and Preaching the same Gospel If any to stop the mouths of the clamourous Papists have derived their Succession from the Bishops under the Papacy by proving as Mr. Francis Mason did the Consecration of the Bishops after the Reformation by three Bishops allowed by the Romanists themselves after the ancient Canon though perhaps more than needs yea though they were Consecrated and Ordained by the Pope himself and some Cardinal Bishops yet if they were Consecrated or Ordained to no other work nor in any other manner than Priests and Biships are Ordained and Consecrated according to the order of the Church of England they would not be Antichristian For though it be not gainsayed but that the Pope is the Antichristian head over many Countries yet it is gainsayed that all that is derived from him or done by him is Antichristian I do not think it is Antichristian to confess the Apostles Creed though a person say he believes it because it is received from the Pope and Trent Council 5 That Bishops as a Superiour Order or Degree above Presbyters were not dream'd of in the World for several hundreds of years after Christ I think can hardly be made good though I will not meddle with that point which hath been debated so much by men of greatest and most exact skill in Antiquity with whom I conceive my self no way fit to be compared yet this I say that the not taking notice of Bishops distinct from Presbyters by Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians published not long since by Patrick Yong is ballanced by the passages in Ignatius his Epistles if they be genuine concerning which the Reader may judge by what Arch-bishop Usher hath written in his Edition of those Epistles of Ignatius As for Lombard if the Primitive Church according to him extend not beyond the dayes of the Apostles as his words import they prove not that the Order of Bishops above Presbyters was not dreamt of several hundreds of years after Christ. But of this I will not contend it 's enough for my purpose if the Office be found in Scripture though not their Superiority 6. As for the words of Dr. Hammond I find them Dissert 4. de Episcopatu c 5. sect 4. though not fully cited by this Author and I acknowledge that he makes the state and frame of the Churches to have been accommodated to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations in the Empire yet withall he conceives that the reason of directing seven Epistles to the seven Angels of the seven Churches was because they were Metropolitan or Mother-Churches and conceives this division into Provinces Dioceses and depending Churches to have been transcribed from the samplar of the Jews by Moses Law Deut. 16.18 and 17.9 And therefore his words are not to be drawn to an acknowledgement of Lord-Bishops Primacy and Supremacy to have been the result of the design and contrivements of men much less that the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters had its rise and occasion from the aims and designs of men to accommodate Ecclesiastical Affairs to the state and condition of Civil Government It is added Sect. 6. The office of Lord Bishops is not contrary to express precepts of Christ in the Scripture 2. That the office of Lord Bishops is contrary to express Precepts of Christ in the Scripture the truth of which he that runs may read in the ensuing Scriptures Mat. 20.25 Mark 10.42 Luke 22.25 1 Pet. 5.3 the English of vos autem non sic but ye shall not do so neque ut dominantes Cleris not lording it over God's Clergy or Heritage an ordinary Reader may easily conclude to be inconsistent with their Lordly Dignities Answ. This Author still shoots wide from the mark He undertook to prove that the Office of Lord-Bishops is contrary to express Precepts of Christ in the Scripture but he concludes against their Lordly dignity which is no more their Office than the honour ascribed to a Preacher or Reader in the University by giving them the titles of Master or Doctour in Divinity is their Office The term Bishops indeed implies their Office appointed by Christ to have inspection over the flock but the term Lord is only a tâ—tle given them by the King when he makes them Barons of the Realm which may be severed from the Office of Bishops as it hath been since the Reformation in England when Suffragan Bishops have been made without the addition of Lordship But however this Author conceives the having such titles as Lords to be contrary to the express precepts Mat. 20.25 Mark 10.42 Luke 22.25 1 Pet. 5.3 and he translates Vos autem non sic But ye shall not do so But this is more than either the words or translations do permit It is in Mat. 20.26 Mark 10.43 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It shall not be so among you or to you which explains best Luke 22.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But ye not so that is as our translation renders it But ye shall not be so and so notes not a Precept but a Prediction and shews Event not Duty which Mr. Gataker thinks in his Cinnus l. 1. c. 3. p. 36. after a discussion of several Interpretations to be the genuine meaning of Christ. But granting it to be a Precept is it a Precept to the Apostles only or to others The former hath countenance from the Text 1. From the occasion the request of the Mother of Zebedees children 2. The indignation of the Ten by reason of it 3. Christs calling of them to him and no other in Matthew and Mark. 4. Their contention of St. Luke 5. Christ's speaking to them who had been with him in his temptations 6. His allotting to them a Kingdom and to sit on twelve thrones But if it be to others it is doubtful whether to all Christians or only to Ministers of the Gospel and whether it forbid simply Dominion at all or such Dominion as the Rulers of the Gentiles exercised to wit Tyrannical or the affectation and inordinate seeking of it not the having or the exercise of Dominion In my Romanism discussed Article 7. sect 8. p. 172 173. I have set down ten Reasons to prove that the Rule meant in those Texts is not only Tyrannical Dominion but also the Dominion of one Apostle over another and the affectation and inordinate seeking of that rule which a person may have and lawfully exercise and this is forbidden not only to Ministers but also to all Christians but not a Christians having or exercising the Office of a King or Civil Magistrate nor the Apostles Rule over the Church of God or Ministers of a lower Order For then Christians should be forbidden to exercise that Office which is Gods Ordinance and the Apostles did ill in practising and appointing Rule over Christians yea of some Ministers over others in some cases But the Rule which is forbidden is Rule over the Faith of the Saints which St. Paul disclaims 2 Cor.
Answ. Though I doubt not but I could retort this Argument upon this Authour whom by sundry passages in this Book I judge to be one that hearkens not to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Order and Ordinance of his house even that most express Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. one of the principles of the Doctrine of Christ and part of the foundation Heb. 6.1 2. Yet I shall wave that and answer directly by denying the major of which I give these reasons 1. Because denial is more than not hearkning to the one is by positive contradiction the other may be only by Omission 2. The not hearkning may be out of ignorance incapacity to understand dulness slothfulness fearfulness mistakes prevalency of temptation without any enmity of heart habitual stubbornness or willful gainsaying which are requisite to a plain denial of the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. 3. There may be sundry Orders of his House revealed by Christ which are controverted whether they be such or no there may be some acknowledged to be Orders of his House yet thought not of such moment as that the peace of the Church should be broken by contending for them or judged not perpetual but temporary or not binding the Ministers to observe till the Magistrate reform as in the case of putting down Images or conceiving in cases of necessity or for avoiding of Scandal they may not hearken to them as in Davids eating the Shew-bread the Apostle Pauls not hearkning to the Order of discontinuing Circumcision and a Jewish Vow and Offering in these and perhaps more cases a person may not hearken to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House and yet be so far from denying the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ that he may be sound in the Faith and a zealous and faithful maintainer of them by holding forth the truth of the Gospel unto the death And therefore I take the major proposition of this Argument to be manifestly false which he seems by not proving to take for manifest truth Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Soveraign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers But he goes on thus 'T is the minor or second Proposition that in the thoughts of some is capable of a denial but the verity thereof shines forth as the Sun in its brightness in the review of the Orders and Ordinances of the House of Christ appointed by himself and the present frame and deportment of the present Ministers of England with respect thereunto which of them have they not made void by their Traditions This is that which Christ hath said 1. That all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Mat. 28.19 1 Tim. 6.14 15. Joh. 3.35 Acts 3.22 and 5.31 'T is upon this foot of account that Christ chargeth his Disciples not to be called of men Rabbi nor to call any Father viz. not to impose their authority upon any or suffer themselves to be imposed upon by any in the matters of their God Mat. 23.8 9 10. because one is their Master and Lord viz. Christ. Hence also the Apostles lay the weight of their exhortations upon the Commandment of Christ 1 Cor. 11.23 and 14.37 Proclaim all to be accursed that preach any other Gospel Gal. 1.8 yea though Angels from Heaven should they live and speak as such charge those to whom they write not to receive any into their houses that bring any other doctrine much more not to receive them as their Teachers 2 Joh. 10. Yea the Spirit of the Lord in the close of the last Revelation of his Will it pleased this great King and Law-giver in such a way to give forth testifies that if any man shall add unto these things the Lord shall add unto him the Plagues that are written in his Book Rev. 22.18 Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this great Institution in words indeed they do so But what meaneth the bleating of the Sheep and lowing of the Oxen in our ears Do they not own other Lords Heads and Governours that have a Law-making power and would enforce the Consciences of the free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches besides him what doth this less than evidently proclaim their disobedience and rebellion which is as the sin of Witchcraft against the King of Kings and the rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them But of this more hereafter Answ. It is no strange thing to find in this Author high Charges backed only with confident assertions and no proofs so that men comparing the one with the other may think he wrote his Dreams rather than Meditations For what are we to think otherwise when we read such passages as these the verity of his minor proposition shines forth as the Sun in his brightness Which is no more than is to be said of the first universal indubitable principles of the light of Nature or Reason which are indisputable and yet he saith in the thoughts of some it is capable of a denial and when he should prove it so clear in stead of an Argument proves all with Interrogations which if the Reader deny he is put to a stand But to shew the vanity of his arguings to his Question which of the Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not the present Ministers of England he means all even the best of them as his words ch 2. and arguings against them indiscriminatim do evince have they not made void by their Traditions I answer by another Question Which of them have they so made void Sure the Ordinances of searching the Scriptures hearing the Word praying to the Father in the name of Christ believing on the Son with many more which are the chief Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not been made void by the Traditions of the Ministers of England that now are at least not by all or the best of them that I know or hear of But he imagines he can prove it by an induction of particulars of which he names only seven though to make his induction full without which it is no good Argument he should have reckoned seven times seven But perhaps he thinks if he can make good the charge in these seven it will be without question his charge is true of the rest Let us then view each of these in order and see how well he hath acquitted himself therein The first of these Orders or Ordinances of Christ is that all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Which I grant as a truth though I assent not to
pernicious wickedness in whomsoever though reputed Saints And though there is too much cause to bewail that there is so little effect upon the preaching of the present Ministers yet sure to argue thence that they are not sent of God but are false Prophets is altogether inconsequent Mr. Robinson in his justification of separation p. 306 307. speaks better than so when he saith It is most evident that whosoever converteth a man unto God that person doth in truth and in deed Minister the word of God and the spirit by the word and so may be said to be sent of God In that general and large sense wherein Mr. Bernard p. 313. expounds the word Sent or Apostle I do acknowledge many Ministers in England sent of God that is that it comes not to pass without the special providence and ordination of God that such and such men should rise up and preach such and such truths for the furtherance of the salvation of Gods elect in the places where they come But this Accuser adds Sect. 5. The Ministers are not proved such daubers as those Ezek. 22.28 4. That they prophesie placentia smooth things according to the desires tempers and lusts of men to the pleasing of whom they addict themselvs Jer. 6.14 and 27.9 Ezek. 13.10 11. and 22 28. What visible lineaments of such a frame of spirit are drawn upon the faces of that generation of men concerning whom we are now discoursing Have they not been of all others I am now speaking of such as are looked upon by Professors as men of the greatest parts and holiness the most ready to strike in with preach up and plead for what was suitable unto the spirits of such upon whom they have had a dependance 'T were indeed well for them could they in their present standing and practise acquit themselves from that sore crime of seeking to please men which if they do they cannot be the servants of Christ Gal. 1.10 Answ. They do by their glossings and flatteries lull people asleep in security bearing them in hand that there is no such dangerous matter towards them as Gods Prophets tell them but that all shall be well whatsoever they say see the same chap. 8.11 see also Lam. 2.14 Ezek. 13.22 is Mr. Gatakers Paraphrase in his Annotations on Jer. 6.14 That which was prophesied Jer. 27.9 is expressed to be that they should not serve the King of Babylon The daubing Ezek. 13.10 11. was by seeing vanity and divining lies ver 9. Ezek. 22.28 saying Thus saith the Lord when the Lord hath not spoken If the present Ministers of England do so they are to be accounted false Prophets But do not this Authors own words in the next crimination before when he saith perhaps they do in their Sermons reprove sin thunder out the Judgments of God against transgressors of his Law as much as any clear the Ministers and prove himself guilty of false accusation what those visible lineaments of such a frame of spirit are should have been named if he would have dealt plainly If men of greatest parts and holiness on one side have been the most ready to strike in with preach up and plead for what was suitable unto the spirits of such upon whom they have had dependance may it not be said so of men of the greatest parts and holiness of the Congregational party that they have been liable to the like It were well if both parties would search themselves and not be so forward to accuse each other As I conceived long ago in my printed Treatise of glorying in men on 1 Cor. 3.21 so I am still by much experience confirmed that the so termed Professors of England out of their injudiciousness and partial affection have done much hurt to themselves and the Church of God by looking upon glorying in adhering to some as of greatest parts and holiness with disparagement of others whence evil surmizes censurings divisions from them that are disaffected swallowing down without chewing what those utter whom they follow which hath been a temptation to Teachers to vent such things as were not right for the retaining of their followers and a trap whereby their hearers have been ensnared to their own and others no small disquietness And I agree with this Author that it were well indeed with the Ministers and with their dissenters or opposites if they could all acquit themselves from this sore crime of seeking to please men and that we could all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seek and speak the truth in love Ephes. 