and if scandalous in some cases the persons guilty of it to be separated from We say moreover in S. T. 4thly 'T is false that good men pressing after Reformation according to the primitive pattern do differ touching the substance of the things instanced in To which Mr. T. adjoyns The more to blamâ— is this Author to widen the Breach A. But this Author doth no such thing he widens not the Breach urges not Separation from good men who press after Reformation according to the primitive pattern But such as have renounced the pursuing such a Reformation though they were once sworn some of them to prosecute it to the uttermost of their power persecute oppose it in them that are pressing after it As is the known case of the preseâ—t Ministers of England What is added by us in the 5th place viz. That the particulars instanced in being commanded by Christ they are not discharged from the impeachment drawn up against them who conform not to them of Nonconformity to the Laws of Christ by this Plea That good men differ in these matters i. e. some good men transgress the Laws of Christ he grants to be true Nor doth he offer any thing further in this Chapter that deserves our attendment CHAP. VI. Sect. 1. The present Ministers own Laws not of Christs revealing contrary thereunto therefore deny his Offices The first proved by the induction of fourteen particulars Mr. T. yeelds the matter in controversie Ezek. 43. 8. explained An Objection answered Of the Authority of Rulers touching Laws and Constitutions Ecclesiastical Of Synods THE second Argument whereby in S. T. we prove the present Ministers deny the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ is this Those who own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances which not only are not of Christs revealing but contrary thereunto do really deny and oppose the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ But the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not only not of Christs revealing but contrary thereunto Therefore The Major or first Proposition is beyond exception Persons non-conformity to the Laws of Magistrates if in what they have power to command their giving forth Laws of their own without the consent of their Rulers directly contrary to their Laws is a visible notorious opposition denyal and rejection of their Authority in them that give forth such Laws and in them that conform and subject to them This we manifestly prove to be true of the present Ministers of England with respect to Christ the alone Independant Lord King and Soveraign of his Church and People That which Mr. T. opposeth hereunto Chap. 5. Sect. 1. will receive â— sâ—eedâ— dispatch 1. His distinctions about the Orders and Ordinances of Christ are needless they are but a clouding and darkning of Truth by words without knowledge The Orders we speak of are the Appointments of Christ to his Church with respect to Worship wherein their practice is more or less concerned to deny and reject these and in the place of them to substitute others of their own of Antichrist and subject thereunto is a denial of the Offices of Christ mentioned or it is not If Mr. T. his conscience tells him that it is he doth ill to equivocate This he grants to be true of the Pope of Rome Chap. 4. pag. 119 120. Why it should not be so of the Pope of Canterbury and his Prelates I yet understand not That the giving forth and subjection to the Cannon-Law in the Papacy should be Antichristian and a denial of the Offices of Christ and the same thing in the Church of England not so is a Riddle to me Henry the 8th rejected the Popes Supremacy an Act of Parliament is instituted 25. H. 8. c. 9. for the retention of the whole of his canon-Canon-Law in its wonted vigour that is not contrary to the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom nor prejudicial to the Royal Prerogative by virtue whereof how great a part of his Law whereby he ruled his Kingdom of darkness and still rules it received its establishment Mr. T. knows and in part confesseth Chap. 4. Of which the Institutions and Orders mentioned are a part by which the Pope yet speaks as a King amongst us though his Supremacy be justly by Law rejected for the Law of a King is his mouth That very Law that is the Canon-Law of the Papacy by which the Saints were burned in Smithfield and other places is that Law by which in the stead of the Institutâ—ons of Christ the Church of England is governed the Saints are excommunicated delivered over to the Secular Power imprisoned ruined at this day This Law the present Ministers of England subject to which is the Canonical obedience they promise to their Ordinary And though this Animadverter multiply millions of words he will never make persons of judgement and sobriety believe that this is not a real denial and rejection of the Authority of Christ They tell him in their practice that they will have none of his Institutions they prefer Antichrists Canon-Law before them which is stufft with such filthy Abominations that Luther was wont to call the Decretals Excretalâ— and had them publickly burned at Wittemburge And Whitaker one of their own saith The Canonical Decretal and Pontifical Law ought to have no place amongst us because it is Antichristian and altogether a stranger to all Piety and Religion Lib. de Concil 9. 2. If the Animadverter will speak to the purpose and evert what hath been offered in this matter he must I conceive either manifest that the Popes Canon-Law is not the Law of Government to the Church of England or that a retention thereof with a rejection of the Institutions of Christ is not a denial of his Offices To tell stories of things done of ignorance which we have over and over and in this matter cannot have place they themselves know that things are with them as we have reported them the setting up open Antichrists and Universal Monarchs is the ready way to expose himself to conteâ—pt for his impertinencies no probable one to carry the Cause he undertakes the defence of There being nothing further worth the considering in this first Sect. we hasten to the 2 d. In order to the confirmation of the Minor Proposition of the forementioned Argument two things we say in S. T. are incumbent upon us to prove 1. That the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not of Christs revealing which we manifest by the Induction of 14 particular Instances As First They own the Orders and Offices of Arch-Bishops Bishops c. and promise subjection and obedience to them Eccles Can. can 7. To which Mr. T. 1. He will not undertake to justifie all that is in the Ecclesiastical Canons nor need he nor perhaps will the present Ministers or Bishops Answ 1. But he having undertaken to be their Advocate he
as is made by marriage joyn our selves to the Lord c. so Isa 2. 3. Mich. 4. 2. Isa 44. 5. Zech. 8. 21 22 23. 2dly Accordingly we have the Churches of Christ in the New-Testament practising and commended for their so doing as acting therein according to the will of God Acts 2. 41 42. 2 Cor. 8. 5. 3dly The several names and titâ—es given unto particular Churches evince as much Every such Church is called 1. A Body 1 Cor. 12. 27. Col. 3. 15. Rom. 14. 4 5. Eph. 5. 30 32. Col. 1. 18 21. Now 't is not the multitude or number of members whether many or few that constitute or make a Body We say not if we come into a Field where a Battel hath been fought and find an Arm in one place a Leg in another an Hand in a third c. though we meet with as many members scattered up and down as are in the body yea though thrown together in heaps that here is a body no no 't is Rudis indigestaque moles Their union each with other and coalescency in one is that which gives them that denomination Particular Saints scattered here and there or casually coming together are not nor can they be called the Body of Christ their union each with other by their free and mutual consent is that which denominates them so to be 2. An House or Temple Heb. 3. 6. Ephes 2. 21 22. 1 Tim. 3. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Mr. T. knows who have thought the world was made by the casual confluence of Atoms he doth not sure think that a casual concurrence of people professing the Name of the Lord without more ado are or can become an House or Temple for him 3. A City a Kingdom Eph. 2. 19. Mat. 21. 43. Heb. 12. 28. Joh. 18. 36. That a man should be any way a member of these but by his free consent cannot be asserted with the least shew of reason 4. A Fraternity or Brotherhood Zech. 11. 14. 1 Pet. 2. 17. compared with chap. 5. 2 13. 5. A Candlestick in allusion to Moses his Candlesticks Exod. 25. 31. wherein though there were many shafts yet they did all coalesce in one Rev. 1. 11 12 20. All which as they import Aggregation or a solemn union so they clearly evince that this cannot be but by free and mutual consent 4. Besides we find Christ promising his Presence to his Church and People thus aggregated or gathered an Argument of his well-pleasedness therein Mat. 18. 