of themselves each to other is opposite to the unity of Christians and doth rather tend to make particular Churches particular Parties than to advance the Communion of Saints in the Catholick Church Dr. Ames is more charitable Trip. p. 523. I doubt not to say according to my conscience that among those which live under the tyranny of the Pope and do not utterly separate from him through ignorance there be many Christians sincere according to their knowledge belonging to the true Catholick Church and so to be accounted our godly Brethren 2. Saith he We cannot as things stand perform the duties of Brethren to them according to Mat. 18. nor will they or can they in the state in which they stand to us Answ. This Reason depends upon many uncertainties if no Errours of which I have said somewhat before in Answer to the Preface Sect. 15. in the Addition to my Apologie Sect. 17. and much more is in Grot. Annot. in Mat. 18.15 16 17. Selden de Syned Ebrae lib. 1 c. 9. where it is argued that Mat. 18.17 cannot be understood of such Ecclesiastical censure as is now in use Certainly without all shew of reason the term Church Mat. 18.17 is restrained to a particular Instituted Church in the Congregational way as the Phrase is and the term Brother to one that is a member of such a Church and to say that men of the Principles with this Author concerning the Independent Discipline cannot as things stand perform the duties of Brethren to the best of the present Ministers of England whereof some are by him confessed to be good men according to Mat. 18. nor will they or can they in the state in which they stand to them is in effect to profess the same hatred or distance as the Scripture notes to have been between the Jews and Samaritans Joh. 4.9 contrary to Christs Doctrine in the Parable of the wounded man Luke 10.37 in that thereby is denied to one another the greatest work of Mercy commanded Levit. 19.17 Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him But he goes on 3. If we acknowledge the best of them for such we must also acknowledge the worst of them For 1. They are all members of the same Church 2. Profess themselves to be one Brother-hood so saith their Rime upon the Lords Prayer Our Father which in Heaven art And makest us all one Brother-hood c. Answ. Gospel Communion is either private or publick There is private Gospel Communion in private reproof and I think as bad as the worst of the present Ministers of England be they are to be accounted by real though perhaps they be not by Pharisaically minded reputed Saints as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion Even towards them is to be that exhortation Gal. 6.1 Brethren if a man be overtaken in a fault ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness considering thy self lest thou also be tempted which sure humble Saints do There is private Gospel Communion in opening their minds one to another as it is said Mal. 3.16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another and this St. James requires James 5.16 Confess your faults one to another and pray one for another that ye may be healed Now concerning this it follows not if we acknowledge the best of the present Ministers of England as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion we must also acknowledge the worst of them Publick Gospel Communion may be in hearing them praying with him praising God receiving the Lords Supper exercising with them or submitting to them in respect of Church Discipline In some of these at least I know no sufficient reason why the Saints may not account the worst of the present Ministers of England as Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion Judas might be heard as an Apostle and if he were a Communicant at the Lords Supper as Mr. Seldens discourse in his first Book Chap. 9. de Syned Ebraeorum seems to me to evince there is warrant to receive the Lords Supper with the worst of them We find that those that made acclamation to Christ when he rode into Jerusalem were a mixt multitude of Disciples Children and such as came to the Feast though it is likely they were not Disciples viz. those Greeks that desired to see Jesus as may be gathered by comparing Mat. 21.9 15. Luke 19.37 Joh. 1.12 20 21. Yet our Lord Christ himself justified their
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
daughters that did prophesie Acts 29.1 mention is made of the woman praying or prophesying 1 Cor. 11.5 we cannot exclude them from extraordinary Ministry when God gives such a gift nor sith Priscilla instructed Apollos Acts 18.26 can we exclude them from private teaching of the most able if they be fitted thereto Sect. 9. Receiving the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of the abstaining from appearance of evil 1 Thess. 5.22 10. That the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling which is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof Mark 14.18 22 23. and positive precept as being what hath an appearance of evil in it being a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Breadâ—n god 1 Thess. 5.22 as also to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after to the time of the invention and the introduction of the Popish Breaden god not to mention its contrariety to the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches if not all at this day Answ. This Constitution and the subscription to it by the present Ministers of England cannot be denied nor that it hath been a great stumbling block to many persons and as great a cause of separation from the Communion as it is ministred in the Church of England as any other thing But that it is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution of the Lords Supper is denied by them For though it is said Mark 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate as they sate yet it is denied that this gesture is mentioned as binding Christians to the the same gesture in the use of the Lords Supper in subsequent times 1. Because this gesture seems not to have been of choice used by Chrisâ— that thence he might prescribe the same gesture he used in the Institution making his example in this as a constant rule but it seems rather to have been used occasionally because it was instituted after the Paschal Supper at which they used that gesture as they did eat Mat. 26.26 Mark 14.22 2. Because St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 where he saith he delivered to them what he received of the Lord he omits the mention of Christs gesture which he would not have done if he had judged it binding and necessary to Christians 3. He mentions the night in which Christ was betrayed v. 23. that he took the cup after he had supped v. 25. Luke 22. â—0 and it it is not judged necessary that the Lords Supper should be either annually on the night in which he was betrayed or weekly or monethly in the night or after supper no not though it be termed by the Apostle the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.20 therefore with 〈◊〉 reason the gesture should be urged by them as obligatory 4. If the gesture Christ used be obligatory to Christians then they must use the self same gesture he used but that was neither sitting nor standing which are used by the opposers of Kneeling but lying along on beds as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Mark 14.18 intimates and is gathered from Joh. 13.23 and other relations of the use of those times which I think will not be denied it being by the learned generally acknowledged See Ainsworth on Exod. 12.8 And so kneeling is no more directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof than other gestures nor however it be different from his practice then can it be truly said to be directly opposite to his practice unless he had commanded the gesture he then used to be observed or forbidden by his practice at that time kneeling The positive precept 1 Thess. 5.22 is urged very importunely not only in this point of knâ—eling at the Lords Supper but also very frequently on many other occasions in Sermons Writings and Conferences to deterr persons especially of scrupulous Consciences and weak Understandings from any thing to which persons and practices are disaffected and therefore for the setling of such persons judgment as are not averse to the unlearning their mistakes as I did many years since in my Book of Scandalizing cap. 4. sect 23. somewhat fully open the meaning of that Text so I shall again with some enlargement in this place it being no grievance to me to write the same things again but necessary and so much the rather because Mr. Henry Jeans in his second Edition of his Tract upon this Subject gives me occasion to examine more exactly the meaning of this Precept The chief difficulty is concerning 1. The Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Concerning the appearance of evil which we are to abstain from and how far we are by that precept bound to abstain from it 1. Concerning the Translation it is doubted whether it should not be rather read abstain from every kind or sort of evil answering to genus and species as Cicero renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as Porphyry in his Isagoge Aristotle Plato and other Logicians use it That it may be so saith Mr. Jeans Mat. Flac. Illyricus and Beza determine that it is so the Syriack Interpreter and after him Faber and after them our own great and learned Doctour Hammond resolve But I would fain know upon what ground they are thus singular against the current both of an Ancient and Modern Expositors Wherein he might have been satisfied from Dr. Hammonds own words in his Annot. on the place where having said the meaning will be from all sort or the whole kind of evil from all that is truly so be it never so small according to that in Pirke avoth be as careful in the keeping a light as a heavy Commandement to this sense he cites St. Basil on the beginning of the Proverbs Theophylact and Leonâ—ius But saith Mr. Jeans It is used but four times in the New Testament besides this place and in none of them in a Logical notion It is true and it is true also that in none of them it is taken in his sense for an appearance to the understanding but either for the shape or representation to the sight or the sight it self as it is rendred 2 Cor. â— 7. However it is sufficient for the justifying of the Translation that it is used in that notion not only in other Greek Authors but also in Ecclesiasticus ch 23.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two sorts of men ch 25.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three sorts of men and in the LXX Version Jer. 15 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 four kinds which acception is enforced by this reason which out of St. Basil Dr. Hammond thus expresseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 21. try all things being taken from Merchants that which is evil v. 22. is opposed to that which will upon trial bear the touch A good Merchant will keep that which is good unadulterate metal but will