4.15 Yet further saith he Sect. 6. Ministers changing of places sadning some mens hearts not characters of a false Prophet 5. That they are greedy Dogs that can never have enough and look every man for his gain from his quarter Isa. 56.11 seeking and serving themselves in their ministration Ezek. 13.19 Micah 3. 5.11 in the Margin In a translation of the New Testament dedicated to Edward the Sixth the Author of the Notes on Chap. 10. sayes We must preach the truth without any respect of reward or gains They therefore that preach for their bellies sake or preach after the prescript of man are not the Disciples of Christ. That herein is a perfect harmony betwixt these false Prophets and the present Ministers of England cannot be denied what means else their frequent calls from places of less to places of greater value their gaping and greedy desires after preferment the vexations they put poor men to that cannot in conscience put into their mouths preparing War against them Answ. Isa. 56.11 may be understood as well of the civil Magistrate as the Minister and of neither is it a Character of a Minister not to be heard as being a false Prophet nor of an usurper or unlawful Magistrate that is not to be obeyed Ezek. 13.19 notes a Character of a false Prophet but the proper character of him as such is not that he prophecied for handfuls of Barley or pieces of Bread but that they polluted God among his people by lying to them Micah 3.5 is a character of a false Prophet in that they made Gods people to erre their preparing war against him that put not into their mouth is a common accident to corrupt men not a property of a false Prophet and in like manner the Prophets divining for money ver 11. or the Priests teaching for money no more proves a false Prophet or false Priest then the heads judging for reward proves them false heads these are their personal vices which may be in a true Prophet as in Judas and in a true Priest as Hophni or in a true head as in Jehoiakim Jer. 22.17 and so are impertinent to prove a Minister a false Prophet Nor is it any more to the purpose what is in the Margin sith he that preacheth truth with respect of reward or gains may be a true Prophet though not a good man and so they that preach for their bellies sake though if they preach not
they that persecuted them for so doing may expect the like judgments of God to fall on them as fell on the Jewes But if it be otherwise and the things inveighed against be not such as they make them and their bearing testimony be such as tends to infringe the publique peace but not to rectify any thing they are guilty of calumny and their practice not to be judged to proceed from holy zeale but evil passion Sect. 11. The conformist not chargeable as the false Prophets of the Jewes Sixthly saith he that they had all along their corruption in worship and degeneracy from the worship of God false Prophets who ran before they were sent prophesying smooth things to them in the name of the Lord seeing Lying vanities for them according to the desires of the hearts of them and their Rulers who were therefore in great esteem amongst them Isa. 9.15 and 28.7 Jer. 6.13 and 23.11 28. and 28.10 Hos. 9 8 Jer. 2.8 26. and 5.31 and 14.14 and 23.13 21. Ezek. 13.2 and 22.25 28. Mic. 3.5 6 7. Zeph. 3.4 2 Pet. 2.1 Answer All this is granted and if any of the Preachers in England prophesie lies in Gods name or bring in damnable heresies denying the Lord that bought them or are such as those whom the Texts alledged describe let them be branded as false Prophets But if they teach the fundamentals of Christian Religion truly and in respect of the substance of worship use no other than God hath appointed though they may in some points remote from the foundation erre and use some things in and about the worship of God which should not be yet do not overthrow the worship of God in substantials then are they false accusers who accuse them as if they were such as those Texts of Scripture alledged do describe Sâ—ct 12. Invectives against teachers and worship now may be from another spirit than that of the Prophets Seventhly saith he that in the height of their Apostacy God left not himself without a witness having one or other extraordinarily raised up and spirited by him to testify for his name and glory against all their abominations and self-invented worship reserving also a remnant unto himself that were not carried away with the Spirit of whoredoms and delusions 1 Kings 19.14 18. 2 Kings 17.13 Romans 11.3 4. Jer. 18.11 and 25.5 and 35.15 Answer That self invented worship was bowing the Knee to Baal 1 Kings 19.18 Rom. 11.3 4. serving Idols 2 Kings 17.12 burning Incense to vanity Jer. 18.15 going after other Gods to serve them and worship them Jer. 25.6 and 35.15 If there be found any such self-invented worship in the Church of England it will do well to testifie against it But if there be not such abominations and self-invented worship these texts will not justify Persons who have no other than ordinary calling to testify against them much less to censure them as whoredoms and delusions and they that practice them as carried away with the spirit of whoredoms and delusions And though persons may imagine they imitate Elijah are extraordinarily raised up and spirited by God and that they testify for Gods name and Glory when they call the Common-prayer Book an Idol the Ministers that conform Baals Priests the Communion the Mass with such like Billingsgate Rhetorick yet it is not unlikely but that it may be truly verified of such which our Lord Christ said to James and John when they would have fire commanded to come down from Heaven and consume the Samaritans even as Elias did ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of and that it may be bitter and not holy zeal which moves them and their language judged by God not just reproof but unjust reviling Sect. 13. The forsaking of false Prophets and worship among the Jewes is no justification of separation from the present teachers and worship Eighthly saith he that it was the sin of that People to hearken unto the teachings of such as were not sent by the Lord though they pretended never so much to be sent by him and the unquestionable duty of the Lords preserving Remnant to separate from them as also from all the false devised worship of that day though commended by their Kings and Rulers 2 Kings 17.21 22. Hos. 5.11 The former is evident such Prophets were to be cut off from the middest of them Deut. 18.20 and they are expressely forbidden to hear them Deut. 13.3 Jer. 27.6 16. so is the latter their devised worship being a breach upon the soveraign Authority of God must needs be a grievous sin as the names of Adultery Whoredom Idolatry Fornication by which the Spirit of the Lord doth frequently set it forth abundantly demonstrates Psal. 73.27 Isai. 57.3.8 Jer. 9.2 EZek. 23.45 Hos. 3.7 and 7.3 Lev. 20.5 Jer. 13.27 Ezek. 16 17.20.30 Hos. 1.2 Rev. 14.8 and 18.9.19 20. which without controversie the people of God were to separate from and have no communion with any in upon what pretence soever which is solemnly charged upon them as their duty in the Scripture Hos. 4.15 Amos 5.5 Prov. 4.14 and 5.8 Cant. 4.8 Answer None are said in those Texts or any other I meet with not to be sent by the Lord who delivered the truth of God but they only in those places are denied to be sent by God who delivered falsehoods and such falsehoods as were inciting to Idolatry or contradictions to the messages of the true Prophets and such were not to be heard though they should be commâ—nded by Kings and Rulers who ought to cut them off when they spake in Gods name a word which he had not commanded them to speak or did speak in the name of other Gods Deut. 18.20 And if they sought to turn them from the Lord to serve other Gods they were not only not to hearken to them but also if they were never so near to them they should not spare them but kill them Deut. 13.9 which I presume he will not say of the present ministers of England and therefore me thinks he should have left out these allegations if he had well bethought himself how unfit they were to his present designe That devised worship which is termed Adultery Whoredom Idolatry Fornication is Levit. 20.5 Committing whoredom with Molech Psal. 73.27 being farre from God going a whoring from him Isaia 57.5 inflaming themselves with Idols under every green Tree slaying the Children in the Valleys under the Clefts of the Rocks Jerem. 9.2 treachery Jer. 13.27 abominations on the hill in the fields Ezek. 16.17 making to her self images of men to commit Whoredom with them v. 20. Sacrificing their Sons and Daughters to them to be devoured Ezek. 23.37 Committing Adultery with Idols Hos. 1.2 departing from the Lord Revel 14.8 and 18.9 such fornication as Babylon made all Nations even Kings of the earth to commit and from such it is without controversie the people of God were to separate and have no communion with any in upon any
Tim. 2.1 and 3.15 Jude 20. 1 Cor. 12.7 11. Mat. 25.24 1 Pet. 4.10 11. 1 Cor. 12.15 and 14.12 24. Ephes. 4.3 7 15 16. Acts 2.42 Rom. 15.14 Ephes. 5.19 Col. 3.16 1 Thess. 5.14 2 Thess. 3.15 Heb. 3.13 to which might be added the frequent examples of the Saints in the Old and New Testament 2 Chron. 17.7 8 9. Job 2.11 Mal. 3.16 Luke 4.16 Acts 13.15 1 Cor. 14.24 to 34. and the practice of the Primitive Church as witness Origen in his Epistle to Celsum Terrullian in his Apologie Justin Martyr in his Apologie and many others Answ. The censures of the Doctors of this day and their wresting 1 Cor. 14.40 are too general and not to be answered save to tell the Author that it is good for a man not to be wise in his own conceit nor to be too free in censuring others lest he fall into Diogenes his evil when he trampled on Plato's pride with greater pride But to the rest of the charge I say That I know none of the Ministers of England that forbid the Saints to Prophesie one by one nor do I know of any at this day that have the gift of Prophesie which I gather from 1 Cor. 12.28 29. and 13.2 8 9 10. and other places to have been an extraordinary gift by immediate revelation of the Spirit whereby some hidden thing is discovered See Lysord's Apologie for the Ministery pag. 27 28. If there were any that could Prophesie indeed neither Prelates nor others may or can hinder them But when persons mistakingly call all speaking to men to Edification Exhortation and Comfort from 1 Cor. 14.3 Prophesying as if these terms were reciprocal and under presâ—nâ—e thereof vent many mistakes and fancies the restraint or regulating of such exerciseâ— may be no transgression of Christs command And though the performing of the duties in the Texts alledged ought to be cherished and furthered and such Meetings as do really tend thereto should be countenanced sith there may be abuses which are to be prevented by Governours though sometimes there be injustice and liberty too much restrained and complaints made to God in secret yet should not invectives be used to alienate the minds of people from their Teachers or Rulers nor any unlawful practice used tending to Sedition or disturbance but by patience and quietness we should possess our souls expecting help from God in due time as did the Primitive Christians with happy success Yet once more saith this Author Sect 9. Ministers service may be Divine and Spiritual in the use of the Liturgy Yea 7. What should I mention that grand Institution of this Soveraign Lord and Lawgiver that nothing be offered up to the Father but what is of his own prescription Divine and Spiritual without affectation of Legal shadows John 4.24 of worldly pomp or carnal excellency 2 Cor. 1.12 and 2.17 1 Cor. 2.12 and 6.13 1 Cor. 12.28 Isa. 33.22 Jam. 4.12 Matth. 15.6 9. Heb. 8.5 1 King 13.33 12 13. Jer. 7.31 Numb 15.39 Deut. 12.1 4 31. It 's evident the present Ministers of England conform not to the Orders and Ordinances Christ as the great Prophet and Lawgiver to his people hath appointed them to walk by and therefore really disown the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. Answ. It is true no Prayers or Praises or other Religious exercises should be offered to the Father but what is of his own prescription in respect of the service it self matter or manner which he hath prescribed But when he hath left it free to use a prescript Form of words or to pray without such a stinted Form where he forbids not the use of Musick in praysing of God and no Idolatry or Superstition is used or furthered by Ordinances and Utensils for the celebration of Gods Ordinances notwithstanding these the service of God may be Divine and Spiritual without affectation of Legal shadows of worldly pomp or carnal excellency contrary to the texts alledged If any be faulty in that way it is to be imputed to the persons not either to others not guilty nor to the Liturgy prescribed much less such Ministers as offer up Prayers and Prayses to the Father in the name of Christ for things agreeable to the Will of God and use the Lords Supper without Idolatry are to be charged to disown really the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. Sect. 10. Things objected against the Ministers are not such as justifie Separation This Author addes But perhaps to these things some may say These are but small matters good men differ among themselves herein To which we answer 1. That they are part of the Instituted Worship of God the Orders he hath left his children to conform to hath already been proved to say That any part of the Instituted Worship of Christ is a small matter is no small derogation to the wisdom of the Lawgiver that gave it forth 2. What if it should appear that as small as these things seem to be they are the grounds of the late Controversies of God pleaded with fire and sword in most of the Europaean Kingdoms This may perhaps a little stay sober persons from so rash a conclusion that these are small matters A serious review of the late Contests of God in the Nations with the consideration of the grounds and rise of them will to persons of sobriety sufficiently evince the truth of the suggestion 3. As small matters as these have been severely punished by the Lord He is a jealous God and stands upon punctilio's if I may so call them in his Worship hence is that expression Ye cannot serve the Lord for he is a jealous God Josh. 24.19 What should I mention the case of Uzziah 2 Chron 26.16 of Corah Dathan and Abiram Numb 16. of Uzzah whose sin lay meerly in whose judgment was singly upon this foot of account his not seeking the Lord after the due order 1 Chron. 15.13 God commands that when the Ark was removed it should be covered by the Priests that no hand touch it that it be carryed on mens shoulders Numb 4.11 15. which Order was violated when they brought it from the house of Abinadab 't was uncovered and upon a Cart after the manner of the Egyptians 1 Sam. 8.7 for which breach of Order Uzzah is struck dead 4. As small matters as these when once commanded by the Lord are of that force as not only to deface the well-being but to overturn the true being of the Worship of God Take one pregnant instance herein The Lord commanded the Israelites by Moses to bring their Sacrifices to the place that he should chuse and offer them there which in it self was but a circumstance of place yet all the Sacrifices offered elsewhere were a stink in the nostrills of God and not accounted by him as any Worship performed unto him 5. But the Objection is altogether impertinent we are not debating the greatness of the sin but the truth of what is charged upon