20. which accordingly he makes good to the Churches of Asia as to the rest Rev. 1. 13. which we have proved to be particular Congregational Churches That they were separated from the World and its Worship gathered together by their own free consent for the worshipping God Mr. T. cannot deny There were no Laws to compel them hereunto but the contrary So that 3dly we may righteously retort this Animadverters Argument upon himself There cannot be a true Church where those things essential to a true Church cannot be found But in National Churches in general in the Church of England in particular those things that are essential to a true Church cannot be found Therefore The Major is Mr. T 's The Minor we prove Right matter and form is of the essence of a true Church both wanting in the Church of England 1. The right matter Mr. T. denies not to be visible Saints visible Drunkards Swearers Whoremongers covetous persons are not such yet of such as these is the Church of England mostly composed 2dly The form of a true Church we have manifested to consist in separation from Worldly Formal Antichristian Worshippers gathering together by free consent into a Church-state or particular Societies for the Worship and Service of God neither of which can be asserted of the Church of England Much of the Worship of the Nations of Antichrist at least their rites and modes of Service is retained in it And into that Church-state such as it is in which they are fixed did they never enter by their free and voluntary consent but by the Laws of the Kingdom were they at first I speak of their National-Church-state that the Gospel was early whether by Joseph of Arimathea or some one of the Apostles is not material preached in England that then a true Church or Churches were here planted I grant but this is nothing to their present frame as a Church-National compell'd thereunto and by severe Laws retained therein to this day From which as from the Lordly Prelacy the most sober People of the Nation do every-where groaning being burdened long to be delivered What follows will receive a speedy dispatch 1. 'T is true the defect of outward order i. e. of every outward order though of the institution of Christ doth not nullifie the Church but want of that order which is of the essence of the Church as we have evinced to be the case of the Church of England doth so 2dly Mr. T 's instances of the disorders in the Church of Corinth yet a true Church are so evidently impertinent that the bare mentioning them is confutation sufficient The Church of Corinth was a rightly constituted Church made up of visible Saints 1 Cor. 1. 1. gathered together into a particular body 1 Cor. 12. 27. meeting together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place for the Worship of God 1 Cor. 11. 20. 14. 23. Some disorders found amongst this Church did not nullifie it Ergo the defect of that Order that is instituted by Christ ad esse to the very existence and being of a Gospel-Church as is the case of National Churches doth not nullifie them will not in hast be made good When Mr. T. proves the sameness of constitution betwixt the particular Church of Corinth and the National Church of England his instance of disorders amongst the Corinthians will be acknowledged pertinent but till then he will not himself upon second thoughts say it is so The having of Natioâ—al Rulers Ecclesiastical either single persons or in a Synod or Convocation make not a false Church saith the Animadverter Answ 1. But should this be granted it would not follow that a National Church is not a false Church which it may be upon other accounts though upon the account hereof it should be acqâ—itted But 2ly National Officers or Rulers Ecclesiastical in whom all Church-power is stated as Arch-Bishop and from thence derived to Diocesan Bishops and by them communicated in part to the ordinary Parish-Priests as is the case of the National Ecclesiastical Officers of England are false and Antichristian Officers and Ministers we prove chap. 3. of the S. T. That a National Church so denominated from their subjection to these should be a true Church is beyond the reach of my understanding What he addeth touching Synods owned and submitted unto by those of the Congregational way and Churches of a greater number and at a greater distance than could meet in one place every Lord's day is
said to be the Bodies of their Governours Whether the Apostles were the Heads of the Church Ojections answered Mr. T. his Exceptions thereunto considered 1 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13. expounded Whether the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church Isa 44. 28. explained The Government of the Church and State proved distinct WE further manifest in S. T. That the present Ministers deny the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ thus 3dly Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office But the present Ministers of Engl. do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ Therefore To which Mr. T. Sect. 11. The Author of S. T. speaks darkly and thence falls to conjecturing what I mean by the Head of the Church Answ To satisfie this Animadverter once for all By the Head of the Church I mean the King and Bishops that as Heads and Law-givers thereunto assume unto themselves a power to institute Laws and Ordinances of their own and create Officers in the Church which were never of the appointment of Christ which Danaeus and others make to be some of the essential parts of Church-Government and they are indeed so And if the owning such an Head-ship be not a denial of his Kingly Authority I must profess I know not what is This Mr. T. denies But 1. without giving us the least reason of his so doing 2. In contradiction to what is affirmed by himself p. 119. chap. 4. of his Theodulia 3. 'T is avowedly condemned by many sober judicious Protestant Writers and Churches as Rivet Calvin c. He tells us 2dly That no such Headship is owned by the present Ministers as the Pope claims Answ 1. The question is not whether such an Headship be owned by them as the Pope assumes but whether such an one as is not a denial of the Soveraignty of Christ 2. With respect to the extent thereof it is acknowledged there is no such Headship owned by them The King is not Universal Monarch of the Church Yet 3. For the kind of it it is the same i. e. Henry the 8th having cast off the Popes supremacy rests himself with it in his own Dominions Hence the learned Fuller in his History of the Church of England tells us That the King became the Popes heir at Law And it was indeed evidently so 1. Did the Pope claim a right to that Title Summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo The Supream Head of the Church under Christ 2. Did he account himself the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Power 3. Did he undertake to make and dispense Laws pro libitu according as he saw meet So did H. 8. and his Successors the Kings of England with respect to the Church of England The Title of Supream Head or Governour under Christ is given to them They are the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction it being by Statute Law annexed to the Crown The Bishops Courts ought to be held all Processes to go out in their Name With a Synod of Priests or without sometimes they can make and dispense with Laws for the binding or loosing of the Members of the Church thereof Hear what the learned Rivet saith Explic. Decal Edit 2. p. 203. touching this matter taxing Bishop Gardener for extolling the Kings Primacy For he that did as yet nourish the Doctrine of the Papacy as after it appeared did erect a new Papacy in the person of the King And reverend Mr. Calvin And at this day saith he how many are there in the Papacy that heap upon Kings whatsoever right and power they can possible so that there may not be any Dispute of Religion but this power should be in one King to Decree according to his own pleasure whatsoever he list and that should remain fixed without controversie They that at first so much extolled H. King of England certainly they were inconsiderate men gave unto him Supream power of all things and this grievously wounded me alwayes for they were Blasphemers and yet the present Ministers avow the same when they called him The Supream Head of the Church under Christ Thus he in Amos 7. 13. What this Animadverter saith Hart the Jesuite acknowledgeth of the Pope with respect to the whole Church is for the most part acknowledged by the present Ministers of the King with respect to the Church of England The Power which we mean to the Pope the King and Arch-Bishop by this Title of the Supream Head is that the Government of the whole Church of Christ throughout the World of the Church of England doth depend of him In him doth lie the power of judging and determining causes of Faith of ruling Councils or National Synods 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 all the parts of the Nation Of reconciling any that are Excommunicate of Excommunicaâ—ing Suspending or inflicting other Censures and Penalties on any that offend Finally 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 of England which whilst the Animadverter goes about to insinuate as not appertaining to the King he advanceth himself against the Royal Prerogatives of his Crown and Dignity Nor doth the Explanation mentioned Artic. 