other may be said to be Idolaters the hearts of the best men 〈◊〉 too often going forth too farr in desires after and secret dependence upon things beneath the Lord which yet they are watching and warring against waiting and longing for the day in which they shall be câ—mpleatly swallowed up in the will of God T is in respect of the sâ—cond particular before instanc'd in that we assert the present Ministers of England to be Idolaters To the proof whereof we now addâ—ess ourselves Answ. The Conclusion is not the same with that which at first Ch. 1. was undertaken to be defended That it is not lawful for the Saints to hear the present Ministers of England nor doth it necessarily follow that if we may not have communion with persons nor own them as our teachers but separate from them That we may not hear them preach the Gospel An excommunicate person I am not to have communion with nor to own the Teachers of forreign Churches as suppose the Lutheran as my teachers yea I may be bound to separate from such as suppose a Popish Priest as Jansenist preaching the doctrine of original sin of efficacious grace or the Gospel concerning redemption by the blood of Christ whom yet I may lawfully hear handling those truths according to the received doctrine of St. Augustin Nor is the maâ—or true if the Idolatry be in that way which he here calls Idolatry the worshipping of God in any other way than what he hath prescribed nor if the Idolatry be secret and not open nor though it be open if by infirmity he fall into it and repents or be not censured as such or teacheth nor such Idolatry nor requires any communion with him in his Idolatry Nor do the Texts prove his maâ—or 1 Cor. 5 11. forbids no oâ—her communion than eating and that eating which might be with Idolaters of this wâ—â—ld v. 10 and therefore not eating the Lords Supper Nor doth it any moâ—e forbid eating with a Bâ—other called an 〈◊〉 than with a Brother called a fornicatour or covetous 〈…〉 or an extortioner and therefore if this Text prove a necessity of separation from such in holy exercises as Prayer or the Lords Supper it forbids doing these things with a covetous person or railer and then a Christian Brother must have cognizance of such sins and be a Judge of every one he communicates with which were absurd and therefore it can be meant of no other than arbitrary familiar converse as in eating where I am at liberty to eat or not to eat and of private judgement of discretion which each one is to exercise in the choice of his company But nothing to the owning of a Teacher or shunning to hear him For here the person is considered only as a Brother not a Teacher in Office 1 Cor. 10 14. is less to the purpose for it requires only to flee from Idolatry not from Teachers that are any way Idolatrous so as not to hear them 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16 17 18. requires not to be yoaked with Infidels not to have part with them not to agree with Idols to come out from among Infidels to be separate not to touch the unclean thing that is the Idol which may be done and yet a person some way guilty of Idolatry may be heard yea owned as our Teacher and we may have some communion with him in holy things as in Prayer and the Lords Supper and praising God which are not Idolatrous That which is premised by this Author before his confirmation of the minor requires some Animadversions upon it The definition of Idolatry which hitherto hath been received by all Protestants that I know of is that which Dr. John Rainold hath delivered in his 2 d. Book de Idololatria Ecclesiae Romanae c. 1. that it is the exhibiting of Divine Worship to a Creature and hath proved it from Rom. 1.25 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be read instead of the Creatour as explained by the Authors of the writing of the Constitutions of Clemens by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is cited by Grotius in his Annot. or Praeterito Creatore the Creatour being forsaken or neglected as Beza after Hilarius or besides the Creatour as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides that which is laid 1 Cor. 3 11. or as the Vulgar Potius quam Creatori rather than to the Creatour or as ours more than the Creatour shews that there is a worship and service proper to the Creatour and herein was the Idolatry of the Gentiles and all other that they worshipped and served the creature with that which was due only to the Creatour And therefore I conceive it not to be Idolatry where Divine Worship is not exhibited to a creature that is directed to some person or thing substance or accident real or imagined which is not the Creatour of all things It is true that Heathen-Idolaters did many of them make the Creatour of all the utmost bound or terminus of their Image-worship as the Apostle saith Acts 17.23 that the Athenians did ignorantly worship the unknown God and yet were Idolaters because their worship was first of the Image as the next terminus or object to which it was exhibited And the same is true of the Israelites worshipping of the calf though they worshipped God in it Exod. 32.5 because though they did not worship the Calf terminatively that is so as to intend to direct their worship to it as the utmost bound of it or last or chief object yet it was the molten Image which they worshipped Psal. 106.19 Exod. 32.8 It is indeed most gross and absurd Idolatry when the creature is worshipped terminatively and therefore the worship of Baal is accounted worse than the worship of the golden calves at Dan and Bethel 1 Kings 16.31 because it was terminated lastly to the Sun or to the Devil who was worshipped by Molech to whom they sacrificed their Sons and Daughters Psal. 106.37 38. And this Idolatry was the Idolatry of the Canaanites and a great part of the world and of the Jewes at last as St. Stephen chargeth them with Acts 7.41 42 43. Nor do I think it true which this Author here and p. 63. saith that there are few or none that worship the creature Terminative sith not only of old the host of Heaven was worshipped by most of the Idolaters as may be gathered out of the Scriptures and is largely demonstrated by Mâ— Selden in his Syntagma de Diis Syris but also at this day the Devil himself is worshipped in the East and West-Indies in some Northern Countries and Southern if the relation of Travellers Historians and Chorographers be true It is granted that it is somewhat more refined Idolatry when we offer up any worship or homage proper and due to God only before any creature as the medium or representative of God For then the worship is directed to it as Gods Deputy to receive it for him and so the
sufficient reason of separation but such as this Author who is indeed with others like minded the true Scandalizer or he by whom the offence cometh or else it is the offended persons own inference from the real or imaginary actions of their Brethren of a necessity of separation that scandalizeth him That which this Author brings here is farr from a Demonstration We find Revel 18.4 that St. John heard a voice from Heaven saying Come out of herâ— my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues But to â—erch out of this passage this Proposition Christ commands them to separate from every thing of Antichrist and to inferr this conclusion and therefore from his ministry needs a Delian Diver or cunning Alchymist or Sophister that can deduce quidlibet ex quolibet It is plain that the Exhortation is to goe out of Rome called Babylon ch 17 18. Nor do I gainsay that it is meant of it as it is corrupted by the Papacy Nor do I question but the Papal monarchy is an Antichristian state and that though the plain meaning is no more but that Gods people whereof I doubt not some are and will be in Rome when it shall be destroyed should abandon that place afore it be destroyed to avoid participation of its sins and plagues yet too it may be understood of communion with the Papacy in their Idolatry and Heresies But it is a wild conceit to make every thing done or used by Popes to be a thing of Antichrist much more is it to make the ministry of the Ministers of England the ministry of the Pope when it is so directly contrary to the Pope and Popish Doctrine and Worship expresly abjured and abhorred by them How frivolous his proofs are of the present Ministers opposing visibly Christs Kingshâ—p having the characters of false Prophets of being guilty of Idolatry is shewed already What the frame of the spirits of the present Conformists is or hath been God only who is the searcher of hearts is fit to judge what their principles were formerly and are now is to be known either by those that have conversed with them or heard them preach or read their writings sure every sincere Lamb of Christ is neither fit nor able to judge or examine the truth of any number of Conformists spirits or principles and therefore if these alterations which are here mentioned be the ground of the offence that is taken against them it cannot be a just ground of their taking offence If it were there were just ground of offence given to separate from the Separatists Not to mention what of old was charged upon the Brownists whose spirits and principles were such as made many as holy persons as England yielded to dehort the godly from joyning with them in their way of Separation Nor what either Mr. Edwards in his Gangraena or Mr. Baillee in his Disswasive or Mr. Weld in his Story of the Antinomians have written of the state of the Congregational Churches The Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches in the Preface to their Dâ—claration of their Faith and Order in their meeting at the Savoy Octob 12. 