making good their ground herein who sees not that their Plea hitherto impleaded sinks of it self Sith I neither plead for the Constitutions of the Church of England in particular nor is it my supposition that only the Constitutions of a constituted Church of Christ bind in things of Divine Worship and Church Rule and therefore my Answer and position need not sink for want of making good this plea. And accordingly might put him off to others to answer his impertinent questions What is it then they mean by the Church whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are without disputing to subject to is it the National Church of England But where find they any National Church of the Institution of Christ in the Oeconomie of the Gospel How prove they that the Church of England is so Nevertheless I may say I know not any that hold concerning the Church of England that its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper opinions are to be subjected to without dispute though the Romanists hold it of the Church of Râ—me and for a National Church I refer him to what is before in answer to his Preface sect 15. But there are more questions behind Yet should this also be granted where are the Constitutions and Laws of this Church that we may pay the homage to them as is meet Which Question he might answer himself who in this Chapter cites so many of the Canons of the Church of England But he yet enquires When was it assembled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place together in its several members freely to debate 1 Cor. 11.20 and 14 23. and in the Margin Maccovius in loc com append de Adi p. 861. Things indifferent he tells you ought not to be introduced into the Church but by the common consent thereof according to Acts 15. determine what Laws and Constitutions were fit to be observed by them To which I answer The Church of England was assembled at London Anno 1603. in its several members by deputation freely to debate things as was the usage in the Synods of ancient and later times and even in New England at Cambridge there about the Antinomian opinions in Mr. Welds History in England in the Assembly at Westminster of the Congregational Churches by their Elders and Messengers in their Meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. which kind of Meeting must be allowed as the Meeting of the whole Church which they represent there being no other way in which orderly many particular Churches throughout a Nation can convene and debate freely either points of Doctrine or Discipline than by such Deputies and therefore as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod Nor is there any thing against this in 1 Cor. 11.20 or 1 Cor. 14.23 unless it be supposed that all those must meet to debate matters of Doctrine and Discipline who did then meet for worship which is not to be said For then in such things women also must have a voice contrary to the Apostles resolution 1 Cor. 14.34 and the practice of all the Churches As for Act. 15. the Synod was about a point of Doctrine and though it be said ver 22. that it pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send some to Antioch yet the whole Church is not likely to be meant of every particular member but as Acts 6.2 5. Acts 21.20 22. and elsewhere by the multitude or whole Church is meant a great part or indefinite number However those from Antioch mentioned Acts 15.2 were not many and therefore if that Synod be a pattern for after times yet it cannot be a rule in respect of the number of persons convening when Churches are so increased or so far distant one from another as that they cannot commodiously meet in their multitudes or debate orderly but must of necessity act by Deputies and their Constitutions are to be taken as the Constitutions of the whole Church for whom they appear But this Author excepts If it be said that this is not requisite it is enough that it be assembled in its several Officers or such as shall be chosen by their Officers whose laws every member is bound to be obedient to We answer But these Officers are the Church or they are not if they are not as there is nothing more sure I owe no subjection to their Laws or Constitutions it being pleaded that 't is the Church that hath only power in this matter if they are the Church let them by one Scripture prove they are so or where the true Officers of a true Church are so called and as Nonius saith out of Nâ—vius to them Dum vivebo fidelis ero Yet except this also be yielded them there is nothing of moment in the Objection produced Answ. The Objection as it is by me made is not the Plea as here is supposed The power in this matter is by me ascribed to Rulers and Texts requiring obedience to them have been produced and notwithstanding this Authors exceptions there is something of moment in the Objection and the speech is not made good That the present Ministers of England submit own and subscribe to Laws and Constitutions that are not in any sense of Christ revealing nor if it were doth it follow Therefore they oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. Sect. 6. It 's not proved that the Ministers of England own Constitutions contrary to the revelation of Christ. He goes on thus But this is not all 2ly The present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Laws Constitutions and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ whence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ may rationally be concluded This also by the induction of a few particular instances will be evinced beyond exception Answ. Four things are here undertaken 1. That the particular instances stand by Laws and Constitutions 2. That these Laws Constitutions and Ordinances are contrary to the revelation of Christ. 3. That the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to them 4. That from thence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ may rationally be concluded In which how he hath failed will be apparent by the view of what he alledgeth They own saith he and acknowledge 1. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself which is contrary to 1 Pet. 5.3 1 Cor. 12.5 Ephes. 4.5 Heb. 3.1 Luke 22.25 26. Answ. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England but not in the sense in which Christ is called the chief Shepherd 1 Pet. 5.4 or the same Lord 1 Cor. 12.5 or one Lord Ephes. 4.5 or the Apostle and High Priest of our prosession Heb. 3.1 or Lordship is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3 Luke 22.25 26. they are
Canon of his standing for fear of shedding ought But I deny that kneeling in the very time of receiving was ever in the Church of Rome any Rite of or for adoration of the Sacrament it self or any creature and therefore not Idolatrous I deny not the errour of their minds concerning that they received into their mouths But I deny that they ever intended adoration of the species at that moment of time when they took it in their mouths But then turned themselves to God rather to give him thanks which was not uncomely Of which he gives three reasons 1. Because it was never yet enjoyned by any Pope that they should then kneel 2. In the Mass there is no direction for adoration of the Sacrament when it is received 3. For that it is an incongruous thing in their superstition to adore a thing which is not higher than their polls when they adore it because they cannot be said to humble themselves to that which is lower than they can cast themselves To this last reason nothing is returned by Dr. Ames in his Triplic ch 4. p. 429. and Dallaeus adv lat cult l. 9. c. 13. Id quod adoratur eo à quo adoratur celsius ac sublimius aliquid esse debere insito à natura ipsa sensu omnes mortales confitentur atque consentiunt To which is to be added that kneeling is used according to the Common Prayer Book with Prayer to God and at the receiving of the Wine as well as at the Bread which are not so with the Papists and therefore kneeling is not to be taken as adoration of the Bread as the Papists do And for that which is said that the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling is directly opposite to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after Christ to the time of the invention and introduction of the Popish Breaden-god it is denyed by the same Dr. Burges in that and other following Chapters by the Bishop of Rochester Paybody and others about which and the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches at this day it is not necessary that I should make inquiry sith if it were so yet it proves nor that the present Ministers of England do oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ by their submitting to kneeling at the Lords Supper Sect. 10. Forbidding to marry or eat flesh at certain times are not characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant It is added What should I mention the Constitutions and Canons before pointed to wherein 't is forbidden to any to Preach not licensed by the Bishops thereunto to marry or eat flesh at certain times with many more of the like nature all directly contrary to the soveraign edicts of Christ and some of them evident characters of the last dayes Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 from whom Saints are warned by the Lord to turn aside ver 5. These we have produced carry an undeniable evidence with them that the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ and therefore deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office Answ. To that of forbidding to Preach answer is made in the examining this Chapter Sect. 2. Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from flesh at certain times upon politick considerations or for the better observing a religious Fast are not characters of the Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 But may be justified by such passages of Scripture as Jonah 3.7 Joel 2.16 1 Cor. 7.5 Dan. 10.3 Nor do I think the most zealous Separatists but would restrain from Marriage and Flesh the members of their Churches in the times of solemn Fasts or would count it evil that the Magistrate forbids for civil ends abstinence from some kind of food which being the case of the prohibitions of the Civil Laws of England rather than the Canons of the Church which make it not a sin against God to marry or eat flesh then is unjustly made the character of Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 which is more justly charged on the Monks and Popish Votaries who account it sinful to marry as if it were unchastness and more lawful to use Concubines than Wives for Priests as if they joyned with Pope Siricius terming such persons in the flesh and such as could not please God and place more holiness in eating Fish than Flesh which sort of people are very accurately proved to be there characterized by Mr. Joseph Mede in his Book of the Doctrine of Daemons intituled The Apostasie of the later times That the present Ministers of England are such or that precept which is not 1 Tim. 4.5 2 Tim. 3.5 From such turn aside belongs to them is not proved by this Author nor that they do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ or deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office French Protestants in the Synod of Charenton 1644. chap. 13. art 24. The Church shall not solemnise marriage in the dayes on the which the Lords Supper is administred nor on the dayes of a publick Fast. See this crimination retorted on the Separatists by Paget in his Arrow ch 6. sect 3. p. 155. n. 5. Yet he hath not done with this Argument Sect. 11. No such Headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices To all that hitherto hath been offered in this matter we shall yet add as a further demonstration of the truth we are in the disquisition of Arg. 3. Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office but the present Ministers of England do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ Therefore If the assertion of another King in England that as the Head thereof hath power of making and giving forth Laws to the free-born Subjects therein be a denial of his Kingly Authority as no doubt it is the major or first Proposition cannot be denied If Christ be the alone King of his Church as such he is its alone Head and Lawgiver If he hath not by any Statute-Law established any other Headship in and over his Church to act in the Holy things of God from and under him besides himself who sees not the assertion of such an Headship carries with it a contempt and denial of his Authority If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ let us know when and where it was instituted whether such a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom with respect to Worship be granted by them to any of the sons of men absolutely or conditionally if the first then must the Church it seems be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ trampling upon his royal Commands and Edicts for so it 's possible it may fall out those that aâ—tain this Headship may do as it 's evident many Popes of Rome the great
pretenders hereunto have done If the second let one iota be produced from the Scripture of the Institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto and we shall be so far from denying of it that we shall cheerfully pay whatever respect homage or duty by the Laws of God or Man may righteously be expected from us But this will not we humbly conceive in hast be performed and that because 1. The Scripture makes mention of no other Head in and over the Church but Christ Ephes. 1.22 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 2. If there be any other Head he must either be within or without the Church The latter will not be affirmed Christ had not sure so little respect unto his flock as to appoint Wolves and Lions to be their Governours and Guides in matters Ecclesiastical nor can the former for all in the Church are Brethren have no dominion over each others Faith or Conscience Luke 22.25 3. If any other be Head of the Church but Christ then is the Church the Body of some others besides Christ but this is absurd and false not to say impious and blasphemous 4. There was no Head of the Church in the Apostles dayes but Christ. 