34. and 37. contradict what we have asserted Jurisdiction and Power of exteriour Government is acknowledged to belong to him which comprehends the substance of what we are contending for In what follows we are not in the least concerned we abhor the Primacy of the Papal Antichrist we deny not the Kings Headship and Supremacy over the Church of England by the fundamental Laws of the Nation it appertains to him We only infer from hence 1st That the Church of England is no true Church because Headed by some one else besides Christ 2dly That whilst the present Ministers account it Christ's Church and own another Head over it besides himself they deny his Soveraignty and Kingship they make another King over it and thereâ—y really unking him We add in S. T. as a proof of the Major Proposition If the assertion of another King in Engl. 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 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 the assertion of such a 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 were it was Instituted Whether such a Dominion and
of Laws Institutions not of the appointment of Christ contrary thereunto who is the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Church-Politie That Mr. T. sees such a Supream Governour to be agreeable to the Scriptures produced by him must be imputed to that acuteness of his whereby he may be supposed to tâ—anscend the rest of his Neighbours Ille solus sapiens reliqui velut umbra vagantur Of Rom. 13. 1. we have already spoken Though the Church be comprized under every soul yet it doth not follow that Magistrates are the Heads or such Supream Governours of the Church as are invested with power for the establishing and instituting of parts of Worship or commanding them in any thing relating to Worship as such of which the Apostle speaks not a tittle in that place Civil subjection as subjects of the Empire is the utmost can rationally from thence be argued for Those that were then Rulers and Governours were such as Nero Domitian who persecuted the Church design'd to root the Worship of Christ out of the world were Idolaters establisheâ— by force and violence an Heathenish Idolatrous Worship whom Christ never intended to intrust with any such power which is a sufficient answer to 1 Pet. 2. 13. which is exponed by our Annotat. Of Civil Government 1 Tim. 2. 2. is impertinently cited That because the Apostle there exhorts that Prayers be made for Kings therefore they have Ecclesiastical Power and Soveraignty committed to them over the Churches of Christ is a consequence that the very reciting of is confutation sufficient When I ascribe as he talks as much power to the Church as he doth to the King and Bishops I know not That I should make the Church the Head of the Church which is downright nonsense is not probable For the present I must crave leave to tell him he is utterly mistaken I ascribe no power of inventing Rites and Ceremonies devising Laws and Constitutions of their own relating to Worship as such to any one Church or Churches in the World I challenge him to make good his assertion I dispute against it as well as I can in S. T. Chap. 5. pag. 41 42. Whatever power I ascribe to the Church 't is only such as Christ hath entrusted her with that this should be as much a denial of Christ's Kingly Office as the ascription of a power over the Churches of Christ to any to whom he hath not committed such a power Mr. T. will not in hast be able to prove We further reply in S. T. 2dly The Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other viz. than a Head-ship under Christ To this Mr. T. 1. I grant the Church of Rome pleads for no other Headship But 2. They usurpe a power in some respects superiour to Christ in their dispensing with the keeping of lawful Oaths allowing of Incestuous Marriages Answ And the same may be said of the Heads of the Church of England I suppose this Animadverter may be yet of the mind that the Oath of the Solemn League and Covenant was a lawful Oath yet that can be dispensed with Marriages prohibited are not seldom allowed of by their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction We add 3dly '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 a Law-giving Power touching Institutions of Worship that never came into his heart are flatly against his appointments as hath been proved We add in S. T. 4thly One Head in subordination to another doth as really make the Body a Monster as two Heads conjoyned To this Mr. T. 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 Answ 1. Should it be granted there were no Monstrosity in the thing it self yet there is in the expression in the Title an argument it was never from the Spirit of the Lord. 2. Bernard is of another mind Thou makest a Monster saith he if removing the hand thou makest the Finger to hang on the Head Thou makest the Body of Christ a Monster if thou placest the Members of his Body otherwise than he hath placed them in the Church Lib. 3. cap. 10. Con. ad Eugen. Much more to take a Beast a Lion or Bear as wicked and graceless men are whom yet Mr. T. seeâ—s to allow for Heads in the Churches of Christ and place them not only as Members in but as Heads over though under Christ the Church of God 3. The making of a Governour under a Governour in the Common-weale hath no Monstrosity in it because agreeable to the Will of God Principles of State-polity which a Head under a Head in the Church hath because dissonant contrary to the Law and Soveraignty of Christ its Supream Independant and alone Head A second Objection is in S. T. thus proposed by us That the Kings of Israel were the Heads succesively of the then Church and therefore a visible Headship over the Churches of Christ in the New Testament is lawful To which we Answer 1. That betwixt the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel there is a vast disproportion many things were of old lawful which now to practice were no less than a denial of Christ come in the flesh 2. The Kings of Israel were Types of Christ which notwithstanding Mr. T. dictates that it is falsly and vainly asserted Sect. 14. till he prove the contrary we take for truths What he speaks with reference to the Kings of Israel and England we are unconcerned in That the Rulers of the Jews or any other Nations had de jure any such Dominion or Power over their Subjects as to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship and compel them by force and violence to subject thereunto Mr. T. hath not proved Isa 44. 28. Is a Prophesie of the Liberty the Jews should obtain under Cyrus to go up to Jerusalem to build the Temple of the fulfilling whereof you have an account Ezra 1. 1 2 3. But not a tittle of his Dominion about things sacred or introducing Constitutions relating to their Worship as such or compelling any to go up to Jerusalem is there mentioned He only removes the Babylonian yoke that was upon them and sets them at liberty to build the Temple of the Lord which the Kings before him would not grant them to do and Worship him according to his own appointments Isa 45. 1. is impertinently alledged relating only to the Victories and Conquests the Lord would afford unto Cyrus over the Cities and Nations of the World Jonah 3. 7 8. gives us an account of a Decree published by order of the King for a solemnization of a Fast and to turn from â—mpiety but this comes short of the proof of the Headship argued for which is an Headship having power of making and giving forth Laws touching Institutions of Worship Orders Rites