1658. say It is true That many sad miscarriages divisions breaches fallings off from holy Ordinances of God have along this time of tentation been found in some of our Churches yet they do not at all stumble us as to the truth of our way had they been many more And avow this as their great Principle That amongst all Christian States and Churches there ought to be vouchsafed a forbearance and mutual indulgence unto Saints of all perswasions that keep unto and hold fast the necessary Foundations of Faith and Holiness in all other matters extra fundamental whether of Faith or Order Mr. Weld in his Answer to Mr. Rathband heretofore denied not the Congregations Parochial in England to be true Churches though impure And Mr Norton in his Answer to Appollonius ch 16. saith We reject the Separatists who distinguish not between the Church and the Impurities of the Church Whence the great crime of Schism Yet this Author not considering that the Congregational men disclaim his rigid separation avows separation as commanded by Christ from the Church of England as no true Church and condemns hearing the present Ministers as the Ministers of Antichrist though they preach the Gospel of Christ because of some defects conceived in their calling and some impurities real or imaginary in their worship as if it were saying A Confederacy forbidden Isai. 8 12. and a just ground of offence given to the sincere Lambs of Christ in that they do not separate from the Assemblies of England But he hath not yet done but adds Sect. 6. The Separatists give more just cause of Offence to godly sober Christians than the Conformists do to them If it be yet further said Obiect 2. But if I do not goe to hear the Preachers of this day many truly godly and sober Christians will be offended at my forbearance so that whether I hear or whether I forbear I shall offend To this I answer 1 That granting the case to be as is suggested though perhaps somewhat else upon a serious and strict search may be found to lye at the bottom of our Conformity beyond what is here pleaded I am very apt to believe were but a Toleration granted t is not the fear of offending any would cause our conforming Brethren to attend upon the ministry of the present Priests of England Yet supposing it to be as is intimated we ask 1. Do you look upon your going to hear as your duty or meerly as your liberty If the first let it be proved from any positive precept of Christ and we are satisfied if the second you are bound by many solemn injunctions which are at least reduceable to the moral Law not to use your liberty to scandalize your Brethren 2. Let both parties be weighed in an upright ballance such as you judge to be offended with you for not hearing and such as are offended thereat I am bold to say That the last mentioned for number holiness spirituality and tenderness do farr surmount the former who will really be scandalized at your forbearance 3. Let also the grounds of the offence on both sides be weighed the one are offended at you That you build not up in practise in a day of trouble and cause thereby the enemies of the Lord to triumph and blaspheme what in a day of liberty you did in your preaching and practice pull down and destroy The other because of your disobedience to what they are satisfied and you your selves once were God is calling you to viz. to have nothing to do with separate from this generation of men But 4. That t is your duty especially if in a Church-relation to meet together as a people called and picked by the Lord out of the Nations of the world cannot be denied The neglect of which is
THEODVLIA OR A JUST DEFENCE Of HEARING the SERMONS And other Teaching of the present Ministers of England Against a Book unjustly entituled in Greek A Christian testimony against them that serve the Image of the Beast In English A Christian and sober Testimony against sinful Complyance Wherein the unlawfulness of Hearing the present Ministers of England is pretended to be clearly demonstrated by an Author termed by himself Christophilus Antichristomachus By JOHN TOMBES B.D. Luke 9.49 50. And John answered and said Master We saw one casting out Devils in thy name and we forbade him because he followeth not with us And Jesus said unto him Forbid him not for he that is not against us is for us LONDON Printed by E. Cotes for Henry Eversden under the Crown Tavern in West-Smithfield 1667. PErlegi hunc librum cui titulus Theodulia in quo nihil reperio doctrinae disciplinaeve Ecclesiae Anglicanae aut bonis morihus contrarium Joh. Hall S. T. B. Rev. in Christo Patri Humfredo D. Episc. Lond. à sac dom Ex aedibus Fulhamiens Calend. Maii 1667. To the Right Honourable EDWARD EARL of CLARENDON Lord Chancellour of ENGLAND THE great favour your Honour hath vouchsafed me and the great Candour your ingenuity hath shewed in accepting some former Writings have imboldned me to present this also to your hands not only that it might be some part of a plea for my self as not averse from Union and Peace but also that it may somewhat conduce to a closing of that miserable breach which that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Basil termed it the unmeasurable drawing things in contrary ways hath made among us as hoping that though difference of Opinions should be incurable yet the discords of Protestants of the same Faith are not incurable To the remedy of which no person after his Majesty by reason of your eminent authority and prudence is likely to contribute more than your self Whereto if the Lord make your Lordship instrumental it may be so blessed a work as may tend much to your Honour and comfort in the day of the resignation of your spirit into the hand of him that gave it The sad face of things in Europe chiefly by reason of differences about Religion makes it seem a deplorable thing and should move every right-hearted Christian to endeavour the composing of Differences salva veritate that a deluge of Popery or Mahometanism may not overwhelm us As for my self I expect no other event than obloquy from persons of this Authors mind and such like it being the usual lot of men that seek to part a fray to displease both parties though I am not conscious to my self that I have herein written or done any thing which might be a just grievance to any my study being neither to uphold a rising party nor to depress the dejected but to promote Truth and the publick Peace to which I have addicted my self and in order thereto subscribe my self Your Honours devoted and deeply obliged Servant in our Lord John Tombes TO THE CHRISTIAN READERS Especially those to whom at any time I have Preached the Word of God Sect. 1. Prefaces needful by reason of Readers prejudice IT was the Order of the Court of Areopagites at Athens that Pleas before them should be without Proems lest their passions being stirred by Oratory their judgment should be perverted and favourable inclination to a person should cause a sentence to be passed by them not congruous to the merit of the cause And it were well if in all Controversies about matters of Religion there were so strict a Law observed that in all disputes whether by Writing or Conference all such Prefaces or Expressions be severely prohibited and restrained as tend to create prejudice and partial propension to one part more than to another But experience too much informing us that even in Morals and matters of Religion though the consequent be their Peace or undoing the guiding aright or misleading their Consciences yea the salvation or perdition of their souls Treatises have their fate pro captu Lectoris as the Readers or Hearers are affected each thing is received secundum modum receptivitatis recipientis as the quality and mind of the Receivers disposeth them insomuch that any corrupting errour from some whom they affect is received by many and the clearest truths are rejected by persons preoccupated with prejudice either against the thing or person that doth deliver them Which makes it very necessary to blow away such duâ—â— out of the ballance of mens minds as might makâ— the Scales of their Understanding unequal what they are to weigh what is presented to it I list not to give instances by mentioning such experiments as either former or this present Age have yielded of the ill effects that debates have had through prejudices on both sides against persons and things caused by such preconceits as either education relations advantages or engagements forestall men with being unwilling to rake out of the Grave again such Occurrences of this kind as I hope are buried and wish they may not be revived Nevertheless sith I have too much intelligence that personal exceptions