5. If any be Head of the Church beside Christ they either have their Headship from an Original Right seated in themselves or by donation from Christ. To assert the first were no less then blasphemy if the second let them shew when and where and how they came to be invested in such a right and this Controversie will be at an end 6. He that is asserted in Scripture to be the Head of the Church is said to govern feed and nourish it to eternall life is her Spouse and Husband 2 Cor. 11.2 In which sense none of the Sons of men one or other can be the Head thereof and yet of any other Head the Scripture is wholly silent But of this matter thus far It cannot by any sober person be denied but an owning of a visible Head over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship such an Headship not being of the institution of Christ must needs be a denial of his Soveraign Authority and Power Answ. This Author in this Argument seems to me to hide his meaning as they say the Fish Saepia doth by casting out some black colour whereby the water is infected and she not discerned A Headship over the Church besides Christ's he makes the present Ministers to acknowledge in some of the sons of men but who they are he means what the Headship is and how it is opposite to Christs Kingly and Prophetical Office is not plainly expressed nor in what Subscription Oath or Conformity they own and submit to it Headship is a Metaphor and sometime notes Origination vital influence direction or guidance superiority power authority or government which may be in many things No Minister I think gives such a Headship to any of the sons of men as to Christ over his whole Body either so as to derive their being members having their faith or eternal life or dominion over their Consciences or Sovereign power authority to rule or dispose of soul or body as Christ hath And that which the Bishop of Rome claims over the Universal Church is utterly disclaimed by the present Ministers The Headship which is made a denial of Christs Headship ascribed by the present Ministers to some person on Earth is expressed in various phrases A Headship in and over his Church to act in the Holy things of God a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of Christs Kingdom with respect to Worship a visible head over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship which it 's said they own by conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads and Governours of the Church thâ—y own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a a Law making and Law-giving power touching Institutions of Worship that never came into his heart Headship over the Church to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship This can be conceived to be ascribed by the present Ministers to no other than the Bishops or Convocation or the King whose Supremacy in Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical seems to be that Headship here meant by the answer to the second Objection What Headship is ascribed to the Bishops or Convocation in making Laws or Constitutions about Worship to wit the accidentals thereof undetermined in order to the orderly decent performance of it to edification by the present Ministers hath been examined all along in the answer to this Book specially to the 4. and 5. Chapters Sect. 3. and as yet no such Headship is proved by this Author to be ascribed by the present Ministers as amounts to a denial of the Prophetical and Kingly Offices of Christ that the taking of the Oath of the Kings Supremacie or submission to his Edicts about matters of Worship is not owning such a Headship is further to be cleared And first I deny his major That those who acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ by acknowledging the King as Supream Governour in Causes Ecclesiastical or Spiritual as the Oath of Supremacy is proved by me in my Book of the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy ought to be understood particularly that he or with him the Bishops or Convocation may make Laws or Constitutions in the accidentals of Worship undetermined in Scripture observing the rules of Order Decency Edification deny Christs Prophetical and Kingly Office and to the proofs of it I answer This Author doth most injuriously suppose the power and authority asserted to the King of England in the Oath of Supremacie to make Laws or Canons about the Worship of God with the Counsel of a Synod or Convocation or Parliament is making another King besides Christ over his Church For there is no such thing acknowledged thereby which is proper to Christ to wit to be the universal Monarch of the whole Church to prescribe what Faith or Worship shall be given to God to be Infallible Interpreter of Gods Will and the Supreme Judge and Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy or which is arrogated by the Popes of Rome and thus acknowledged by Hart the Jesuite in his Conference with Dr. John Rainold in the Tower of London ch 1. div 2. in these words The power which we mean to the Pope by this title of the Supream Head is that the Government of the whole Church of Christ throughout the World doth depend of him in him doth lye the power of judging and determining all causes of Faith of ruling Councils as President and ratifying their Decrees of Ordering and Confirming Bishops and Pastors of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the coasts of the Earth of reconciling any
that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations Finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either Preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ. Which his practice sheweth to be such as to dispense with the Laws of God as by legitimating incestuous Marriages releasing of lawful Oaths granting Indulgences releasing out of Purgatory Canonizing of Saints Consecrating of things for the expulsion of Devils with many more and iâ— it be true which is related in a Book lately printed to have been asserted by the party of Jesuites in the Colledge of Clermont in France that the Pope is not only infallible in matters of Faith but also in matters of Fact he is elevated to that height as to accomplish the prophesie which is 2 Thess. 2.4 But the present Ministers of England do abhorr the giving such power to the King Bishops or Convocation yea it is disclaimed by the King Bishops and Convocation as blasphemous and that power they ascribe to the Church is set down in the 34. Article of Religion Every particular or National Church hath authority to Ordain Change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying And that which they acknowledge belonging to the King as the only Supreme Governour of the Realm of England and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as temporal is thus explained Artic. 37. We give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers Which is so far from being no other than the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome as this Author saith p. 47. that to shew the calumny of it I need use no other words than those of Dr. John Owen in his answer to a Popish Book entituled Fiat Lux ch 13. p. 271. The Declaration made in the dayes of King Henry the 8. that he was Head of the Church of England intended no more but that there was no other person in the World from whom any Jurisdiction to be exercised in this Church over his Subjects might be derived the Supream Authority for all exteriour Government being vested in him alone that this should be so the Word of God the Nature of the Kingly Office and the ancient Laws of this Realm do require And I challenge our Author to produce any one testimony of Scripture or any one word out of any general Council or any one Catholick Father or Writer to give the least Countenance to his assertion of two Heads of the Church in his sense an Head of Influence which is Jesus himself and an Head of Government which is the Pope in whom all the sacred Hierarchy ends This taking of one half of Christs Rule and Headship out of his hand and giving it to the Pope will not be salved by that expression thrust in by the way under him For the Headship of Influence is distinctly ascribed unto Christ and that of Government to the Pope which evidently asserts that he is not in the same manner Head unto his Church in both senses but he in the one and the Pope in the other I add that Mr. Philip Nye in his Book of the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy and power of the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical affairs and subordination of Churches thereunto Printed 1662. though not published hath these words p. 46. For Persons and Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical that are properly and indeed such as first Table-duties which contain matters of Faith and Holiness and what conduceth to the eternal welfare of mens souls an interest and duty there is in the Civil Magistrate more suâ— to give Commands and exercise Lawful Jurisdiction about things of that nature And for Persons there is no man for his graces so spiritual or in respect of his gâ—fts and Office so eminent but he is under the Government of the Civil Powers in the place where he lives as much in all respects as any other subject Yea in the Apology of the Brownists Printed 1604. these words are alledged for their common defence out of the Letter of Henry Barrow to a Lady 1593. p. 92. I have every where in my writings acknowledged all duty and obedience to her Majesties government as to the sacred Ordinance of God the Supreme Power he hath set over all causes and persons whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within her Dominions Out of these things I infer that asserting the Kings Supremacy or the power of making Laws owned by the Ministers of England is not making another King besides Christ over his Church nor ascribing such a Headship to the King or Governours of the Church as is pleaded for by the Church of Rome and that for the Kings Supremacy those that dissent about Ceremonies and Church Government do acknowledge it as it is meant in the Oath taken by the Ministers Concerning which Supremacy if what I have written in the little Treatise Printed 1660. intituled A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremncy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions be not sufficient to produce from the Scripture the institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto methinks Dr. Rainold his argument which convinced Hart in the conference with him ch 10. div 1. and such other writings as have been written by Bilson Mason Bramhall and many more should have prevented this calumny of making thereby another head besides Christ equivalent to a denial of his Kingly Office And to his Objections I answer 1. to the first That we use not the title of Head but Supreme Governour yet when it was used it meaning the same it might be used as it was given to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 though not as it it is given to Christ Ephes. 1.22 and 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 Nor is the title of Head so appropriate to Christ but that it is given to the Man over the Woman 1 Cor. 11.3 to the Husband over the Wife Ephes. 5.23 and may in a qualified sense in respect of Government be given to the King over the Church in his Dominions as to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 to the chief of Families as Parents or others of greatest authority or esteem as the heads of houses Exod. 6.14 in which sense Parliament men Judges Ecclesiastical Governours may be termed Heads of the Church or State they represent
or are subject to them To the second though all in the Church are Brethren have no dominion oâ— authority over each others faith or conscience yet neither are all equal in the Church nor doth Luke 22.25 prove it The Apostles sure had power over the members of the Church to command 1 Cor. 7.10 to give orders 1 Cor. 16.1 to judge 1 Cor. 5.3 though no superiority over one another And though the King and Bishops or Convocation are Brethren yet are they Superiours Rulers Rom. 13.1 Heb. 13.17 and though they have no dominion or authority over each others faith or conscience so as that their Laws shall bind the conscience immediately and must be obeyed as precisely and fully as the Laws of God and Christ yet their Laws Edicts Commands Canons or Rules even in the worship of God in things undetermined by God and according to such Rules as the Scripture directs them to observe bind in some sort the conscience as the commands of Parents and Masters by virtue of the authority given them by God Rom. 13.5 1 Peter 2.13 14 16 18 19. though not in respect of the things commanded by them To the third the Church is not the body of any other than Christ as joyned to any or depending on any or subject to any absolutely as unto Christ yet may particular Churches in respect of that Ministration and Government which their Governours afford them be said to be the bodies of their Governors as a wife is in some râ—spect the body of her husband Ephes. 5 28. nor is there any impiety or blasphemy in so saying And in this sense the Apostles and Bishops or Elders were heads of the Church in the Apostles dayes which answers the fourth To the fifth their Headship is by donation from Christ in the places often alledged and in answer to the sixth though not as Christ is termed the Husband of Believers 2 Cor. 11.2 can any be termed Husband nor to govern feed and nourish to eternal life as Christ by influence of his Spirit or power to give eternal life 1 Cor. 6 17. John 17.2 nor their Father as God is said to be Ephes. 4.6 1 Cor. 8.6 Jam. 1.18 Joh. 1.13 yet the Apostles and all others may be in a qualified sense who are instruments to convert or build up others by the Word or Discipline be termed their Fathers in Christ 1 Cor. 4 15. and to govern feed and nourish them to eternal life as 1 Thess. 2.7 11. the Apostle saith of himself Whence I conclude in answer to his major that notwithstanding what he hath said it may by a sober person be denyed that an owning of a visible head or heads over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to worship as the King Parliament Bishops or Convocation do may be no denial of Christs Soveraign authority and power Le ts view that which remains Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christ's proves not owning another King coordinate to him That saith he the present Ministers of England do own and submit to such an Headship is undeniable witness their Subscription Oath Conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads and Governours of the Church which are not onely foreign to but as hath been already demonstrated lift up themselves in opposition against the royal institutions of Christ. This being matter of fact the Individuals charged herewith must either acquit themselves by a denial of what they are impleaded as guilty or prove what they do is not criminous but lawful to be done The former being too notoriously known to admit of a denial 't is the latter must be insisted on what is therein offered is nextly to be considered Answ. Though I cannot justifie all that the present Ministers of England do in their Subscriptions and Conformity as if it were no way criminous but in every thing lawful to be done nor perhaps will all of them plead so for themselves as being mindful of the Psalmists words Psal. 19.12 Who can understand his errours cleanse thou me from secret faults Yet for the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which are the only Oaths I know they have taken as I have so I do still plead that the taking of them is not criminous but may be lawfully done And I further say that were it yielded that the Laws and Edicts made and given forth by those sons of men he means as Heads and Governours of the Church not only foreign to but which I utterly deny he hath demonstrated that they lift up themselves in opposition against the royal Institutions of Christ yet might the Ministers be free from that which he chargeth them with as denying Christs Kingly Office and setting up another King besides Christ as his Peer sith it is clear that such Conformity and Subscription may be out of weakness or errour not out of Faction or Rebellion nor doth he who conforms or subscribes to the Laws or Edicts of an Usurper own his power when he yields subjection to his commands Those who obeyed the Laws of Richard the 3. of England did not thereby acknowledge him to be the King of right nor do all that submit to the decrees of the Trent Council or the Popes Edicts either own the one or the other as being just or the power as rightly claimed but for peace sake submit to what they cannot remedy Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ is not monstrous It is added This is that some say Obj. 1. That they acknowledge another Head besides Christ cannot indeed be denied but the Headship owned and acknowledged by them is an Headship only under Christ. To which we answer Answ. 1. But this Headship is either of Christs appointment or 't is not if it be let it be shewn where it was instituted by him and as we said this controversie is at an end if it be not the assertion of such an Headship even in subordination to Christ over his Churches as such hinders not but persons owning submitting thereunto are guilty of denying the Kingly Office of Christ. 2. The Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other 3. 'T is not so as is pretended they own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a Law-making and Law-giving power touching institutions of Worship that never came into his heart are flatly against his appointments as hath been proved 4. One Head in subordination to another doth as really make the Body a Monster as two Heads conjoined Answ. 1. The term Head of the Church is not used in the Oath of Supremacy but Supreme Governour and this is agreeable to Scripture Rom. 13.1 1 Tim. 2.2 1 Pet. 2.13 and how out of these and other Scriptures his Government is proved in that sense in which it is asserted by the Ministers is shewed by me in my Book of the serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings
Supremacy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions and if the Church as the Church be comprised under every soul Rom. 13.1 they are Governours of the Church as the Church that is as they are a Company of mâ—n that profess Faith in Christ. Not as if we acknowledged that Kings had a lawful power to prescribe another Faith or Worship besides Christs but as Physitians are said to be subject to the King as Physitians because he can prescribe rules with penalties in the use of that Art they practise according to Hippocrates his Aphorisms so the King is Governour over the Church as such by prescribing rules about the profession and exercise of that Faith and Worship they learn only from Christ in things undetermined by him and serving for the ends which they are to aim at Nor do I perceive that in so doing any more iâ— usurped by them than is ascribed by this Author unto the Church from Mat. 18.17 18. mistaken by him and therefore owning such a power under Christ as given to the Church is as much a denial of Christs Kingly Office as when it is given to the King yea it is more absurd to ascribe such a power to the Church over the Church as such than to ascribe it to the King it being a confounding of Governours and Governed Head and Body which were monstrous 2. Though I deny not that the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is pretended to be under Christ and the Pope terms himself Vicar of Christ yet it is in the foregoing Section shewed that they usurp a power not only equal but in some respects rather superiour to Christs in their dispensing with the keeping of lawful Oaths and allowing of incestuous Marriages none of which is claimed by those whom the Ministers acknowledge as Heads besides Christ and therefore it is false that the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other than what the Ministers own 3. His proofs have been examined before and shewed defective 4. The terms Head and Body being used only metaphorically there 's no more monstrosity in making a Head under a Head than in making a Governour under a Governour used by St. Peter 1 Epist 2.13 14. or making more Fathers of the Church one under another Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel He ends this Chapter thus If it be said Object 2. That the Kings of Israel were the Heads successively of the then Church and therefore a visible Headship over the Churches of Christ in the New Testament is lawful We answer 1. That betwixt the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel there is a vast disproportion many things were lawful in that day which to do or subject to now were no less than a denial of Christ come in the flesh 2. The Kings of Israel were types of Christ. 3. That the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church is false God was its alone Head and King Hence their Historian saith their Government was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when they would needs chuse a King God said they rejected him to whom even as to their political Head a Sicle was paid yearly as a Tribute called The Sicle of the Sanctuary True indeed as they were a political Body they had visible Political Governours who when they ceased their Policy was at an end but that these had any Headship over them to make any Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship will never be proved Answ. 1. That there is any such disproportion between the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel as makes the same power which the Kings of Israel exercised lawfully to be now unlawful to the Kings of England is falsely and vainly asserted sith there is nothing therein ceremonial and temporary peculiar to the Jewish Oeconomy as appears in that all Nations have ascribed to their chief Rulers dominion about things sacred as is proved by me in the Assertion of the fifth Proposition in my Book of the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy from that which is ascribed to Cyrus Isa. 44.28 and 45.1 to the King of Niniveh Jon. 3.7 8. and others Ezra 6.7 c. and 7.13 c. Dan. 3.29 6.26 and that Christianity alters not civil relations or Estates 1 Cor 7.24 Parents and Masters have the like power Ephes. 6.4 5. Gen. 35.2 4. which things are more fully vindicated by Mr. Selden in his first Book De Syned Hugo Grotius in his Book De Imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra and others 2. It is true that David is made a type of Christ but that all the Kings of Judah much less that all the Kings of Israel are made types of Christ or that Christ alone was to have that power which they used or that the Kingly Power used by them ceased upon the coming of Christ in the flesh are all most palpably false sith the Scriptures of the New Testament do plentifully assert the Dominion of Civil Powers and our Lord Christ himself and his Apostles yielded subjection to them 3. That the Church of Israel was different from the Kingdom or people of Israel is one of the Placita or proper opinions of those who would establish from that example an Ecclesiastical Independent Government in the Church distinct from the Civil Government of the State But neither the arguments of Mr. Gillespy in his Aarons Rod blossoming Book 1. c. 3. nor any other I have met with convince me that it was so Sure both David and Solomon and other Kings did exercise power over Ecclesiastical persons as in deposing Abiathar and in Ecclesiastical things about keeping the Passover 2 Chron. 29.30 30.2 and many other things which were approved by God being related in the holy Story without reproof as arguments of their integrity And therefore if the Kings of Israel were as it is said of Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 heads of the tribes of Israel they were also heads of the Church of Israel being Governours of the same persons whether of the tribe of Levi or of other tribes and about the same things to wit those of the Worship of God though they were not to meddle with the peculiar Ministry of the Priests and Levites It is true that God alone was the Head and King of the Church of Israel in some sense He was their sole supreme absolute King that had power Legislative to assign what Faith Worship Judicatories and what other things were necessary for that Congregation originally and of himself de jure communi of right common to all Nations as their Creatour and de jure speciali out of right peculiar to that people as being brought forth out of the Land of Egypt Lev. 25.55 and being joyned in Covenant with him were not to set up a King over them without his appointment and de facto he was actually their sole King till the people weary of Samuels
the Children of God that the first Beast hath exercised upon the Saints for this 1260. years to be charged upon this Generation of men yea who do more eagerly press a rigid Conformity not only contrary to the Kings Declaration from Breda and others since published by him but also as is thought to his natural temper and the inclination and bent of his spirit though to the infringing of the liberty the banishment the taking away the lives of the Saints who love Truth and Peace and humbly beg that they may be suffered for the tribute they pay as in the Dominion of the Grand Seignior they are in quietness to serve God according to their perswasins Answ. It is true false Prophets are noted by Christ Matth. 7.15 to be in outward shew as sheep meek and holy inwardly cruel But this is not the form denominating them false Prophets nor a signal character of them by which they are known but a reason of the caution of being deceived by their fair shews That by which they are false Prophets and are known to be such is their fruits v. 16. which though variously expounded by the Ancients and Maldonat understands it of their works Grotius of the works of iniquity yet of the Ancients some understand it of their faith Protestants some by fruits understand their false doctrine and evil life as Beza their doctrine manner of teaching spiritual efficacy in their hearts their life customes and intentions so Diodati Annot. their doctrin self-seeking and wickedness so the large Annot. Pareus The fruit of a false Prophet is his false and damnable doctrine Dr. Hammond Ye shall certainly know and discern them if you take notice of and weigh the doctrines which when they have gotten some authority with you they will presently endeavour to infuse into you Piscator in his Scholies From the effects of their doctrin For as for what pertains to life it may be that he may teach well who lives ill Molin Vates l. 3. c. 5. The fruits which their doctrine produceth in the minds of Auditors That the doctrin is meant by the fruits Matth. 7.16 was long since in my Antidote Sect. 9. asserted and in my Praecursor vindicated Sect. 14. to which I still adhere and therefore count this which is here made a signal character of a false Prophet unfit to that end as being congruous to them who are no Prophets in pretence and to them who may be true Prophets or Teachers The second Beast Revel 13.11 is saith Molin Vates l. 5. c. 17. The Roman Clergy with the Pope himself the Bishop of Rome with his Clergy saith Mr. Mede Comment on Revel 13.11 most of the Protestant Divines make it either the Pope when he usurped the power over the Emperour or the Pope and his Clergy who were indeed terrible in their Edicts and Laws stirring up and making use of the powers of the world to persecute kill and destroy the Saints But this did not shew them false Prophets but their false doctrine But that as face answers face in a glass so do the present Ministers of England the false Prophets there spoken of is said with much heat and without proof That all the Persecutions Imprisonments slaughters and butcheries of the Children of God that the first Beast whether he mean it of the Roman Emperours or ten Horns that is ten Kings into which it was parted or the Bishop of Rome hath exercised upon the Saints for this 1260. years are to be charged upon this generation of men that is the present Hierarchy and Ministry of England which he means if he speak pertinently is I confess a very dreadful and heavy sentence but pronounced à non judice who I hope will be found a false Prophet in the event as it shews him inwardly cruel to them and by his own rule is a signal character of himself being a false Prophet I hope by their appeal to heaven they will get this Indictment quasht I presume the rigid conformity pressed hath not yet tended to the banishment the taking away of the lives of the Saints who love Truth and Peace and I wish such writings and practices as this Author and some others are deemed to use do not exasperate the King and Parliament to effect it I assent to what he saith of his Majesty as having by experience found it true which in all humble thankfulness I acknowledge nor do I doubt but he is as the Poet describes a good Prince Est piger ad paenas Princeps ad praemia velox Quique dolet quoties cogitur esse ferox Concerning the Declaration from Breda and other Declarations since published by his Majesty how far the pressing of rigid Conformity opposeth and who are the causes thereof is above our cognizance who are at so great a distance That the present Ministers who are the ordinary Teachers to be heard are the men that do it hath no likelihood sith they are the men upon whom the rigid conformity is pressed and therefore this allegation is very inaptly made a signal character of their being false Prophets Sect. 8 The charge Ezek. 22.26 reacheth not the Ministers of England It follows 9. That they put no difference betwixt the Holy and Prophane Ezek. 22.26 Do not even the Ministers of England the same Are not all their dear Brethren and Sisters living and dead though Drunkards Swearers Adulterers and Adulteresses c. Are not as was said the children of them all admitted to the Font and they themselves to the Lords Table Is not the childrens meat frequently given unto Dogs and the holy Ordinances prostituted to be polluted by the worst of men Answ. The charge Ezek. 22.26 is against the Priests of the Law accusing them of neglecting to discern between clean and unclean Offerings as Piscator in his Analysis Grotius They made not them to understand to wit the difference from that which was common They are the very words from Lev. 10.10 where they are commanded to do what here they are said to have neglected That is holy which is dedicated unto God Profane which is in common use Polluted which is forbidden to be eaten clean which it is lawful to eat Aynsworth on Lev. 10.10 That ye may separate or to make difference and this is meant not only for themselves but others as in Ezek. 44.23 They shall teach my people the difference between holy and profane and cause them to discern between unclean and clean And for not doing this the Priests are blamed Ezek. 22.16 see also Lev. 20.25 holy Heb. holiness meaning of persons and things In Greek Between the holy ones and the profane which Texts and others as Levit. 22.1 2 3. shew that this thing was an evil indeed of a Levitical Priest when either they admitted unclean and profane Offerings of Beasts or Fowls or legally unclean persons or taught not the people to put difference between them yet was no Character distinguishing a false Priest from a true
though it shewed him to be negligent But is nothing to our Ministers who are not now to count any man or creature common or unclean Act. 10.15.28 Whether they have power to keep any professing the Faith from the Lords Supper it may be doubted Granting it that they have yet this Author will not allow it I presume to each single Minister and if not it is unjust to account them false Preists for not doing it But of this before in this Chapter Section 4. Sect. 9. The Ministers are not the false Shepherds meant Ezek. 34.4 It is added 10. That they exercise not pity to the weak broken scattered Sheep of Christ nor shew bowels in their recovery but with force and cruelty rule over them Ezek. 34.4 One would think the former part of the Chapter were rather an History of what is practised by the false Shepherds of this day than otherwise so perfect an agreement is there betwixt their practice and this prophecy of the Lord. They tell us 't is our weakness and distemper that we conform not to their worship that we are persons gone astray we profess to them that we would not give way to spiritual distempers nor stray one step from the wayes of God might we but know it we would thank any to convince us of our mistakes and reduce us to the true sheepfold if we are gone astray Do they seek after us in a spirit of tenderness labour to convince us and carry us in their bosomes like tender Shepherds to the true fold What less With force and cruelty they rule over us threaten us with Excommunications Imprisonments Banishments dispoiling us of what God hath graciously given us yea condemning us to death in all which through the grace of God we can rejoice though they thereby abundantly demonstrate that they are the successors of the false Shepherds here spoken of Answ. Though Diodati the Annotator in the large Annotations Junius The Marginal Notes of the Geneva Translation say he meaneth by Shepherds the King the Magistrates Priests and Prophets yet after Piscator Grotius and others I think this passage is only appliable to the Kings and other Civil Rulers of Israel the Prophets not ruling over the people with force and cruelty but beguiling them with lies and deceit Which with sundry more passages of the Chapter upon my reading of it do convince me that this Author doth misalleadge it sith the Ministers of England are not Successors of the Civil Magistrates nor are the Prince and Governors here termed false Shepherds but negligent and unmerciful which are not the signal Characters of a false Prophet or false Priest and therefore this Text is impertinent to prove the Ministers to be such As for the practice he chargeth the Ministers with sith it is in generals a distinct answer cannot be made to it nor can any but the accused well answer it Possibly that which this Author counts force and cruelty may be necessary though severe discipline I do not justifie the neglects or menaces mentioned in any nor is it unlikely but that there are men of violent spirits in the Hierarchy and Ministry of England to whom this evil is imputed nor do I think this Author can acquit all those that are Elders or other members of the Congregational Churches Iliacos intrà muros peccatur extrà It is to be lamented that such sad things should happen as he recites For my part I have even when the Congegational men had most liberty had conferences with persons in which I shewed my dissent from them in respect of the Separation with my Reasons and have often in writing answered their Arguments for it which I can yet produce yet found them still inflexible This writing was begun by me out of compassion of those to whom I was once a Preacher whom I found seduced by it and have endeavoured without any bitterness to convince this Author of his mistakes yet I doubt whether he will thank me for it I rather expect to be told for writing this Book as I was for writing of some other pieces that I am an Apostate temporizer flatterer adversary to the Saints and such like imputations They that know what hath been done in New-England and old England even at Oxford to Quakers for inveighing against their Teachers and Governors should be somewhat more moderate in censures of the present Ministers and Governors who when they read this very Chapter will be apt to think that the soul of the Quakers is by transmigration gotten into this Author My Prayer to God is that on all sides there may be such a calm and considerate spirit that we may forbear one another and in love endeavour the rectifying of each other not bite and devour one another lest we be consumed one of another and so we be Homo homini lupus not Shepherds Sect. 10. The Ministers of England are not the second Beast foretold Revel 13.11 But there 's more behind What should I mention saith he 11. That they come up out of the Earth Rev. 13.11 are raised up by men of earthly spirits and principles 12. That they exercise the power of the first Beast or make use of the civil power for their supportment ver 13.13 That they make an Image to the Beast ver 14.15 i. e. Erect an Ecclesiastical state of Government in a proportioâ—ableness to and resemblance of the Civil State 14. That they compel all under the penalty of death to worship or bow down to this Image of the Beast or Ecclesiastical Government in its Courts Canons Laws and Ceremonies devised by it v. 15. 