far otherwise with respect to the Testimony of the Fathers than is by him intimated and that the footsteps not of the Episcopal Hierarchy Common-Prayer-Book-service Church of England c. but of the way of the Congregational-Churches are to be found in and amongst them And such principles laid down by them that will abundantly justifie persons separating from such a Ministry as that of the Ch. of Engl. Cyprian l. 1. epist 4. tells plainly Nor let the people flatter themselves as if they were free from the contagion of sin when they communicate with a wicked Priest yea that they ought to separate from them wherefore the people that obey the Laws of God and fear him ought to separate themselves from a wicked shepherd and not be present at the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest directly contrary to what this Animadverter affirms Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers And Epist 6. He may by no meanâ— have or keep a Church who is not ordained in the Church viz. to which he is related as Minister which the Ministers of England are not ' Tweâ—e easie to fill many pages with citations to this purpose Mr. T. speaks of Councils and Schoolmen and of some that are not able to examine what is said by them As for the latter of these it had been well for the Church of God if they had never been And the former for the most of them it might have been well without Nazienzen who 't is thought knew as much of them as many other men saith If I must write the truth I am much enclined to flee from all the Councils of Bishops because I never saw a joyful and happy end of any Council nor was there by them any suppression of evils but rather an addition and encrease of them Greg. Naz. ep ad Procul And Luther affirms of the very best of them I understand not that the holy Spirit is in this Council All these Articles are hay stubble wood c. And learned Beza tells us that such was the folly ignorance ambition wickedness of many Bishops in the best times that you would suppose the Devil to be President in their Assemblies Praef. ad N. Test Which if so that which Mr. T. intends as a disparagement will be found to be clean contrary No matter how little we have to do with them had they been studied less than they are and the Scriptures of the Lord more we had 't is more than probable been at a nearer agreement in more controversies than one at this day Had the Lebian Rule of Reformation been laid aside and this Ezratical Golden one been solely made use of in measuring the Temple and them that dwell therein Reformation had been carried on with more celerity and another Gospel-Church-state introduced than many are aware of Sect. 4. Some beams of Light may be communicated by a retrospection into the estate of affairs in the time of the old Law into the present enquiry though the whole thereof be devolved in our present disquisition upon the Scriptures of the New-Testament Gen. 4. 26. considered The Reformation of the then Church by segregation and aggregation The issue hereof was the continuation of their Church-state for about a thousand years after The lawfulness of separation from the Church of England proved by Ainsworth Cotton Bartlet c. No more pollution to be found among those Gen. 4. 26. from whom the Saints then separated than is to be found upon the Church of England The Animadverter begs the question in supposing the Church of England to be a true and rightly constituted Church The end of Separation of calling upon the Name of God Those from whom they separated Gen. 4. in what sense they called upon the Name of God Of the Noachical Separation Gen. 6. The spring of the Apostacy of those from whom they separated Of the old Iron Age. The wickedness of the Church of England The duties we owe to persons from whom we separate IN his fifth Section this Animadverter takes notice of some expressions in S. T. to this purpose That since some beams of Light may be communicated into the present enquiry by a retrospection into the state of things under the Law we are willing to take a little notice of the administration of affairs in the House of God then which after a bare mentioning of what was done by the Faithful in the dayes of Seth Gen. 4. 26. We begin to consider from the time of the giving forth of the Law upon Mount Sinai when we say the People of Israel had a standard set up for them to repair unto and they became as a City on an Hill conspicuous unto all What saith Mr. T. to this Why 1. It will not be easie to discern how some beams of Light may be communicated from a retrospection into the state of affairs of old unto the present enquiry if the whole thereof be devolved on the Scriptures of the New-Testament which being a meer slight and scoff put upon the words of his Antagonist might be passed over in silence That Saints may not receive some beams of Light with respect to their deportment towards the Appointments of Christ now by a view of what was of old instituted and carriage of the Saints then towards those Institutions because the present Institutions in the practice whereof the Saints now are concerned are bottom'd singly upon the Scriptures of the New-Testament had the Animadverter by one Argument laboured to have evinced we should though notwithstanding Mr. T. thinks to the contrary 't is in it self evident they may have further considered it When I find the Lord giving forth Laws to his People of old to walk by and strictly enjoyning them to conform to those Laws without adding any thing of their own thereunto I had thought that the Lord having given forth Laws under the New-Testament for the ordering the affairs of his House now some beams of Light might from hence be communicated touching my deportment towards these Laws from what was done of old and rejecting all mixtures of humane inventions with them which the Soul of the Lord in dayes past manifested his indignation against with relation to his then Institutions The like may be said of the other observations and Laws enjoyned upon that People we have briefly remarked But 2dly he grants he tells us that Dr. Owon hath in his Latine Book of the nature study and progress of true Theology shewed divers corruptions in the Ages before and after the Flood in the pure Worship of God unto Moses his time and that the restitution of true Theology was sometimes by a separation from the Wicked when there was a general Apostacy from the true wayes of God unto a prophanity of his Name as some conceive Gen. 4. 26. is meant either by Blasphemy or setting up of Idol-worship as it was before Abraham's separation Josh 24. 15. Answ 'T is very true that learned person hath done
asserted so it gives us light into the intendment of the Spirit of the Lord in the rest instanced according to the measure whereof they are to be interpreted Nor can it be otherwise the holy and wise God having given forth Laws for his People to walk by they must needs be perfect and compleat To accuse them of Imperfection as to the end for which they were given forth and they were given forth for a Law and Rule to walk by is to accuse and charge the infinitly holy and blessed God with Imperfection That a People having a perfect Law revealed to them to conform to should not be indispensibly bound so to do is the first-born of improbabilities and absurdities But Mr. T. will prove the contrary we attend his dictâ—tes He tells us 1. Our Lord hath determined the contrary Answ But this is nothing to the purpose We say not that they were so bound to the observation of these Laws that God could not dispense with them that he sometimes did and at last at the least as to one part of them that emiâ—ently related to instituted Worship he hath wholly removed and taken out of the way but so bound that it was not lawful for any of the sons of men to add to or deâ—â—act from them The case of the Disciples plucking the ears of Corn and David's eating the Shew-bread is not at all to the business Christ who was present with the Disciples waâ—râ—nting the action who is Lord of the Sabbath and might have done so had they on that day done some greater work than the plucking the ears of corn And this he asserts as one part of the plea he makes for them Matth. 12. 8. The Animadverter will never be able to make good this consequence Christ the Lord of the Sabbath dispensed with his Disciples when they brake a Law of the Sabbath though indeed the plucking the ears of Corn was no breach of any Law of the Sabbath but of the Tradition of the Elders who by their corrupt glosses had nefariously added to the Law granting for Argument-sake that they had done so Therefore the people of the Jews were not bound to conform to the Laws given to them by the Lord for the management of their Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs without addition or diminution And as for the matter of Shew-bread and David's eating it it was 1. A case of necessity an extraordinary case which the Lawgiver might dispense with under such a circumstance and yet the people of the Jews bound to conform to his Statues and Judgments without addition or diminution 2dly 'T is evident that David did nothing but what the Law of God permitted him to do 'T is true Christ saith Mat. 12. 4. that it was not lawful for him to eat But that is to be interpreted that out of the case of necessity as David's case at present was it was not lawful for him so to do or that by the Ceremonial Law or Law of the Priesthood which by the Law of God ought to give place to works of mercy and necessity it was not lawful But that it was not absolutely forbidden him is evident 1. The Priest when he comes to him makes little or no scruple of his taking the Bread so be the young men that were with him were legally clean 1 Sam. 21. 4. 2dly David tells him as the case stood the Bread was in a manner common v. 5. for Ceremonies ought to give place to Charity by the Law of the same Lawgiver that instituted them Yea 3dly Our dear Lord in the place mentioned by Mr. T. Matth. 