have caused such misprisions as are likely to hinder the equal judging of the present controversie whereby as the Writer is wronged so the Reader is much more wronged by himself when he refuseth to examine the matter though of much concernment to him because he is by fame or other motive disâ—ffâ—cted to the Author I am induced to speak something of my self and the occasion of this Writing and the History of this Controversie being necessitated thereto by the strange Title and Preface of the Book I am now to examine Sect. 2. Prejudice against the Author as favouring Separation causless I find by very many evidences that my Writings about a point which few can concoct have caused such an aversness in the spirits of a great number even of those that seem to be inquisitive into truth that my later Writings even those which have been recommended to the World by the chief of my Antagonists though not much contradicted yet have not found such receptions as such arguments were deemed to require Which had discouraged me from this kind of imployment did not the expectation of my giving account about the improvement of the talent committed to me by my Lord and Master make me judge that being restrained from publick Preaching I ought to use it in this way out of hopes of serving my generatian therein Being busied in some other Arguments I met with the Book which I here examine and not long after with another having this Title Prelatical Preachers none of Christs Teachers whereby I perceived that the seeds of most rigid separation were sown and did spread themselves much among many whose good I conceived my self bound to endeavour and not only for their sakes but also for the publick Peace as much as in me lies to pluck up such roots of bitterness Which I rather
Christ in the Scripture Sect. 7. The Office of Lord Bishops not from the Papacy Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters Chap. 4. Arg. 4. Sect. 1. They that deny not Christs Offices doctrinally may be heard Sect. 2. Every not hearkening to Christs Order is not a denial of his Office Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Sovereign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the will of Christ by not joyning in the separation pleaded for Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church are not Christs Institution Sect. 6. No contempt of the Authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment Sects 8. Prophecying is not opposed by the Ministers Sect. 9. Ministers service may be Divine and Spiritual in the use of the Liturgy Sect. 10. Things objected against the Ministers are not such as justifie separation Chap. 5. Sect. 1. All owning of orders different from or contrary to Christs proves not a denial of his Offices Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured Sect. 3. Making Canons in things undetermined and subjection to them agrees with Scripture Sect. 4. It s no derogation from Scripture or Christ that such Canons are made and obeyed Sect. 5. All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred are not determined in Scripture Sect. 6. It s not proved that the Ministers of England own constitutions contrary to the Revelation of Christ. Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 Sect. 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion justifies not separation Sect. 9. Receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of abstaining from appearance of evil 1 Thess. 5.22 Sect. 10. Forbidding to Marry or eat Flesh at certain times are not Characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant Sect. 11. No such headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christs proves not owning another King co-ordinate to him Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ not monstrous Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel Chap. 6. Arg. 5. Sect 1. False Doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard Sect. 2. The Ministers not false Prophets because not sent as Jer. 23.21 Rom. 10.15 is meant Sect. 3. The Ministers not proved to commit Adultery and walk in lyes as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 4. The Ministers are not proved to strengthen the hands of evil doers as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 5. The Ministers are not proved such daubers as those Ezek. 22.28 Sect. 6. Ministers changing of places sadning some mens hearts not characters of a false Prophet Sect. 7. Pressing rigid Conformity no proof of the Ministers being false Prophets Sect. 8. The charge Ezek. 22.26 reacheth not the Ministers of England Sect. 9. The Ministers are not the false Shepheards meant Ezek. 34.4 Sect. 10. The Ministers of England are not the second Beast foretold Rev. 13.11 Chap. 7. Arg 6. Sect 1. All Idolatry is exhibiting Divine Worship to a creature Sect. 2. All will-worship of God is not Idolatry Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his appointment Sect. 5. Common-Prayer Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer Sect. 6. Common-Prayer Book worship is not of pure humane invention Sect. 7. Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the worship of the Reformed Churches Sect. 8. No particularity instituted is a meer circumstance yet particularities undetermined are Sect. 9. Praying in a form may be praying in the Spirit Sect. 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed are not made necessary essential parts of Worship Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God by the Office Power and Modes of Idolaters may be without Idolatry Sect. 12. The English Ministers oppose Popish Idolatry as other Protestants Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by vertue of an Office Power from Idolaters Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry Sect. 15. Kneeling in the receiving the Sacramental Elements is not Idolatry Sect. 16. The crimination of the Ministers as Idolaters is not excusable Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author Chap. 8. Arg. 7. and 8 Sect. 1. Every offence of others makes not sinful that which is otherwise lawful Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty Sect. 3. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers Sect. 4. It is not scandal given but when the offensive action is done blameably Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians by hearing the present Ministers is not the scandalizing threatned Matth. 18.16 Sect. 6. The Separatists give more just cause of offence to godly sober Christians than the Conformists do to them Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers may be without participation with them in sin Chap. 9. Arg 9 10 11 12. Sect. 1. Separation of some from other Christians is no institution of Christ. Sect. 2. Meeting of Christians as a distinct body is not Christs Institution Sect. 3. Separated Congregational Churches in opposition to National are not of Christs Institution Sect. 4. To attend only on the Ministry of Ministers of Congregational Churches is not Christs appointment Sect. 5. Hearing the present Ministers casts no contempt on Christs Institutions Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers hardens none in sin Sect. 7. Gods people are not called out of the Temples in England as places of false Worship Sect. 8. There is ground to expect a blessing in hearing the present Ministers Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostasie Sect. 10. Pollution in one part makes not the whole worship polluted Chap. 10. Fifty Arguments for hearing the present Ministers Sect. 1. Christs direction Matth. 23.2 3. warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses his Chair as Teachers not as Magistrates Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church Officers of Gods appointment Sect. 4. Christ allows hearing the Pharisees while they taught the Law of Moses Sect. 5. Hearing Pharisees teaching Moses Law not attendance on their Ministry as Pastors is allowed by Christ. Sect. 6. Christ and his Apostles going to the Jewish Meetings is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practise Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ of contention warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach warrants the hearing of them Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers Sect. 10. It is a sin not to encourage good men in their Ministry Sect. 11. The example of the learned