15. That they compel all to receive a mark either in their right hands or foreheads secretly or openly one way or other to acknowledge subjection unto this Beast without which they may neither buy nor sell being cut off from the Church by their Excommunications for their stubborness v. 16 17. All which Characters of the second Beast or false Prophet he that runs may read upon the present Hierarchy and Ministry of England It remaineth then that the present Ministers of England have the characters of the false Prophets and Preists upon them and therefore are not to be heard but to be separated from Answ. Though the Book of the Revelation be a holy Divine writing and hath been of great use to support the spirits of Christians under the great Persecutions which have befallen them and is still of very great importance for the animating of believers either to patience in sufferings or watchfulness in time of temptation yet such abuse there hath been made of it to uphold many wild conceits many irregular practises notwithstanding the confessed obscurity and the frequent refutation of such conceits as men have with much confidence delivered by the manifestation of their vanity in the event that sober men have wished it were either less read by some or more considerately weighed and more warily applyed The passages here alledged have been so abused
Antichristianism declining to Popery or of Separation for that reason the Presbyâ—erian Churches making the like plea for themselves That the first Reformers had ordinary calling even according to the Papists own Canons and the Episcopal Divines pleading only the same thing more fully Yet it is not true which this Author saith That either the one or other make the succession from Popish Bishâ—ps one of the best pleas they have for the justâ—fication of their ministâ—y For though they plead this succession against the clamorous and violent actings of the Popish party which Petrus Molinaeus in his 3 d. Epistle to Bishop Andrews mentions to have been in France by Arnola the Jesuite and the writings of Champney Wadsworth and others shew to have been in England yet they have justified their ministry without it as may be seen in Amos Alsâ—ed Bâ—del and others And for the present Ministers of England I conceive they will deny that they act by vertue of an Office-power from the Combination and Assembly of Idolaters in the Church of Rome their Office-power being not such as Priests are ordained to in the Church of Rome to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead but to preach the Gospel administer Sacraments and Discipline according to Christs institution And in the solemnity of their Ordination the Româ—sts rites being relinquished by the Ordainers who are not a Combination or Assembly of Idolaters but professors of the true Faith and haters of popish Idolatry though some succession of their Predecessors from Idolaters be alleged to stop the mouths of Papists who pervert their proselytes by impuâ—ation of novelty to the reformed Churches and their Ministers rather than by proving their Doctrine out of Scripture As for that which is obâ—ected That Christ would never entrust such to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God for his Church it is without reason objected sith many of them might be and in charity we are to conceive were the servants of God who abode in the communion of the Roman Church Dr. Ames himself in his Animadversions on the Remonstrants Scripta Synodalia Artic. 5. c. 7. saith We believe there were and yet are many who have not so farr separated themselves from the Papists but that they are polluted with their manifold Idolatry who yet have their part in the Kingdom of God Even in the dayes of King Henry the 8 th and Q Mary all the Bishops were not like Gardiner Bonner and such as were inhumane persecutors Why Christ should not entrust Cranmer Tonstall and such like to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God as well as Judas to be an Apostle I find not cause The baptism received in the Church of Rome the Brownists in their Apology p. 112. acknowledge to be so farr valid as not to need rebaptization and why not then the Ordination by their Bishops Bishops and Ministers though they be evil men and unduly get into power yet as it is with other Officers their actings are valid as Caiaphas Ananias and such like persons who by bribes unjustly and irregularly usurped the High-Priests Office yet their sentence and ministration were not therefore disannulled He who said We received the Bible from the Church of Rome it is not likely meant it to have been received by vertue of their authority but their ministry Preachers having been sent by the Pope to instruct the Saxons in the Faith But whatever was meant by that speech this we may safely say That if the Office-power of the present Ministers had been as it is not received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters yet being no other Office-power than what hath been instituted by Christ it no more proves the present Ministers Idolaters than the receiving of baptism or the Scriptures by the ministry of men in that Church It is further added Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry 3. Nor can it be denied but they offer up to God a VVorship meerly of humane composition as the Common-Prayer Book worship hath been proved to be once abused to Idolatry with the mâ—â—es â—nd rites of Idolaters That the Commonâ—Prayer Book worship is a worship that was once abused to Idolatry being the worship of that Church whose worship at least in the complex thereof is so cannot with the least pretence of reason be denied That the whole of it is derived from and taken out of the Popes Portuis as are the Common-prayers out of the Breviary The administration of the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual or Book of Rites The Consecration of the Lords Supper Collects Epistles Gospels out of the Mass Book The Ordination of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests out of the Roman Pontifical hath been aâ—â—erted and proved by many VVhich might be evidenced if needful beyond exception not only by comparing the one with the other but also from the offer was made by Pope Pius the 4th and Gregory the 13th to Q. Elizabeth to confirm the English Liturgy which did it not symbolize with the service of the Church of Rome they would not have done Yea when the said Queen was interdicted by the Popes Bull Secretary Walsingham procures two Intelligencers from the Pope who seeing the service of London and Canterbury in the pomp thereof wonder that their Lord the Pope should be so unadvised as to interdict a Prince whose service and ceremonies did so symbolize with his own VVhen they come to Rome they satisfie the Pope That they saw no service ceremonies or orders in England but might very well serve in Rome upon which the Bull was recalled Not to mention what we have already minded viz. the testimomy of King Edward the 6th and his Council witnessing the English service to be the same and no other but the old the self-same words in English that were in Latine which was the worship of England and Rome in Queen Maries dayes it is evident That the present Minsters of England offer up a worship to God once abused to Idolatry That they do this with the rites ceremonies and modes of Idolaters viz. such as are in use in that Idolatrous Church of Rome needs not many words to demonstrate What else is the Priests change of voice posture and place of worship enjoyned them Not to mention their holy Vestments Bowings Cringings Candles Altars c. all which as it s known owe their original unto the appointments thereof In the margin Maccovius loc com append de adiaph p. 860. saith Non licet mutuari aut retinere res aus ritus sacros Idololatrarum sive Ethnicorum sife Pontificiorum c. etsi in se res fuerint adiaphorae quia vitandam esse omnem consormitatem cum Idololatris docemur Lev. 19.4.27 and 21.5 Deut. 14 1 It remaineth That the present Mâ—nisters of England acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offering
up to him a worship meerly of humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the rites and modes of Idolaters are deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry Answ. That the Common-prayer Book worship is a worship meerly of humane composition however the Form of words be is denied and not proved by this Author whose mistakes in confounding them are before shewed Nor is the worship of the Common-prayer Book proved to have been abusâ—d to Idolatry because the Foâ—ms of words were taken out of the Popish Service Books any more than that the Scriptures or Creed found in them were abused to Idolatry because thence taken The worship being agreeable to Gods Word cannot be abused to Idolatry Nor doth the Form of words used in the Mass-book or Bâ—eviary which is otherwise holy and â—ight if it had never been in those books cease to be holy and right when the Idolatrous Forms are left out any more than Gold found in a Dunghill remains Dung and ceaseth to be Gold when the filth is washed away from it To that of the Common-prayer Book being taken out of the Popes Portuis and King Edwards words answer is made in the Answer to the 3d. chapter sect 4. The offer of the Pope and the report of his Intelligencers pâ—oves that the Pope had nothing to except against the Common-Prayer Book or the Service of the Church of England but not that they are every way the same with that which is used in the Church of Rome Concerning its being taken out of the Popes Portuis at least for the greatest piece Arch-bishop Whitgift in his Aâ—swer to the first Admonition p. 82. said long agoe It maketh no matter of whom it was invented in what book it is contained so that it be good and profitable and consâ—nant to Gods Word Well saith Ambrose Omne verum à quocunque dicitur à Spiritu Sancto All truth of whomsoever it is spoken is of the Holy Ghost As for the Book of Ordination he anâ—wers the words of the second Admonition p. 201. thus It is most false and untrue that the Book of ordering Ministers and Dâ—acons c. now used is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pontifical being almost in no point correspondent to the same as yâ—u might have seen if you had compared them tâ—gether But ignorance and rashness drives you into many errours As for the rites and modes and ceremonies objected those which are in the Church of Rome Idolatrous are not observed or used by the Ministers who minister according to the Common-Prayer Book to whom conformity with the Popish Priests therein is injuriously imputed and they are so farr from being found deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry that the very aâ—guings of this Author rather acquit them than convince them As for the words of Maccovâ—us they are not right we may retain the goods used to Idolâ—try and apply them to holy uses though they have been abused by Idolaters yea and abused to Idolatry as the Temples Bells Tables which have been abused to the Idolatry of the Mass as is largely proved by Mr. Pageâ— in his Arrow against the separation of the Brownâ—sts in answer to Mr Ainsworth ch 7. Nor is it pâ—oved by Maccovius out of the Texts alleged here That the sacred rites of Idolaters though they be things in themselves indifferent are not to be retained but that all conformity with Idolaters is to be avoided For none of the Texts speak of things in themselves indifferent Turning unto Idols and making to themselves molten Gods forbidden Levit. 19.4 being gross Idolatry the rounding the corners of their heads marring the corners of their beards v. 27. making baldness upon their head shaving off the corner of their beard cutting their flesh Levit. 21.5 making baldness bettween their eyes for the dead being heathenish customes which were Idolatrous as Ainsworth Annot. on Levit. 21.5 Such as those 1 Kings 18.28 Or as Salmasius in his Book of long hair the rounding of the corners of their hâ—ads to have been in honour of the Moon Or shewing heathenish sorrow for the dead all sinful in themselves and therefore not indifferent But there is yet one more Charge behind Sect. 15. Kneeling in receiving the Sacramental elements is not Idolatry Argument 3. Adoration in by or before a creature respectiâ—è or with relation to the creature is Idolatry such as so adore or wâ—â—ship Gâ—d are Idolaters But the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God in by or before a creature respective or with relation to the creature Therefore The major or first Proposition being generally owned by Protestants it being the very same Maxim they make use of and stop the mouth of the Papists with in the point of adoring God mediately by the creature we shall not stand upon the proof of it none that know what they say will deny it The minor Proposition viz. That the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God in by or before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature will receive a quick dispatch Not to mention their bowing and cringing at the Altar That they kneel at receiving of the Sacrament is known That they with their Communicants should do so is enjoyned by their Church That their so dâ—ing is an adoration or worshipping of God before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is too manifest to admit of a denial Nothing being more certain than that the Elements are the objectum à quo or the motive of their kneeling which if they were not there they would not do And in the margin Didoclavius p. 755. saith Genusâ—ectere non modò excludit ritus institutionis sed etiam praeceptum secundum de Vitanda Idololatria multis modis violat VVhich Maccovius assents to loc com p. 861. Answ. Whether this Authors Antagonists know what they say this Author seems not a fit Judge unless either he knew better what himself saith or could better clear his meaning than he doth that his Readers might know what he saith In this Argument he doth accuse the present Mnisters of England and their Communicants of Idolatry in kneeling at the receiving of the bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and yet ch 5. p. 40. he had said Kneeling at the Lords Supper though we do not some would say smells very strong of the Popish leaven and is but one pegg bâ—neath the adoration of their breaden-God Here he expâ—esly makes that Idolatry undeniable as being adoration or wâ—â—ship of God in by or before the creature to wit the elementâ— respectivè or with relation to the creature as objectum significativè a quo or the motive of their kneeling which if it were not they would not do So that one while he will not say it smâ—lls strongly of the Popish leaven nor that it is but one pegg beneath the adoration of their breaden-God and if so did he know what he saith he