12. 5. tells us that the practice both of his Disciples and David was according to the Warrant and Law of God v. 7. But if ye had known what that means I will have mercy and not sacrifice ye would not have condemned the guiltless Which is a citation out of the Prophet Hos 6. 6. The meaning seems to be that in cases of real necessity some Ceremonial Institutions should give place to Moral Duties Now how weakly doth Mr. T. argue God did in the Law in some cases dispense with the violation of some particular branches of the Ceremonial Law therefore the People of the Jews were not indispensibly bound to the observation of it The question not being what God did or could dispense with who was the absolute and supream Lawgiver but what the duty of the sons of men was with respect to the Law where there was no such dispensation and whether they were not bound without additions and diminutions of their own solely to conform to it So that Mr. T. his Argument is no better than A Baculo ad Angulum and altogether inconclusive of what he would prove thereby But it may be what follows is more to his purpose Let that be considered He tells us that as for additions to Laws Ecclesiastical the Assemblies keeping other seven dayes besides those prescribed in the Law of the Passover 2 Chron. 30. 23. and to Civils the Ordinance of David 1 Sam. 30. 20 25. shew that in both some additions might be by the Prince c. Ans 'T is true indeed the Assembly in Hezekiah's time did over and above the seven dayes prescribed by the Law of the Passover keep also other seven dayes and 't is as true that this Animadv openly prevaricates in the cause he is pleading For 1. This was an extraordinary case not to be reduced to ordinary practice nor of force to enervate a general Rule 2dly This was no Institution or positive Law nor was there any Injunction laid upon the People for the observation of those Laws but the People might if they would or otherwise observe them and therefore cannot properly be said to be an addition to the Laws Ecclesiastical it being no more than any agreement of men amongst themselves to keep a day or dayes of Thanksgiving or Humiliation which had there been it had been abominable wickedness Mr. T. himself saith in his third part of the full review of the Dispute concering Infant-Baptism c. That Jeroboams Sacrifice and keeping a Feast at another time than God appointed is condemned as Will-worship p. 3 4. The Ordinance of David 1 Sam. 30. 20. is to as little purpose instanc'd in by this Animadverter 1. It was a Military Ordinance made by David when in a wandring state driven out of the borders of Israel 2dly Some refer the words v. 25. to David as if he alledged an old Law and Custom as if it were written It is both now and hath been ever So Vatablus who renders the words that was observed from that day and above i. e. from the beginning of the World to that day Some say it was a Statute from Abraham's time so Grotius acquaints us who asserts that Eschol and Mamre Gen. 14. 24. abode by the Carriages yet Abraham will have them receive a part of the spoil 3dly This Ordinance is no more than a particular exemplification of what
like such a call as the Scriptures mention in the Ministers of Christ 2dly That 't is above the ability of Christian hearers to judge of the Ministers call when 't is so plainly declared in the Scriptures is Mr. T. his mistake an Assertion that he will never be able to prove nor need they to fit themselves herein to spend their time to enquire into their many proceedings in getting Testimonials using means for the obtaining Ordination Institution c. as he talks they have through the great kindness of God to them the Bible in their hands and the holy Spirit dwelling in them to lead them into all Truth they have the qualification of Gospel-Ministers laid down 1 Tim. 32. to 8. Tit. 1. 5 to 10. c. the manner of their call and solemn inauguration into their office where they find persons let their pretences be never so high that are not able to acquit themselves according to those Rules they may judg and yet 't is not they so much as the Spirit of God speaking in the Scripture that they are not the Ministers of Christ But he hath a third Reason In all Governments and Societies the peaceable possessor is presumed to have right till the contrary be evinced Ergo 't is lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel that are not such risum teneatis amici If this be good arguing 't is easie to prove it lawful to hear the Pope yea the greatest Hereticks that ever were in the world He is in the peaceable possession of St. Peter's Chair as they call it The Arrian Bishops once had it generally yet not to be heard I hope as Ministers of Christ The learned Field de Eccl. cites Nazianzen speaking far otherwise Neque qui per vim irrupit successor habendus est c. Nor is he to be accounted the Successor who gets possession by violence but he who suffers violence not he who defends a false opinion but he who is endued with the same Faith unless any one perchance may be called a successor as we say a disease succeeds health darkness light a tempest tranquillity wisdom madness And so we confess the present Ministers are the Successors of the Ministers of Christ and possessors of their room 2dly If by right he mâ—an right to their Parsonage and Vicarage-house and Globe-lands c. a right they have for ought I know by the Law of the Nation as things now stand thereunto If a right of Ruledom over the People of God in the Nation 1. They are not peaceably possest of this right they protest against them as Intruders 2dly These being the People and Flock of Christ they can have no right over them except it be given them from him let us see his Commission whereby they are authorized and we are satisfied 3dly If he suppose that a Patron 's presentation of a sorry thing in black suppose a debauch'd Sir John a Knight Errant of the Popeâ— make with the Bishops institution and induction into a Benefice and he is in the peaceable possession hereof that therefore he is to be heard as a Minister of Christ and would impose it upon others as Truth he must know that he hath to do with such who pitty him because of his folly and expect proof of what he asserts before they will believe him The instances of Paul's speech to Ananias Act. 23. 5. of Caiapâ—as prophesying John 11. 51. Christ's not excepting against him when convented before him are such pittiful stories that I must crave pardon of the Reader whilst I mention them Paul owned Ananias as High-Priest Act. 23. 5. which yet 't is probable he did not but spake ironically Caiaphas prophesied John 11. 51. and so did Balaam Num. 23 24. and Christ doth not object against his Office though both supposed to be unlawful Officers Therefore it 's lawful from Christs and Paul's example to hear them who are not right Officers though neither of them heard these preach nor had they to do with them in any act of Instituted Worship when they peaceably possess the place and consequently it is lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel who are not such rightly called Such non-sequiturs introduced with pomp and state I must profess I never before read in any Author which others it may be take notice of with contempt for my part I heartily pitty him and beg him to consider whether the hand of God be not gone forth against him in stripping him of the parts he once had as well as in other things as a just judgment upon him for his lifting up his hand against his Truths and the Kingdom of his Son in the World Till he prove these consequences of his we are not concerned to take further noâ—ice of them there being indeed not the least shew of Argument in what he doth with so much confidence and pomp of words affirm and declare Sect. 3. The Ministers of England not Ministers of the Gospel They come not in by the Door proved John 10. 1 9. opened Of Petrus Waldo and other Reformers Their contrariety to what Mr. T. attempts to erect Of Ordination by particular Churches The Exceptions of the Animadverter refâ—ted Act. 14. 23. explained The Ministers of England imposed upon the People without their consent Parish-Churches no true Churches of Christ. IN Sect. 3. this Animadverter begins to consider the proof of our Assertion viz. That the Ministers of England are not Ministers of the Gospel The sum whereof is They that enter not in by the Door viz. Christ i. e. by vertue of some authority derived to them from him immediately or mediately are not Ministers of the Gospel John 10. 9. But the Ministers of Engl. come not in by the Door receive no Commission or Authority from Christ either immediately or mediately The first we say will not be asserted The second cannot for they receive no Authority from any particular Church of Christ to whom power is solely delegated for the electing their own Officers Acts 6. 5. 14. 23. What saith Mr. T. hereunto Why after he hath eased his spleen by disgorging himself of that choller that did it seems oppress it in some Billingsgate Rhetorick as he speaketh he tells us 1. That thâ—â— may be urged against the Presbyterian Preachers Answ This is only mentioned ad phaleras populi to take the people But good Sir why may this be urged against the Presbyterian Preachers is it because they disown Particular Congregations or Churches of Believers or because they absolutely deny the designation of particular persons to Offices Ecclesiastical by them But each of these is owned by them at least by some of them He adds 2dly This makes against his gifted Brethren Answ 1. Why his gifted Brethren is Mr. T. become a Scorner of the Brethren or are there none thinks he that have received gifts from Christ for the edification of his Body 2. Why doth it make against these They pretend not to