us as Brethren that you withdraw your selves c. I scarce know any one thing pressed by the Apostle with greater vehemency than what is here instanced in wherein we have also an undeniable convincing Argument that the persons of whom we are treating walk disorderly Those that walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles we may add and from the Primitive Church for above three hundred years after Christ but according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpet of Rome are such as walk disorderly But the present Ministers of England walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles but after the traditions of the Whorish Church of Rome therefore they are such as walk disorderly What Apostolical tradition have we for stinted Forms of Prayer or Liturgies in the Church did they frame any those that are ascribed to some of them are all spurious as hath been over and over proved For Surplice Crossing in Baptism and many other Gewgaws used by them If they have any Apostolical written Tradition for these things let them produce it and we shall lay our mouths in the dust and for ever be silent as to a charge of this nature If they have not as there is nothing more certain they are disorderly walkers if the Apostles Argument be valid We command you to withdraw from such as walk disorderly 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 Answ. Though it belongs to the persons charged here to speak for themselves and not to me who am not chargeable with the accusation as here it stands yet conceiving they would say the same in effect which I shall say now I do that the invalidity of this Authors arguing may appear say thus much for them but chiefly for the truths sake I conceive they will deny that they covenant and protest with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture and the best reformed Churches and would challenge this Author to prove it that he may not be found a Calumniator that they would take on them the justifying of their submitting to Ordination or Re-ordination by a Lord Bishop their owning as consonant to Scripture a Liturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church their reading them their wearing the Surplice the Crossing in Baptism they would say after Baptism and deny these things to be disorderly walking according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpeâ— of Rome and I doubt not but that they would maintain it that beyond contradiction they are not to be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers but that this Author is an egregious false accuser However whether they be faulty or not this I think I may safely avouch that these practices except the first which I assure my self they will deny whether justifiable or sinful are not of so great a degree of pravity as that barely for them they should be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers and so after due admonition according to the Scripture and a perseverance in their practice to be separated from by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ Mat. 18. 2 Thess 3.6 either by a separation of Saints from them in Gospel Communion or private familiar society For the former precept Mat. 18.15 16 17. is only concerning such a sin whereby a person sins against his Brother that is doth him some personal injury Which appears both by the constant use of the phrase of sinning against another in the New and Old Testament as Acts 25.8 1 Cor. 8.12 Gen. 20.9 and 42.22 and 43.9 and 44. 1 Sam. 2.25 and 19.4 5. and 24.11 and particularly in the same Chapter v. 21. Luke 17.3 4. which were occasioned from Christs words Mat. 18.15 where Christ commandeth Peter and the rest of his Disciples to forgive their brother that sinneth against them seven times a day yea seventy times seven times Which can be understood of no other sins than personal injuries for these alone they were to forgive as trespasses against them as the Parable Mat. 18. shews v. 32.35 Mat. 6.12 14 15. of which sort those practices imputed to the best of the present Ministers are not Yet if they were the separation is not to be made without an admonition and gradual process which I think this Author hath not used towards them as I conceive his own words evince a little before we cannot as things stand perform the duties of Brethren to them according to Mat. 18. If the sins were such as Christ means Mat. 18.15 and their proceeding according to the direction there yet the separation whether enjoyned or permitted rather is no other than such as was by the Jews from Heathens and Publicans which was not from Communion in Holy things for the Publicans were allowed to go to the Temple to pray even with the Pharisees Luke 18.10 11. though they would not receive them and eat with them Luke 15.2 Acts 11.3 Which shews that the being to him that is injured as a Heathen and Publican Mat. 18.17 is no other than separation from eating and familiar reception not from Gospel Communion as this Author would have it and therefore the Text Mat. 18.15 16 17. is impertinently alledged to prove his separation from the present Ministers of England in respect of Gospel Communion Nor is 2 Thess. 3.6 alledged more to the purpose For 1. the disorderly walking there must be understood of sins of greater pravity than the rest besides the first which they will deny charged on them if they be proved sins as the vehemency authority and holy earnestness the Apostle doth press his command with doth evince For this vehemency is not an undeniable convincing argument that the persons of whom this Author is treating walk disorderly as he fansies but that they that walk so disorderly as the Apostle here means are so corrupt and their walking so evil that their converse with them in a familiar society as with others would not be for their safety or credit or the repute of Christianity Which will the more appear by the instance that is given v. 11. where he saith For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly working not at all but are busie-bodies which shews that the walking disorderly is not being in some disorder about Church Government and outward Rites proper to Ministers which are the instances of disorderly walking here brought by this Author but gross sins of any Brother not a Minister who was bound to work or else was not to eat v. 10. which Ministers were not bound to do as v. 9. 1 Thess. 2.6 1 Tim 5.17 18. 1 Cor. 9.6 7 11 12 13 14. shews nor were they for this not working so as not to earn their own Bread to be noted or signified and declined that they might be ashamed as is required v. 12.14 Gross sins then common to every Brother such
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
with many more that might be added to which the Ministers of England are to subscribe and own as agreeable to the Word of God before their admission into the Ministry according to the 38. Canon Ecclesiastical Are any of these Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ When or where were they instituted by by him That these are Posts set by the Lords Posts and Thresholds by his Thresholds of which the Lord complains Ezek. 43.8 who sees not That the present Ministers of England do conform and subscribe hereunto cannot be denied and thence an owning subscribing and submitting to Orders and Constitutions that are not of Christs appointment is evidently evinced Answ. Though I undertake not to justifie all that is in the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Synod at London Anno 1603. nor need the present Ministers nor perhaps will they or the Bishops themselves take it upon them yet that it may appear how falsly and injuriously this Authour hath dealt with them and how superficially he hath handled this Argument I say I. That he hath misrecited the Canons in all or most of the 14 particulars alledged 1. In the 7. Canon it is not said That the Orders and Offices of Arch bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons with many others appertaining unto this Hierarchy are Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ nor is it required therein that the Ministers promise subjection and obedience unto them But it is censured as a wicked errour to affirm that the Government of the Church of England under his Majesty by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Archâ—deacons and the rest that bear Office in the same is Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God and it is required of such as have thus affirmed that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent and publikely revoke it 2. In the 4. Canon Ministers are not required to own and submit to a Liturgy or prescript Form of Worship devised by men and imposed solely by their authority nor to tie themselves to it neither diminishing nor adding in the matter or Form thereof But it is judged a wicked errour to affirm that the Form of Gods Worship in the Church of England established by the Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments is a corrupt superstitious or unlawful Worship of God or containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures and it is required of such as have thus affirmed that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent and publickly revoke it 3. In the third particular are sundry things liable to Exception 1. It is said that in the Book of Common Prayer Bowing at the Name of Jesus is prescribed which I find not there but in the 18 Canon 2. It is not well that when this Author does not yet he tells us some would say that kneeling at the Lords Supper smells very strong of the Popish Leven and is but one peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden God when he might know that not only the 28. Article of the Church of England and the Homily of the Peril of Idolatry and the Apology of the Church of England are fully against it but also the Compilers of the Common Prayer Book suffered Martyrdom for their refusal and abhorrency of such adoration and in the Rubrick of the Common Prayer Book as it is now established after the Communion there is a clear and sufficient Declaration against it which should if this Author had dealt candidly have been told ignorant people who are drawn into a separation upon this suggestion 3. It is true that in the 36 Canon subscription is required to this Article That the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordering of Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God and that it may be lawfully used and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in publike Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and none other which I take not to be the same with owning submitting and engaging to conform to all the Orders Rites and Ceremonies prescribed therein 4. It is said Canon 32. The Office of a Deacon is a step or degree to the Ministry according to the judgment of the ancient Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Church and the subscription is required in the 36. Canon to the Book of Ordination as I have set it down here but they are not required by that subscription to own this assertion That the Office of a Deacon is the first step or degree to the Ministry 5. In the 49. Canon it is said No person whatsoever not examined and approved by the Bishop of the Diocess or not licensed for a sufficient or convenient Preacher shall take upon him to expound in his own Cure or elsewhere any Scripture or matter or doctrine But they do not speak though judged worthy of the Cure of Souls they may have a Cure of Souls by indirect means or by reason of the imperfection of the Law to debarr them or by reason of the want of sufficient Preachers as was in the beginning of the Reformation or for want of maintenance for able Preachers to undertake it who are not judged worthy of the Cure of Souls 6 and 7. Neither of the Positions are Canons 49 57. though their Ministration of Baptism and the Lords Supper is made sufficient And the 8. particular is in Canon 57. 