and urging that against the present Ministers which the holy Martyrs rejoyced in and the Ministers think themselves happy that they are found like them Me-thinks when you wrote this chapter you should have thought of that which is Psal. 73.15 If I say I will speak thus behold I should offend against the generation of thy children And have taken heed how you had perswaded to separation for that which in the Martyrs you make their infirmity and in charity you might so conceive of the present Ministers whereof many of them even of the Bishops and such as were in exile with the King and others at home and abroad have shewed their constant adherence to the Doctrine of the Church of England particularly against the adoâ—ation of the consecrated host when they were tempted to joyn with the Papists I wish you did not strengthen the hands of the Papists by this your pleading rather than help to reduce them from their great abominations and that you did not weaken the Protestant party by hindâ—ing the union that should be among men that agree in the main though they dissent in some things considerable in this time wherein the common Cause is endangered by divisions If the Martrys were but peeping out of the gates of Babylon it may seem they were not in your opinion escaped thence if some of the filth of the great Whores fornications did cleave to them how is it they are now with Christ where no unclean thing enters That they should repent of that which they offered to justifie a little afore they dyed is not likely It would be more for your comfort and the Churches peace if by getting out of Babylon you did not run to the contrary extreme of Fanaâ—icism and in seeking Reformation you did noâ— unsettle all and that you did review this Argument in which I find strong accusation and weak proof CHAP. 8. ARG. 7 th and 8 th Sect. 1. Every Offence of others makes not sinful that which otherwise is lawful T Is not lawful for Saints to do any thing for the doing whereof there is no positive pâ—ecept in the Scripture that is an offence grief scandal and cause of stumbling to their Brethren But the hearing the present Ministers of England as there is no positive precept in the Scripture for it so it is an offence grief scandal and cause of stumbling to the Brethren Therefore The major or first Proposition is bottom'd upon express precepts in the Scripture Rom. 14.13 15 20. 1 Cor. 8.9 13 and 10.24 Answ. There are varieties of circumstances and cases incident to the point of Scandal which make the action from which it ariseth to be lawful or unlawful there are several effects of Scandal and divers degrees considerable there are several states of persons offending and offended All which and more besides do require caution in denying or granting the major Proposition Of these I wrote many years agoe a Treatise of Scandalizing sold by Richard Râ—yston at the Sign of the Angel in Ivy-Lane in London from whence many limitations may be fetch'd by the intelligent Reader wherewith to limit the major Proposition without which it is not to be granted nor is it to be proved from the Texts alleged Nevertheless because if â— should take them in here I should enlarge and encumber the present Dispute too much I think to let the major pass at present and to wave also the exception which might be taken at the form of the Argument the conclusion either not being that which is to be proved but by consequence or if it be there be four terms in the Syllogism and to examin what he saith for his minor Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty The minor or second proposition saith he consists of two parts 1. That for hearing the present Ministers of England there is no positive warrant in the Scripture if there be let it be produced and this controversie is at an end The contrary thereunto hath all along been manifest in this present dâ—scourse It cannot enter into our hearts to imagin that the Lord Jesus having instituted Officers of his own for the management of affairs in his house should ordain that any of his houshold should attend upon the Ministry of such as are not of his institution as hath been abundantly demonstrated touching the present Ministers of England that they are not nor is it by many pleaded as their duty so to do but onely as their liberty which they judge they may or they may not do without sin Answ. What warrant there is to hear the present Ministers of England hath been shewed and that which hath been produced to the contrary examined especially ch 1. 2. The institution of Christ concerning Ministers and what concerns their calling hath been also discussed especially in answer to the preface and the 2 chapter in which places is shewed that warrant by permission is sufficient to justify the hearing of Ministers that the positive precept for hearing determins not hearing of Ministers as thus called but as teaching the word of God that such election and ordination as this Author requires are not necessary to make make men instituted officers of Christ that while the present Ministers preach the word of God the Saints may and ought to attend on their ministery and that they are not bound to examine their outward calling but to leave that to Rulers and themselves only to examin their doctrine that they may as lawfully attend on their ministry if edifying them in the faith as on the ministers of a gathered congregation that they ought rather in obedience to Rulers and to avoid Schism and to prevent the intangling of themselves with private and novel opinions which are more easily vented in private meetings then in publique and more readily entertaineâ— by private persons few of whom are learned and judicious than in more publique and solemn auditories to hear ministers that preach the truth in publique congregations caeteris paribus if their abilities and faithfulness be alike than to hear ministers in gathered churches privately meeting And with these explications I asseâ—t it not onely the Saints liberty but also their duty to attend upon the ministry of the present Ministers of England It follows Sect. 8. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers 2. That for the Saints such as are visibly so profess themselves to be such to hear the present Ministers of England is an Offence Grief Scandal and occasion of stumbling to their Brethren This is too evident to be denyed to how many thousands in England for whom those that as yet attend upon the present Ministry thereof dare not but think Christ dyed is the practice of some herein a Grief Scandal and occasion of stumbling Their Groanes and Tears alone and together upon this foot of account will better demonstrate the truth thereof than our words can Yea how many poor souls have been drawn by reason
Prelatical Preachers as well as to those of the separated Churches while they Preach the same word of God the promise being not made to the hearing of the men because of their personal qualities their Church-relation or any such consideration extrinsecal to the faithful discharge of the work of Preaching but to the teaching of Gods word in hearing of which men have been blessed though the Teachers themselves had no blessing the hearers have been saved when the Preachers themselves have been castaways as S. Paul speaks And if we look to experience of former times there is ground now to expect a blessing froâ— conforming Preachers as well or rather more then from Preachers of the separated Churches Sure the conversion consolation strengthening establishing of souls in the truth haâ—h been more in England from Preachers who were enemies to separation whether Non-conformists to Ceremonies or Conformists Presbyterial or Episcopal even from Bishops themselves then from the best of the Separaratists I think all that are acquainted with the History of things in this last age will acknowledge that more good hath been to the souls of men by the Preaching of Usher Potter Abbot Jewel and some other Bishops by Preston Sibs Taylour Whately Hildersham Ball Perkins Dod Stock and many thousands adversaries to the separated Churches then ever was done by Ainsworth Johnson Robinson rigid Separatists or Cotton Thomas Hooker and others though men of precious memory promoters of the way of the Churches Congregational And therefore if the Bishops and conforming Preachers now apply themselves as we hope when the heat of contention is more allayed they will to the profitable way of Preaching against Popery and profaneness exciting auditors to the life of faith in Christ duties of holiness towards God not onely in publique but also in private Families and righteousness love peace towards men there may be as good ground if not better considering how much the spirits of Separatists are for their party and the speaking of the truth in love edifying in love is necessary to the growth of the body Ephes. 4.15 16. to expect by them a blessing in promoting the power of godliness than from Separatists And as for this Authours reasons to the contrary The first of them is from a fond application of what is said of Gods dwelling in Sion which is meant of the special presence there in that his Temple and service was upon that hill in the time of the old Testament to the Congregational Churches as if Gods blessing were appropriated to them and excluded from the Assemblies of England they were not the Sion of God in their present constitution nor Christs Candlestick or Garden in which he walks but a wilderness that Babel Revel 18.4 And saith we are not surer of any thing than we are of this which if true it is an article of his Creed of which he is as sure as that Jesus is the Christ. But he gives no proof of it to assure us of it but that we may take him to be phrenetick or to be in a dream and notwithstanding his confidence he can make no better proof of this then the Romanists can for the new Article of their Creed Subesse Romano Pontifici est de necessitate ad salutem It is indeed said Heb. 12.22 That the Hebrew Christians were come to mount Sion in opposition to mount Sinai that is to say say the Annot. to the Church under the Gospel as Gal. 4.26 whereof mount Sion was a Type Psal. 14.7 50.20 Esa 2.3 and where the Gospel was first proclaimed without that terrour wherewith the Law was delivered Esa. 2.3 But why the Assemblies of England should not be the Sion of God as well as the separated Churches no reason is given but the vain conceit that of late he and others have entertained of appropriating that title to Churches of their way whose maintenance of Ministers by Collection they call the provision of Sion Psal. 132.15 in opposition to maintenance by Tithes counted Babylonish with such like language whereby many well-meaning Christians of weak judgement are misled Sure if the Church be called mount Sion from the Preaching of the Gospel the Assemblies of England may be called Sion Christs Candlesticks and Garden as well as any Christians in the world and if the Constitution of Churches is by faith their Constitution is as good as the Constitution of the separated Churches And methinks the separated Churches which have consisted of persons converted and instructed and edified in the Assemblies of the Church of England should have acknowledged that Gods blessing may be in them their own calling therein proving it if there were any spark of ingenuity and love of truth in them and not as this Authour express such malignity as to make them a very wilderness and that Babel out of which the Lord commands his people to hasten their escape Revel 18.4 which how grossly it hath been abused by this Authour sundry times before hath been shewed for which I now onely say The Lord rebuke thee As for the second reason the worship of England is no more polluted and not of his appointment then I have shewed to have been in the Jewish Corinthian some of the Asian Churches whom Christ yet walked in the midst of as his golden Candlesticks and yet Gods blessing did belong to them And why should we not expect Gods blessing to be on the Assemblies of England in which the true faith is preached and the true worship of God is constituted notwithstanding errours or pollutions remaining in them That Jer. 23.32 is wrongfully applied to the present Ministers of England is shewed before in answer to Ch. 6. Sect. 2. And how shamefully mirum ni contra conscientiam Revel 18.4 is applied to a call of Gods people out of the Church of England when it is by the holy Ghost interpreted Revel 17.18 of that great City which then reigned over the Kings of the earth and acknowledged by Papists the Jesuites themselves to be Rome hath been often shewed before In his last reason that which he saith That God is not in respect of his special presence and grace in the midst of the Parochial Assemblies of England is a speech of a man of an uncharitable venemous spirit but we hope such as that which Solomon speaks of Prov. 26.2 As the bird by wandring as the swallow by flying so the curse causeless shall not come And to his question Where are the souls that are converted comforted strengthened stablished that are waiting at the doors of their house I say that though there were none such yet this proves not God not to be present in them if they complain of the little effect of their Preaching is it any other then we meet with elsewhere Isa. 49.4 Isa. 53.1 John 12.38 Rom. 10.16 Isa. 65.2 Rom. 10.21 Micah 7.1 2. Luke 7.31 32 33 34. Matth 23.37 May they not say That these very men that upbraid them with the paucity
pretence whatsoever nor in any other sin by joyning in the practice and if the present worship of the Ministers of England be any such fornication or the hearing or joyning with them must be a partaking with them in any sin so farre at least they are to be separated from But neither the Texts alledged nor any other do require separation from the worship of God or the Ministers that are in some things corrupt even in their ministration when Hophai and Phinehas did corrupt the worship of God yet Samuel did lawfully minister before the Lord and Hannah did well in presenting him thereto and her self at the solemn Feasts and even-while there was burning incense and sacrificing in the High places those of Judah were not to separate from the service at Jerusalem which was to God and though the High Priests were unduly set up and sundry corruptions and superstitions in the Pharisees and the services of the Jews in our Lord Christs time on Earth yet did our Lord Christ joyn in the publick service of the Temple and perswaded the cleansed Leper to offer to them the gift that Moses commanded Wherefore I inferr that though there should be some degree of Corruption in Worship and that this should be a breach upon the soveraign Authority of God as every sin is and a grievous sin it is yet this might not be a sufficient cause of separation from the Worship Church or Ministers of it and that the allegation of the Texts produced will not be sufficient for the design of this Author in urging separation from the Ministers and Church of England But let us further attend his motions He adds Sect. 14. The arguing by analogy in positive rites not rational What may rationally be inferred from these positions so evidently comprized in the Scripture and by way of Analogy at least may be argued from them is evident to any ordinary understanding for our parts being resolved as was said to trie out the matter in controversie from such rules and soveraign Institutions as our dear Lord hath left his New Testament Churches to walk by we shall not stand to make that improvement of them as otherwise we might A few Queries upon the whole that hath been offered shall put a close to this Preface Answ. Whether the positions before set down be evidently comprised in the Scripture may be perceived by the examination of them what may be rationally inferred from them for his purpose of condemning the hearing the present Ministers of England is not evident to my understanding which I do not conceive to be any other than ordinary As for arguing by way of Analogy from the institutions of the Old Testament to those of the New Testament from supposed parity of reason how little rationality or force there is therein I presume he may perceive if he read the second part of the Review of my Dispute about Paedobaptism Sect. 2.3 wherein how infirm the way of arguing from such Analogy is is so far evinced that I judge that if the improvement he thinks he might make of his positions for his purpose be by that way of proof it will be found insufficient by an ordinary understanding whether he hath kept to his resolution of tiying the matter in controversie by the rules and institutions of the New Testament will appear by the examining of the ensuing Discourse I judge that to be the way whereby to settle mens Consciences about mere positive Duties or Sins under the Gospel and therefore am resolved to pursue his dispute pede pes yet clearing the way by considering his Queries in a velitary Skirmish before I set upon his Triarii or main Battle Sect. 15. The first Querie about a National