it is Is not the Discipline of their Church from the Canon Law with what forehead can he deny it Whence is the Hierarchy Ecclesiastical decrees Episcopal jurisdiction Procurations Dispensations Pluralities Non-residencies Popish-retained-Ceremonies their Excommunications by a Commissary Ordinations Absolutions Degradations Visitations Offerings Courts Silencing of Godly Preachers disquieting the Lords people for Non-conformity if not from the Cannon-Law These things are notoriously known to be from them So that Mr. T. grants the present Ministers may lawfully be separated from But this might be a slip of his pen before he was aware That it is our duty to separate from persons acting from an Antichristian Power Office or Calling we prove 2ly 'T is unlawful to attend upon the Teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by vertue of a power derived from him To this Mr. T. replyes If by teachings of Antichrist be meant the teachings of the present Doctrine of the Church of Rome and the power derived from him be meant the English Bishops Ordination it is impudency to say they derived their power from Rome Answ 1. We are not yet speaking of the Ministers of England to separate from those that act from an Antichristian power be they Ministers of Germany Holland if they so act in their Ministry they are to be seperated from and that because we may not attend upon Antichrist in his Teachings or Ministration doth Mr. T. deny tâ—is He saith indeed if they preach truth we may attend upon their Ministry though they so act Answ But this hath been often said without the least proof and as frequently replyed to and its inconsutilousness in its applâ—cation to the present Ministers who preach Popish Errours and are interdicted the preaching all truth manifested 'T is an assertion most derogatory to the Dignity and Authority of our Lord and King and not to be born by his Loyal Subjects Hath not he Servants enough of his own to do his work to preach his Gospel but he must be beholding to the greatest enemies he hath in the world to send forth Servants into his Vineyard 2dly The present Ministers of England deny their power from the Papacy or they do not if they do not it had been my mistake not impudency to say they did If they do as most certain it is they do and they themselves acknowledge it and plead it the Impudency is rather in Mr. T. to deny it I add in S. T. 3dly Christ calls his to separate from every thing of Antichrist Rev. 18. 4. 14. 9 10 11. Therefore from his Ministry or such as act by vertue of an Antichristian power To which our Animadverter replies 1 Rev. 18. 4. may be understood of a local departure from Babylon when her judgment of destruction from the Kings of the Earth draws nigh Answ 1. And who can hinder Mr. T. from making conjectures his it may be is no proof that it is However the ground of the Lord 's calling them out of Rome should it be granted him that by Babylon were meant the City of Rome is plainly intimated to be lest they should partake of their sins Not their dwelling in Rome but their complying with the Antichristian Ministry Worship thereof their abominable Rites and Ceremonies is that which is loathsom to the Lord. 2dly 'T is true God calls not his People to depart from every doctrine the Pope teacheth there is some truth remaining amongst them which is to be cleaved to because truth much less a rejection of the Bible These are but vain words empty flourishes this Animadverter knows full well that these things are not affirmed by those with whom he hath to do 3dly To a departure from her by forsaking Communion with her in Worship and leaving subjection to her Government he grants this Scripture may be extended which is all we need contend for The Worship of Rome and England are much the same as we prove The Church-government in use amongst us by Arch-Bishops Bishops issues from the same sourse and spring as is known Therefore a separation from the Worship and Ministry of England lawful by the Animadverter's confession 4thly When God commands to come out of her he must be interpreted to come out of every thing of her viz. that which is truly hers whatever hath not the stamp and authority of God upon it for the reason why the Lord would have his forsake any thing of hers is because it is hers and hath not his own Image and Superscription 'T is ridiculous to imagine that God should command a separation from her Worship and Government and not from her Ministry when this is a main part of her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church-Government He adds 2dly By the Beast and his Image Rev. 14. 9 10 11. is meant some Empire or State which promotes Idolatry the Roman Papacy the worshipping of which is undoubtedly the acknowledging of its power and subjection to their Idolatrous Decrees and Edicts The receiving his mark is a profession of our being the servants of the Pope to subject to his authority and after the citation of Mr. Brightman and Mr. Mede speaking to this purpose he saith which doth evince that the worship of the Beast and his Image is not retaining every usage of the Papists though superstitious and corrupt but acknowledging the universal Monarchy of the Popes adoring Images the Host c. Answ 1. But what doth evince that this is all that is intended by worshipping the Image of the Beast Mr. T. would bear his Reader in hand as if he had produced somewhat for the confirmation of his Assertion when he hath not said the least word tending thereunto The very truth is 2ly The Beast mentioned Rev. 14. 9 10. is the same with the Beast mentioned Rev. 13. 11. or the false Prophet Rev. 19. 21. or Antichrist consider'd in his Ecclesiastical State composed of head the Popes and members the rest of the Antichristian Clergy whether at Rome or elsewhere for as the learned Mede saith the Pope alone maketh not up the Beast except the Clergy be joâ—n'd with him since the Beast doth signifie a company of men composed of a certain order of members like as the Beast hath not one man alone the Image of the Beast cannot be a dumb Image 't is expresly said to be a speaking one viz. the Ecclesiastical policy that in its Cannon-Laws upon which both that of Rome and England is founded breatheth forth nothing but Excommunication against such as shall disobey them upon which they are deliver'd over to the Secular Power here with us though not to be burned yet to perpetual Imprisonment The worshipping the Beast and receiving the mark is subjection to an Antichristian Ministry and Church-polity from which it is the duty of the people of God to separate and if we prove not the Ministers of England to be so we acknowledg this Argument to be null and that notwithstanding any thing in it
would have them I think saith he 't is not without example in the best ordered Churches Answ 1. I remember Pope Leo the 10th in the Lateran Council Ses 2. decreed That none should preach concerning the coming of Antichrist but if the Lord shall reveal some things to others as by Amos he promiseth to do they ought not to divulge it before the Sea Apostolick hath examined it or if that cannot commodiously be the Bishop with some others he that doth otherwise let him be excommunicated From whence the Reader may easily conjecture from what quarter the present practice of the Bishops in this matter doth arrive 2dly 'T is true the Apostle would have Timothy to abiâ—e at Ephesus that he charge some that they teach no other doctrine 1 Tim 1. 3. and Titus to reject an Heretick Tit. 3. 10. and saith 1 Cor. 14. 