9. Can. 60. It is not said That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops is an Ordinance of God but that it hath been a solemn ancient and laudable custom in the Church of God continued from the Apostles times that all Bishops should lay their hands upon children baptized and instructed in the Catechism of Christian Religion praying over them and blessing them which we commonly call Confirmation and that this holy action hath been accustomed in the Church in former ages 10. It is not said Canon 62. that it appertains to the Office of Ministers to marry but they are only regulated therein 11. The Bishop is to suspend according to Can. 68. Ministers refusing to bury but the lawfulness of it is not there asserted though presupposed 12 13. Ministers preaching administring the Communion in private houses except in times of necessity some appointing of Fasts holding Meetings for Sermons are forbidden Can. 71 72. but it is not there determined that they are forbidden because of the unlawfulness Inexpediency or inconvenience may occasion a prohibition of that which is not unlawful 14. It is not asserted Can. 74. that Ministers ought to be distinguished by the habit there prescribed but that ancient Churches thought it fit II. Were all true which this Author hath alledged in these 14 particulars yet it is not true which he saith that either in the 36 or 38. Canon Ecclesiastical Ministers are to subscribe to and own all these Orders and Ordinances as agreeable to the Word of God III. To the Questions Are any of these
judge meet All unproved Of the last of we have already spoken and shall not here re-assume the debate thereof Touching the First That there are sâ—me things in the instituted Worship of Christ that are meerly circumstances thereof as such we crave liberty to deny which till the proof be attempted may suffice Circumstances in the worship of Christ attending religious actions as actions we grant but circumstances of Worship as such will never be proved To inferr that because time and place with sundry things of the like nature are circumstances in Worship therefore there are circumstances of Worship as such is frivolâ—us Those things being the attendments of religious actions common to any civil actions of the like nature to be performed by the Sons of men No action to be managed by a community can be orderly performed by them without such an assignment of time and place Publick Prayer being so to be managed as a religious action hath the circumstances before mentioned attending it and so it would were it a meer civil action to be performed by a community though it related not at all to the Worship of God Answ. It is not true that the Objection supposeth That some things in the instituted Worship of Christ are but meer circumstances thereof as such meaning that any particularity of that action which Christ hath prescribed for his Worship being instituted by him is a meer arbitrary circumstance and not a necessary part of that Worship It is held in the Lords Supper and all institutions of Christ in which particularities are expressed there should be strict observation of them as part of the Worship But in things not determined liberty is allowed to vary and therefore if Christ have not instituted that you shall pray without a Book or set Form Prayer by it may be lawfully done The distinction of circumstances in and of the Worship of Christ of religiâ—us actions as actions or as religiâ—us aâ—e but unnecessary niceâ—ies so long as the meaning of the Objection is manifest That the praying in this or that Form is not a part of the Worship as if without it the Worship were not or not according to Christs institution but an accident of it which may adesse vel abesse which is in effect if â— understand this Author the same which he grants That there are circumstances in the Wâ—rship of Christ attending religiâ—us actions as actions which are not in their particulaâ—ities expresly prescribed by Christ And if we agree in the thing it is but frivolous to wrangle about words Sect. 9. Praying in a Form may be praying in the Spirit 2. Saith this Author That t is lawful for Saints to pray in a Form i. e. to tye themselves to a written stinted form of words in Prayer is not yet proved nor like to be t is too large a field for us to enter into nor is it needful to do so till it be proved That to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book or imposed devised Liturgies is so Yet in transitu we crave leave humbly to offer That to pray in a Form as before explained is altogether unlawful being 1. A quenching of the Spirit of Prayer 2ly A rendring useless the donation of the Spirit as a Spirit of Prayer unto the children of God 3ly Directly opposite unto the many positive precepts of Christ before instanc'd in of stirring up the Gifts given to us of God improving the Talents he hath been graciously pleased to intrust us withall 4ly If it be lawful for Saints to pray in a Form t is lawful either because they have not the Spirit or that having the Spirit he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God If the first they are not Saints Rom. 8.9 To assert the second is little less than blasphemy besides its direct opposition to Rom. 8.26 Answ. The position of this Author here by his words appears to be That not only it is altogether unlawful for Ministers but also for all Saints all that have the Spirit of God to pray in a Form And though he seems to mean by his addition that he counts it only then unlawful when they tye themselves â— whether by vow or customary use or once only to a stinted form of words in Prayer without variation written not conceived by him that prays and kept in his memory Yet his Arguments are against using any set Form by any Saint conceived by himself and kept in memory without writing though but once used For then the Spirit of Prayer is quenched its donation is rendred useless it s against the positive precepts of stirring up our Gift improving our Talent disabling the Spirit which are at no time to be done And if so no way of Worship of Christs institution and therefore Idolatrous and by this Authors Doctrine to be separated from and therefore this Authors principles carry him not only to separate from hearing the present Ministers but also from every Saint that not only often but once useth a set Form devised by himself in Family exercises as before meals or other times And if he be of Mr. Ainsworths mind in the controversie between him and Mr. Râ—binson of old he must not only separate from the publique communion of the Church of England but also from the private religious communion of every one that joyns in common Prayer or in private stinted forms of Prayer except they profess their repentance And if we should prove it lawful to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book or imposed devised Liturgy which seems no hard thing to do if we suppose the Ministers and Common-Prayer Book Worshippers not to have the Spirit for then by his Arguments they do not quench make useless neglect the gift of the Spirit and therefore are not forbidden a stinted Form which would overthrow this Argument against the Ministers yet we must do somewhat more we must prove it lawful for the Saints who have the Spirit to use once a stinted form of words though it be the Lords Prayer only Which I think will be done by this Argument That Prayer may be lawful to Saints in which neither is any thing done forbidden by God nor any thing omitted which God requires thereto but such may be praying in a Form Therefore To what this Author humbly offers I answer 1. That the things he offers proceed only upon mistakes That the praying the Spirit Ephes. 6.18 Jude 20. in the Holy Ghost is meant of extemporal unpremeditated unprescribed forms of words Whereas praying in the Spirit is meant of praying by the operation of the Spirit within not of Prayer in respect of the form of words wherein it is expressed which may be gathered concerning the former Text in that the Prayers there which are to be in the Spirit are all alwayes with all prayer and supplication watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication which cannot be well expounded of other Prayers than such as are