Instituted Church answered His first Querie is Whether since the Apotomy or Unchurching the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath ever since so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his Church Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel If so Let it be shewed when and where it was instituted by the Lord What is produced by some to this purpose is but upon a slight view thereof of no moment it is Isa. 49.21 Kings shall be your Nursing Fathers c. which Prophesie waits the time of its accomplishment hitherto both before and since the rise of Antichrist being made drunk by the Whores intoxicating Cup they have been for the most part cruel Butchers of the Saints and were we under its accomplishment a National Church would be far enough from being its result Of a Nations being born at once we shall not sure hear pleaded in this matter it being a Prophesie expresly relating to the Jews and their miraculous conversion if there be no such thing as a National Church of the Institution of Christ as most certain it is there is not the assertion whereof is wholly destructive of Gospel Administrations then Answ. As King James in his Remonstrance against Cardinal Perons Oration saith that the appellation and name of the Church serveth in this corrupt Age as a Cloak to cover a thousand new inventions meaning this of the Popish party so may we say also of others that by reason of the ambiguous use of the appellation and name of the Church and the dictates of men about it the minds of many are perplexed and perverted Wherefore in answering this first Querie which the Separatists do so much harp upon it is necessary that there be a distinct understanding of the notion of the Church and its Institution The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by use is now almost appropriated to the Christian Church hath been variously used both in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament in the Apocryphal Writings and in the New Testament It seems to me of little concernment in the present question to collect them all the Queries to be answered beâ—ng of the New Testament use Now in the New Testament excepting what I find Act. 19.32 39 40. where it is applied to Assemblies of Unbelievers whether tumultuary or orderly and Act. 7.38 where it is applied to the Congregation of Israel in the Wilderness in all places in the Acts of the Apostles the Epistles of the Apostles and Revelation of St. John it is meant so far as I discern of the Christians or People of God or their Meeting or Assembly As it notes the Christian Believers or People of God so it is taken sometimes for the Universal Church whether invisible or visible as 1 Cor. 12.28 Heb. 12.23 Ephes. 1.22 sometimes for the visible Church indefinitely but not universally as 1 Cor. 15.9 sometimes for the Church Topical and then it is taken for the Church of a City or Town or House and so we read of the Church at Jerusalem Act 8.1 of Corinth Ephesus c. in Philemons house Philem. 2. or of a Country or Nation and then
it is put in the Plural number as the Churches of Asia Galatia Judaea In the Evangelists History of the doings sufferings and sayings of our Lord Christ I find the Word Church used but in two places Mat. 16.18 and 18.17 Of the extent and meaning of both which Texts there is so much controversie not only between the Protestants and Papists but also among the Protestants themselves of different persuasions about Church Government that it would require a Treatise by it self to make a thorough discussion of those two Texts in order to the clearing of the Controversies that are started about them That Mat. 16.18 is undoubtedly meant of the Christian Church but whether Oecumenical visible or invisible or indefinite or topical is doubted It is without any proof appropriated to the Church of Rome or any particular Church as ordered under this or that peculiar form of Government but is to be taken for the number of Believers in Christ whether of Jews or Gentiles more or fewer abstractively from any political considerations and such external adjuncts and denominations as whereby usually Churches are in common speeches diversified In the other place Mat. 18.17 in as much as it is not said tell my Church but tell the Church and the term thy brother may as well be meant of a Brother as by birth or proselytism adjoyned to the Jews as St. Paul calls the Jews by birth his brethren kinsmen according to the flesh Rom. 9.3 in which sense it may seem to be taken in that place Mat. 5.23 24. which is a precept like to this for the reconciling of particular differences and righting of wrongs and the expression let him be to thee as a Heathen seems to intimate as of a Brother in Christian profession it may not without reason be doubted whether by the Church there be meant the Christian Church or an Assembly of the Jews in their Synedrium whether greater or lesser and if it be extended as a direction to Christian Brethren whether it be meant of their Assembly under an Ecclesiastical Consideration or Political that is the Christian Magistrate Institution of a Church by Preception or Command I find not neither Christ nor his Apostles that I know have given us any rule or law of bounding modelling or numbring Churches There is a precept Heb. 10.25 that Christians should not forsake the assembling of themselves together as the manner of some was But none about the defining how many should go to a Church or be accounted to belong to one Church no determination by any precept concerning Members belonging to a Church whether they should be fixed to one Meeting or ambulatory and moveable sometimes belonging to one Assembly sometimes to another of the same profession Nor do we find any Institution of Churches whether they ought to be Domestick Congregational Parochial Classiâ—al Diocesan Provincial Patriarchical or Oecumenical The ordering of such distinctions Christ and his Apostles so far as I deprehend have left to Divine Providence and Humane Prudence allowing more or fewer to a Church as the imes will permit the increase or diminution of Believers should be as Pastors may be had and their Partitions and Meetings be convenient for their edification and government It is true the Romanists would infer from Christs promise to Peter Mat. 16.18 Upon this Rock will I build my Church that St. Peter and after hâ—m the Bishop of Rome was made universal Bishop But that by Christs Church is meant the universal Church and by Christs building it is meant constituting an universal Bishop is an assertion without proof In some of the Ancients the Bishops of Rome have been stiled Oecumenical but so also have other Patriarchs We believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church but so denominated from their common confession or the same Faith not from union to and subjection under one visible Church head Mr. Paul Bayne as I remember long since disputed against Diocesan Churches for Parochial and in the Assembly at Westminster the dissenters against this proposition that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial government from such distinction of Churches as the New Testament yields But the Arguments seem not to me to be cogent they declaring only what was done de facto not what was necessary to be done de jure That Text Mat. 18.17 is much urged by sundry sorts of Pleaders for their several wayes of Church-government But it is uncertain whether by Brother and Church be meant Christian Believers and the Christian Church and if Christian Believers and Church be meant whether the Church be meant of the Christian Civil Judicatory or Ecclesiastical Consistory or Congregational Assembly of Believers of all ranks or some select Arbitrators that of which the Church is to have cognizance being there no other than the sin of one Brother against another which v. 21 22. Luk. 17 3 4. shew to be meant only of private trespasses or injuries done by one to another who might remit or forgive them nor is any other act ascribed to the Church than an admonition to the injurious Brother to do right to him whom he hath wronged whereupon it is then allowed or appointed upon non-satisfaction to him or disobedience to the Church without any other juridical sentence mentioned that he that is thus disobedient should be to him that complained as a Heathen or Publican with whom the Jews would not have familiarity Nothing is said of being such to the Church or by vertue of its sentence juridical or being excluded à sacris which we are sure the Publicans were not Luk. 18.10 These things seem to me to evince that neither is here that instituted Church which the Assertors of Congregational Churches and Church-government urge as the only Churches and Church-government of the New Testament and inculcate as the pattern in the Mount and any other way to be as the setting of mans posts by Gods posts and separate from a National Church as a humane Invention Nor is here that Church-government instituted which they make the only Government appointed by Christ that the Congregation or the major part are to cast out exclude from Communion in Holy things in every Church though but of seven or eight every member that sins and will not obey the monition of the rest of the Congregation These things being premised I answer to the Questions in the first Querie fore-mentioned 1. That it is granted That since the Unchurching of the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath not yet that we know of so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his We say that Christ hath redeemed us to God by his bloud out of every Kindred and Tongue and People and Nation and hath made us unto our God Kings and Priests Revel 5.9 10. We own no Church visible now but of Believers by their own personal profession We approve the 19. Article of
the Church of England that the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly administred according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same The addition in the Confession of Faith of the Assembly Ch. 25. Art 2. that the visible Church universal under the Gospel consists of all those throughout the World that profess the true Religion and of their Children is not found in the Writings of the New Testament and those Texts that are alledged for it Ezek. 16.20 21. Rom. 11.16 Gen. 3.15 Gen. 17.7 if they were pertinent would as well prove a whole Nation to be Gods visible Church yea all mankind descended from Eve as the visible Church to consist of the children of them that profess the true Religion And the same may be said of them that assert an Ordinance of Infants visible Church-membership unrepealed that alledge Mat. 28.19 as proving Christs appointing Nations as such to be baptized that alledge the Jewish Proselytism as a pattern to us How far this Quaerist agrees with these may be discerned by other passages If he concur with those of the Congregational way about Church-members and their proof from the Covenant to Abraham Gen. 17.7 as made to his natural seed and so to all Believers natural seed I see not how he can avoid the asserting of a National Church like the Jewish which I grant is not agreeable to the Gospel according to which the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men as the definition of the Church of England Art 19. expresseth it and hath been fully proved by me in the third part of my Review Sect. 52. c. 2. In answer to the Question Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomy of the Gospel I say that though there be no National Church so as that the whole Nation and every member of the Nation be to be accounted of the visible Church of Christ by vertue of their Generation or Proselytism and such Covenant as was made to Abraham concerning his natural seed or to Israel at Mount Sinai or elsewhere yet the whole number of Believers of a Nation may by reason of their common profession be called a National Church as well as the whole Body of men throughout the World professing the faith of the Gospel and obedience to God by Christ according unto it not destroying their own profession by any errours everting the foundation or unholiness of Conversation are and may be called the visible Catholick Church of Christ as the Congregational men speak in their Declarat ch 20. Wherefore it is no more against the Gospel to term the Believers of England or Scotland the Church of England or Scotland than it is to term the Believers throughout the World the Catholick Church nor is it more unfit for us to term our selves Members of the Church of England in this respect than to term our selves Members of the Catholick Church nor is there need to shew any institution of the Lord more for the one than for the other Nor is there need to alledge Isa. 49.20 or Isa. 66.8 for such an Institution Nevertheless that the Prophesie Isa 49.23 Kings shall be your Nuâ—sing Fathers c. waits the time of its accomplishment is said with more Confidence than Evidence Many learned Interpreters think otherwise among whom Mr. Gataker in my judgment inferiour to none in his Exposition of Holy Scripture hath these words Annot. on Isa. 49.23 And Kings shall be thy Nursing Fathers and Queens thy Nursing Mothers fulfilled in those Persian Potentates Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahaâ—uerus with the Queens also of some of them that patronised and protected Gods people and promoted Gods work with them Ezra 1.1 4. and 63.12 and 7.12 26. Neh. 2.6 8. Esth. 8.3 8. and much more in other Emperours and Kings together with their Queens as Constantine Theodosius and the like who both embraced the Christian faith themselves and maintained the profession of it Of some whereof see Rev. 17.12 16 17. And Mr. Mede on Rev. 16.17 hath these words For truly out of the same ten horns or Kings they shall be who at length shall hate the Whore whom they have so long born which partly we perceive to be fulfilled shall make her desolate and naked shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire Nor is it to be denied without ingratitude to God and Men that Kings and Queens since the rise of Antichrist though many of them made drunk by the Whores intoxicating cup have been cruel Butcherers of the Saints both before the Reformation and since even in our dayes have been nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers to the Church of Christ and that a National Church in the sense fore-mentioned hath been the result of its accomplishment and we hope in more ample manner will be the result of its fuller accomplishment As for the Text Isa. 66.8 that it is a prophesie expresly relating to the Jews and their miraculous conversion is not certain Mr. Gataker in his Annot. on Isa. 66.8 hath these words The most Interpreters both Jew and Christian understand these words of the strange sudden and unexpected delivery of the remainders of Gods people out of the Babylonian bondage by Cyrus Howbeit divers Interpreters understand them of the restitution and restauration of the Church under the Ministry of the Gospel when so many thousands were so soon and so suddenly converted without any great labour or pains-taking about them of those by whom they were converted Act. 2.41 4.4 and both these Expositions conceived as subordinate the one to the other may very well be admitted And therefore if the Author hear it not pleaded in this matter yet he may find another Exposition than that which he imagines that it expresly relates to a future miraculous Conversion of the Jews However if it did sith it is said Rom. 11.25 26. When the fullness of the Gentiles is come in all Israel shall be saved he might find something for a National Church in that Prophesie Isa. 66.8 As for those words in his Parenthesis that the assertion of a National Church of the institution of Christ is wholly destructive of Gospel administrations they are said with no more truth than proof though we should say a National Church in respect of its Government or Officers is of the Institution of Christ. For suppose it were asserted that Christ had instituted Patriarchs or Arch-bishops and Bishops and the Government of the Church of England or Scotland under them yet this might be without total destruction of Gospel Administrations The preaching of the Gospel administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper with other administrations of Christian Worship and Discipline have been and may be continued even where Archbishops and Bishops have been over a National Church as instituted by Christ. But let us attend his motions thus he goes