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by the first must hold his peace But that because Paul took all the care he could to hinder the spreading of error and the preventing disorderly prophesyings as more than one speaking at once therefore 't is lawful for the Bishops in an Antichristian way by force and violence to hinder the free passage of Gospel-truths is like the rest of this B. D. Logick for which I dare say the least Smatterer in that kind of learning will say he needed not to have taken any degree in the Schools 3dly That the practice instanced in is not without example in the best ordered Churches after an unusual rate of modesty with him our Dictator tells us he doth think but he might easily have informed himself otherwise 'T is such a piece of tyranny that â—ell ordered Churches cannot bear that persons sanctified and taught by the Spirit of the Lord sound in the Faith called also according to the appointment and way of Christ to preach the Gospel should noâ— be suffered so to do without the licence of an Antichristian Foundling a dumb Idol of the Popes make call'd a Lordain I should have said a Lord Bishop Many of the worthies of the Lord have protested against as the renowned John Hus the Churches in Bohemia the most eminent in the Council of Basil as abominable and Antichristian But Mr. T. further tells us that if the Prelates silence persons when they should not they are accountable to Christ but it is no proof that their Ministry is not from Christ who submit to the commands of men who have power over them forbiding them to preach some truths Answ 1. That the Prelates are accountable to none but Christ as this Animadverters expressions intimates I am sorry to hear from him the most flattring Canonist would not say more of the Pope himself 2ly 'T is a proof that the Ministry is not of Christ that is so bounded if Pauls words be true Gal. 1. 10. 3. That Lord Bishops have any power over the Ministers of Christ by vertue of any institution of his he cannot prove the submission of Ministers unto them in things Ecclesiastical when they are distitute of such authority is so far from being an extenuation that it is an aggravation of their crime We add in S. T. 3dly That the admission of the present Ministers into their Office by a Lord Bishop without the consent of the Congregation in which they act as Officers is also forraign to the Scripture What Mr. T. hath before said in opposition hereunto is already answered What he hath further to argue shall be now considered He tells us 1. The admission of the present Ministers hath not alwayes been by Lord-Bishops some have been made by Suffragan Bishops Answ 1. The most of the present Ministers Mr. T. denyes not nor can he have their admission from a Lord-Bishop 2dly The very truth is they all have so the Suffragan Bishops he speaks of is but the Lord Bishops Deputy who represents his Lordships person in that act of Ordination and therefore what is done by him is done by the Lord Bishop 3dly Admission by a Suffragan titular Bishop is forraign to Scripture as well as admission by a Lord-Bishop He proceeds 2dly Where the Parishioners are Patrons there is the election of the Congregation Answ There are but few Parishes that as Patrons present their own Ministers and yet those that do must not have any Minister but whom the Lord-Bishop pleaseth his admission is still from him He further tells us 3dly In others there is an implioit consent in their Ancestors yielding that power to their Patron to present and an after-consent by receiving him that is instituted as their Minister Answ This is a vanity not worth the minding 1. He cannot produce any authentick Writing testifying such a reddition by our Ancestors 2. If he could though it may be supposed they may alienate what of right belongs to us as men which yet in many cases is false 't is impossible they should do so with respect of what appertains to us as Christians 3. The after-consent signifies nothing they must consent whether they will or no if they do not but testifie their dissent by abstaining from hearing them they are presented into their Ecclesiastick Courts excommunicated imprisoned ruined He adds 4thly But whether these usages be right or wrong notwithstanding them yet may the Offices of the present Ministers of England be from Christ Answ 1. This is a dictate without proof which we reject 2. That a Minister should in their names office and admission thereunto not symbolize with the Ministers of Christ and yet be his Ministers is absur'd and irrational to imagine This we have proved of the present Ministers and add that in all these they symbolize with the Popish ordeâ— of Priests which we at large demonstratâ— in S. T. what Mr. T. excepts against it shall be considered in the next Section Sect. 3. The present Ministers of England symbolize with the Popish order of Priests Of the name Priests The abolition of names once abused to idolatry Hos 2. 15. Zâ—ch 13. 2. explained Baali what it signifies Exod. 23. 13. Psal 16. 4. opened Of Orthodox Antiquity 't is no sufficient justification of what we do in divine things The Testimony of the Ancients M. T. his arguing and Baronius the Papist alike Ignatius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The book of ordering Priests and Deacons is stolen out of the Popes Pontifical as is evident by the parallel drawn betwixt them THat the present Ministers of England symbolize witâ— the Popish order of Priests we evince in S. T. under several considerations 1. They are both called and own themselves Priests which being a term borrowed either from the Priests of the Law the assertion of such a Priesthood being a denial of Christ come in the flesh or from the Priests of the Heathen from whom the word Orders is undoâ—btedly borrowed or from the Antichristian Church of Rome such idolatrous superstitious names being commanded by the Lord to be abolished Hos 2. 15 Zech
not to be an order above Presbytery Answ 1. Who they are that have thus acknowledged I know not 2. Mr. T. saith not that any of the present Bishops do so 3. If they did in words their practice contradicts it exercising jurisdictions over the Presbyters or Elders 3dly Nor to this saith he that though the Bishop imposing hands do act as of superior order yet being a Presbyter his act is valid as he that convey's a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor if he be not Heir yet if he be only Executor by that hath power to convey iâ— the Grant is good Answ 1. But this is Mr. T. his mistake I say expresly though it should be granted that they act as Presbyters yet their act is not valid because they act not as Presbyters of the institution of Christâ— of which he afterwards takes notice Though 2dly Mr. T. will never be able to prove that the Bishop imposing hands as a Bishop and acting under that capacity yet being a Presbyter his act is valid For. 1. when a Bishop he is no longer a Presbyter but one of an higher order and degree as a Presbyter is no longer a Deacon when once made a Presbyter 2. As a Bishop he hath no authority from Christ at all to act in the business of imposition of hands therefore acting as such his act is invalid which his once being a Presbyter cannot make otherwise because he is not now so nor acts as such but avowedly the contrary 3. His instance of a persons conveying a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor is not pertinent For. 1. He hath originally and legally the same right if he be one as if both and pretends to a right to both in his conveyance 2ly Should he refuse his Executorship and make a Conveyance as Heir and he prove not to be so his Conveyance is naught Nay 3. if he make a Conveyance of what neither as Heir or Executor he hath any right to the Grant is undoubtedly not good This is evidently the case of our Lord-Bishops To the objection as proposed by us we answer 1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of ordination is false 2. Contrary to their avowed principles Mr. T. replies This is uncertain Answ And he may as well say it is uncertain that the Sun shines at noon-day The least smatterer in the usages of the Church of England and principles of these Doctors thereof see and know it to be certainly true 2. Contrary to the known Law of the Land by which they receive power to act therein in which they are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord-Bishop Mr. T. replies This is not true for the ordination of Suffragan-Bishops who are not Lords is valid by Law Answ A weak proof of such a crimination A Suffragan-Bishop is a Titular-Bishop when he acts in the matter of ordination he represents the Lord-Bishop whose Suffragan he is And the Law accounts his act not his own but the act of the Lord-Bishop whose Representee hee is And this Mr. T. could not be ignorant of We say 3dly 'T is contrary to their late practice whereby they have sufficiently declared the nullity of a Ministerial Office received from the hands of a Presbytery in thrusting out of doors several hundreds of Ministers so ordained Strange that it should be pleaded they act as Presbyters in the matter of ordination and yet they themselves judge a Presbyterian ordination invalid What saith Mr. T. Why 1. They do not nullify ordination by a Presbytery in forrain Churches Answ But this is not at all to the purpose have they not done so at home To attempt to do so in forraign Churches where they have no power were but to expose themselves to greater contempt as busy Bishops indeed 2dly In England they do it because the Laws saith he require Episcopal Ordination Answ But Sir the question