mouth doth not defile and therefore the eating of the Idolothyte though he knew it offered to an Idol could not defile him would yet judge it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple which was manifestly evil even partaking of the Table of Devils 1 Cor. 10.20 21. Or that it was the weakness of the offended person that he was not fully perswaded of that liberty it had been his weakness and sin if he had judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple But it was the sin of him that had knowledge that he sate at meat in the Idols Temple though it was his liberty to eat it else-where knowing it had been offered to Idols and it was the weakness of the other that he was not so perswaded yet was by the others practice emboldned to it and so was defiled both with the errour and practice of eating against his conscience with the conscience of the Idol that is though he knew it offered to the Idol and therefore was thereby some acknowledgement of the Idol as something honourable or a thing sacred However if it were that the offending person judged it his liberty to sit at mâ—at in the Idols Temple yet this is ill applyed to the hearers of the present Ministers as if their hearing were such an action as was his that sate at meat in the Idols Temple for that was having fellowship with Devils 1 Cor. 10.20 but this is the service of the living God no Idolothyte or sitting at meat in the Idols Temple and as if being perswaded of the liberty to do the one were like thâ— perswasion of the liberty to do the other whereas the hearers judge it not only their liberty to hear the present Ministers but also their duty and so not as the case stands a thing indifferent 2. This Author conceives that the Corinthians were offended in that they were grieved at the practice of him that judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple and that giving occasion of such grief was Scandal given whereas the scandal given was not by causing grief for the offenders practice as evil but in that the offended being swayed by his practice did against his conscience eat the thing offered to Idols and perhaps in the Idols Temple which had been a great sin such as would wound his conscience make him weak or sick and tended to his perdition it being a degree of back sliding to Idolatry And therefore this is ill applyed to the effect of the hearing of the present Ministers which is not in the offended any such backsliding or sin against their conscience tending to their perdition or present wounding of spirit but mourning for their Brethrens conceited back sliding which they conceive tends to their salvation not to their perdition 3. The offence of the Corinthians is set down by this Author without any intimation that the Corinthians might have reason to be scandalized because the eating the Idolothyte was both against the precepts of the Mosaical Law and the Apostles decree Acts 15.25 which was of much moment to make the offence Scandal given and not only taken For if offence be taken where there is no probable reason why the scandalized should judge it evil it is his fault who thus judgeth not his who acts that which he sees no reason why any should conceive any evil in it The Apostle therefore did not require to forbear the eating of the Idolothyte but when the weak Brother said This is offered in sacrifice to Idols 1 Cor 10 28. which shewed the reason why he should be offended if he did eat it and that reason might probably induce him to conceive it unlawful which thing is a requisite condition to Scandal given sith if upon any surmise of a weak Brother I must forbear my liberty though there is no shew of reason or no probability why he should conceive it evil to use it my liberty would be as no liberty and a yoak more intolerable than the Law would be on my conscience Now that there is no probable reason why persons should imagine evil in my hearing the present Ministers notwithstanding what this Author saith hath been and shall be further shewed in answering that which is said by this Author 4. This Author doth not mention that which in the case of the Corinthians was requisite to Scandal given to wit that the Scandal should be fore-seen as the words 1 Cor. 10.27 28 intimate and that not only as possible but also as future with some moral certainty by reason of the presence of persons known to scruple the thing I do or some one that intimates his dislike of my action Calvin therefore upon 1 Cor. 8 13. saith Non jubet nos Apostolus divinare nunquid offendiculo futurum sit quod facimus nisi cum est praesens periculum The Apostle doth not bid us divine whether that we do will offend but when there is present danger Now this shews that the hearing the present Ministers is not Scandal given where none are present that are offended nor any give intimation of the futurity of the offence 5. This Author doth not take notice that Scandal given by the use of our liberty is not to be made perpetual as the Apostles words in the same place shew For if I must alwayes abstain from that at which another is offended it will be made sin in it self and so not Scandal given by the intempestive use of our liberty in a thing indifferent but that we must not yield to that we may not lose Truth for peace sake But if men must not hear the present Ministers for the reasons given they must never do it to avoid offence which will be perpetual and so the scandal supposed to be given not such as that which was in the Corinthians liberty in eating Idolothytes 6. It should not have been forgotten That the case of the offended among the Corinthians by eating Idolothytes and the Brethren now in England for hearing the present Ministers cannot be parallel'd rightly because the Corinthians offence was at the time wherein the Gospel had been but lately preached to them and the Doctrine of Gospel-liberty not fully cleared which cannot be said of Christian Professors in England who have been fully instructed therein and therefore in the use of our liberty now cannot be the like offence given and not taken only as was in those dayes among the Corinthians Yet this Author thus chargeth them with Scandal given Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians by hearing the present Ministers is not the scandalizing threatned Matth. 18.6 Should it for Arguments sake be granted though in truth it be not so That t is the liberty of Saints to hear the present Ministers yet many of the sincere Lambs of Christ being stumbled grieved and scandalized hereaâ— for that very reason â—f no more could be said herein it becomes our sin to be guilty whereof who can chuse but
of their converts are the cause thereof by their invectives begetting enmity and prejudice against them in the minds of men May it not be said to themselves Where are the souls that are converted comforted strengthened stablished by your Ministry Were not many if not most in your Churches wrought upon at first by other Preachers And if so may it not be said Ye your selves are the seal of their Ministry in the Lord nevertheless though God onely can tell exactly and fully what is the fruit of any mens Ministry yet I hope there are that can testifie their receiving good by the Ministry of some of the present Ministers and that however it be by reason of the many stumbling-blocks cast in the way God will yet have mercy on the people of England and give them hearts to receive the truth Preached to them in the love of it Sure this Authour should rather pray it may be so and encourage the Ministers to do the work of the Lord more faithfully and not weaken their hands by drawing their auditors from them As for that which he saith of the decaies of the auditors of the Ministers I joyn with him but add withall That so far as mine acquaintance or intelligence reacheth there is too great and sensible a decay of the spirit of love power and of a sound mind in the Congregational Churches of old and new England and that a spirit of bitterness consoriousness misreporting mistaking dissenters words and actions unrghteousness unpeaceableness is too abundant in them that I say nothing of their proneness to embrace Antinomianism Quakerism and other dangerous errours Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra The Lord pardon our evils and heal our breaches Yet there is one more Argument to be answered Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostacy Argument 12. That the doing whereof is one step to Apostacy is not lawful to be done But the hearing the present Ministers of England is one step to Apostacy Therefore The major Proposition will readily be granted by all The beginnings of great evils are certainly to be â—esisted Apostacy is one of the greatest evils in the world The minor or second proposition Viz. That the hearing of the present Ministers is one step to Apostacy is evident 1. It cannot be done especially by persons of Congregational principles without a relinquishment of principles owned by them as received from God That the Church of England as National is a Church of the institution of Christ That persons not called to the office of the Ministry by the Saints are rightfull Ministers of Christ must be owned and taken for granted ere the Conscience can acquiesce in the hearing the present Ministers for we suppose 't will not be asserted by those with whom we have to do that there can be a true Ministery in a false Church or that false Ministers may be heard and yet the present Ministers are Ministers in and of the national Church of England and were never solemnly deputed to that office of the suffrage of the Lords people 2ly Nor can it be done without the neglect of that duty which with others is eminently of the appointment of the Lord to secure from Apostacy instanc'd in by the Author to the Hebrews Hebr. 10.25 Not forsaking the assembling of your selves together as the manner of some is but exhorting one another and so much the more as you see the day approaching in which the duty of Saints assembling themselves together as a body distinct from the world and it's assemblies â—s also their frequent and as often as may be exhorting one another as a medium to secure them by the blessing of the Lord thereupon from a spirit of degeneracy and Apostacy from God is clearly asserted whence it undeniably follows that the hearing of the present Ministers of England being inconsistent with the constant and diligent use of the means prescribed for the preservation of the Saints in the way of God for whilst they are attending upon their teachings they cannot assemble themselves according to the prescription of God in the forementioned Scripture is at least one step to the dreadfull sin of Apostacy from God and therefore it is utterly unlawful for Saints so to do And thus far of the Twelfth Argument for the proof of the assertion under our maintenance viz. That 't is not lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England to which many others might be added but we doubt not to the truly tender and humble enquiring Christian what hath been offered will be abundantly sufficient to satisfie his Conscience in the present enquiry Answ. If by Apostasie be meant Apostatie from the living God and the Christian faith the major is granted and the minor is denied nor is there any thing tending to a shew of proof of it produced for it and if it should be meant of such Apostasie the thing is so notoriously false the hearers of such Ministers as â—e now Ministers in England having been as constant in the profession and practice of Christianity both against Popery and other ungodliness in times of persecution by Papists and at other times as other Christians in other ages that this Author would be hissed at as one extremely impudent in asserting so palpable an untruth But I conceive by his proof of the minor he means by Apostasie the relinquishing of the Congregational principles and practise Concerning which I conceive the major may be denyed it being not unlawfull but a necessary duty to depart from some of their principles and practises I mean such as are for separation in communion from dissenting Christians Yet I do not think but the Conscience may well acquiesce in the hearing of the present Ministers as teaching truth without relinquishment of the two principles owned by them as received from God I think if they will weigh what is here written they may find if not the congregational principles yet separation inferred from them to be an errour and to beget nothing but Superstition in their minds and sinfull uncharitable division in their practise Nor do I think it necessary that they which still adhere to that way of Communion need neglect the duty of meeting and exhorting one another according to Hebr. 10.25 the mistake of which is shewed in the answer to this chapter Sect. 2. They that hear the present Ministers some hours may hear other Ministers at other hours they that at one time hear them may at another time exhort one another Heretofore persons of Congregational Principles could hear in Parochial Assemblies Parochial Ministers why they may not do so still I understand not were it not that opinions of separation animated them to division and faction which the Lord amend and make them diligent to provoke one another to love and to good works I have now answered the Jury of Twelve Arguments which I have found brutum fulmen as the shooting off Ordinances without a bullet
have nothing of the essentials of a Minister of Christ to be found upon them may be accounted of as his Ministers and be adhered to Answer No. 15. Whether such as shall so do be not guilty of casting contempt upon the institutions of Christ and disobedience against his royal edicts commanding them to seperate from persons of such a Complection To which many others of the like nature might be added Answ. They would be if they should do so wittingly and willingly Enough of questions are propounded already and this is Answer to the 12. Arguments and 15. Quaeries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now for the other part of the book in the last Chapter which begins thus CHAP. 10. Fifty Arguments for hearing the present Ministers Sect. 1. Christs direction Matth. 23.2 3. warrants hearing the present Ministers HAving hitherto been upon the Confirmation of the truth asserted by us viz. That 't is not lawfull for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England we come now to consider what is in this matter objected by our dâ—ssenting Brethren This is that they say Object 1. Christ commands or at least permits his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees who were men as corrupt in their doctrine as vicious in their lives as the present Ministers of England can be supposed to be Matth. 23.1 2. Therefore it is lawfull to hear these Answ. This being the main Objection used by our dissenting Brethren in this day as it was by others in times past their very Achilles in this controversie we shall speak the more largely to it To which I reply that this is justly urged to prove it lawfull to hear the present Ministers of England preaching the doctrine of Christ because Christ allowed his Disciples and the multitudes hearing the Scribes and Pharisees teaching the law of Moses notwithstanding they were erroneous vicious intruders in that business as much or more than are the present Ministers of England into the office or work of preaching the Gospel That the force of this reason may be perceived it is to be noted that it was the office of the Priest who were to be of the Tribe of Levi to instruct the people in the law of Moses as we find the Prophet Malachi speaking Mal. 2.7 The Priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law at his mouth for he was the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts yet there they are complained of to have departed out of the way to have caused many to stumble at the law to have been partial in the law v. 18 9. Which occasioned especially after the return from the Captivity of Babylon the rising of sundry Sects among the Jews as Sadduces and Pharisees known by their peculiar tenents and usages who were not all nor necessarily of the Tribe of Levi as it is certain concerning St. Paul that he was a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee Acts 23.6 yet of the Tribe of Benjamin Philip. 3.5 which therefore had no special function of teaching committed to them by God having neither extraordinary nor ordinary calling of God but had betaken themselves to that way as the orders of Friers among the Papists by their voluntary choice yet as the Friers among the Papists so the Pharisees among the Jews bare the greatest sway with the common people as having greatest influence upon their Consciences in matters of Religion and in process of time greatest power in the government of the State though they were not the ordinary Magistrates Now to these Pharisees were adjoyned Scribes who were Writers Teachers Expositors Disputers Rabbins Masters Lawyers or Doctors of the Law among whom our Saviour is said to sit at 12 years old in the Temple hearing them and asking them questions Luke 2.46 By which it is apparent that they which were then the Doctors of the law used to sit in the Temple to resolve cases about the law for which reason they were said to sit in the seat of Moses Matth. 23.2 Concerning whom though our Lord Christ had charged them with corrupting the law by their traditions Matth. 15.3 Mark 7.8 and had warned his Disciples to take heed of the leaven of their Doctrine Matth. 16.6 11.12 yet Matth. 23.1 2 3. he spake to the multittude and to his Disciples saying the Scribes and Pharises sit in Moses seat All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do but do not ye after their works for they say and do not Now our Lord Christs appointing them to observe what they bid shews he allowed or permitted their hearing them for otherwise they could not observe what they bid them yet not absolutely for then he should have contradicted himself in warning them against their traditions and the leaven of their Doctrine but conditionally or respectively that is what they bid them do according to the law of Moses in whose seat they sate that is took upon them to be expounders of the law of Moses Whence it is inferred that while the Ministers of England teach the doctrine of Christ they may be heard notwithstanding defects in their calling and their personal evils as the hearing of the Scribes and Pharisees was allowed by Christ to his Disciples And the Argument may be formed thus That hearing of Ministers against which there is no more just exception than was against the hearing of the Scribes and Pharises sitting in the seat of Moses in Christs time by his Disciples is lawful for Christian Saints now But there is no more just exception against hearing the present Ministers of England than was against hearing of the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in the seat of Moses in Christs time by his Disciples Therefore the hearing the present Ministers of England is lawfull to Christian Saints now The major proceeds on this rule that what in the same case our Lord Christ allowed to his Disciples then is allowed by him to Christian Saints now which if it be not granted Christs resolutions then are no satisfactions or directions to our Consciences now which were to make those Scriptures useless which were blasphemous The minor is proved by shewing the exceptions against hearing the present Ministers are not greater nor more just then against the Scribes and Pharisees and the hearing of them nor the Christian Saints now any more forbidden to hear the present Ministers than the Disciples of Christ then to hear the Scribes and Pharisees Again we may thus argue That which warranted Christs Disciples hearing the Scribes and Pharisees in his time notwithstanding other defects warrants the Saints hearing of the present Ministers of England now notwithstanding other defects which is grounded on such rules of Logick as these De paribus idem est judicium Of things alike we are to have the like judgement Idem quà idem semper facit idem the same consequent follows on the same reason as it is the same But the Scribes and Pharisees preaching or declaring the will of God warranted Christs
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