is not upon what accounts they have so done in England but whether their so doing be not a manifestation that they act not in the capacity of Presbyters in the business of Ordination for if they did they fore-condemn their own act in condemning Presbyterian ordination their ordination being upon this supposition onely such 2dly He grants The Law requires Episcopal ordination if so it doth sure tie them that act in it to think themselves Bishops to act with such an intention and under that notion which not many lines before he denyed We further answer in S. T. What if this should be granted it would avail nothing except it can be proved that they are and act as Presbyters of the institution of Christ which these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ will never be to the worlds end To which our Animadverter replies If this be held then all the Presbyters of the French Dutch and other Churches under Presbyterial goverment are not of Christs institution and so a separation avowed from all Protestant Churches except their own Answ 1. But this is no proof that the Bishops of England act in the matter of ordination as Presbyters of the institution of Christ which is the one and onely thing he should have heeded in his reply but of that he is wholly silent 2dly No doubt he thinks he hath sufficiently bespatter'd uâ— but if he account it a discredit to speak palpable untruths it will be his own 1. 'T is false that we avow separation from all Churches but those of our own way that our Assertion tends to such an end I challenge our Dictator to make good 2. The Presbyterians own particular Churches of the institution of Christ have their Presbyters fixed officers in and amongst them and that both in England and beyond the Seas What satisfaction he will think meet to make us for so foul an aspersion whereby he labours to render us odious to the Godly at home abroad we shall know by the next In the mean while we are ready to attend his motions in the next Chapter CHAP. V. Sect. 1. The fourth Argument in S. T. against hearing the present Ministers vindicated A twofold denial of the Offices of Christ Whether the Papists are guilty of a verbal professional denial of Christs Offices 'T is not lawful to hear such as are guilty of a verbal or real denial of Christs Offices The present Ministers oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ They do so who hearken not to that revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders of his House Deut. 18. 18 19. Act. 3. 23. Mat. 3. 17. Isa 9. 6. explained The vanity of Mr. T. his dictates to the contrary evinced IN Chap. 4th of S. T. we advance a fourth Argument against hearing the present Ministers which is this Those that deny any of the Offices of Christ are not to be heard but separated from But the present Ministers deny some of the Offices of Christ Therefore Before we come to clear the several
parts of the Argument we premise 1. That there is a twofold denial of the Offices of Christ 1. Verbal and professional of this the Jews not the Papists noâ— the Ministers of England are guilty 2. Real and actual when persons do that which enwraps in the bowels of it a denial of the Offices of Christ Thus the Papists the present Ministers are guilty To this Mr. T. replies I allow the distinction but it is false that the Papists are not guilty of the verbal professional denying of the Offices of Christ for though they acknowledge Christ to be King yet their doctrine overthrows all the Offices of Christ as he that ascribes Kingly power to a Subject doth make another King and so doth unking him Thus the Papists do while they will have unwritten traditions to be received Answ 1st To dispute about words with any man living I shall not by a verbal professional denying of Christs Offices I mean express and down-right asserting that he is not King of his Church this I say the Papists do not they own preach up all the Offices of Christ i. e. they acknowledge him in their discourses of his Offices to be King to his Church which Mr. T. knows they do Their ascription of Kingly power to any but Christ in assertions mentioned I make a real and actual denyal and oppugning the Offices of Christ It being a doing what enwraps in the bowels of it such a denial of them 2dly This Animadverter hath already asserted what will in part at least make good our charge in this matter against the Ministers of England The ascription of Kingly power to any but Christ is a denying his Kingly authority the Papists Prelats and Ministers of England do so in asserting that traditions unwritten are to be received That the Pope a Convocation or Assembly of Prelates and Priests can make Laws to bind the Conscience by vertue of his their authority can dispense with Gods Laws incestuous Marriages by granting a License for a good Spill prohibited by God therefore the Papists the Ministers of England do deny the Kingly authority of Christ We premise in S. T. 2dly That a verbal professional acknowledgement of Christ is nothing when contradicted in practice To which we subjoyn that such as really oppose or deny any of the Offices of Christ are not to be heard but separated from which we prove 1. Because such aâ— do so are the Antichrists 1 Joh. 2. 22. and 4. 2 3. 2 Joh. 7. 2dly To hear such is to strengthen and encourage them in that their denial of and opposition to the Offices of Christ and thereby to become partakers with them in their sin Of which we treat more at large in S. T. chap. 4. p. 29 30. Whereunto Mr. T. replies 1. That a verbal professional acknowledgement of the Offices of Christ when contradicted by practice is nothing to the salvation of the person so professing his plea shall not be admitted before God or mans Ecclesiastcal censure i. e. he may be suspended excommunicated for his so acting notwithstanding his profession yet all this doth not prove that his doctrine may not be heard Answ 1. It seems then its lawful to hear persons not waâ—king exorbitantly but under Church censure for so doing which pours forth most fearful contempt upon that institution of Christ Excommunication To what purpose is it that any one is cast out of the Church if it may be lawful to hear them notwithstanding i. e. own them as the mouth of God to me and my mouth to God whom the Church thought not meet to be continued as a member in the body 2dly In vain then are all the exhortations of the Apostle to the Saints with relation to their withdrawment from such as these 1 Cor. 5. 9 10 11. Ephes 5. 11. 3dly To no purpose did Paul write to the Corinthians to receive the incestuous person had they but known their liberty they might have done so before for if his doctrine did not oppugn the Offices of Christ it might have been heard to their profit according to our Dictators dictates they might not only have received him but as a Preacheâ— amongst them Nay 4thly In vain is the charge of the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. 5. for if they profess to own the Offices of Christ i. e. Have a Form of Godliness though they contradict it in their walk i. e. deny the Power thereof they may be joyned with Poor Paul understood not so much of our Christian Liberty as rich confident Mr T. who is driven to such pittiful shifts and gross absurdities in the management of this Controversie that I really pitty him He adds 'T is not true that Christ saith the false Prophets are to be descried by their vitious Life only Nor do I say in this place he doth I say he saith they are to be known by their fruits Preaching and practising what invelops in it a denial of the Offices of Christ though attended with a visible holy Conversation I am contented that he make the fruits mentioned to be His discourse of Judas and false Prophets being so called not in respect of their outward Calling or vitious Lives but of their Doctrine that upon the least occasion he runs frequently forth into we have already answered Nor say we that teaching something through ignorance and inadvertency as is appointed by Christ which is not or denying something to be instituted which was so appointed is what doth denominate a man a false Prophet The Animadverter forgets what it is he attempts to answer we are not talking of false Prophets but of such as deny the Offices of Christ nor do we say that this as thus proposed by him doth render a man guilty of real denying the Offices of Christ or is a sufficient ground of separation from him much less then an opposing in heart any of the Offices of Christ is so as he suggests afterwards we do but that those that do really oppose any of the Offices of Christ viz. by setting themselves against the most if not the whole of Gospel-Institutions by owning a power in others to constitute Laws for the Family and Houshold of Christ even contrary to his Institutions and acknowledging another Head beside him of his Church is such a real denial of the Offices of Christ that upon whomsoever it is found 't is the duty of Saints to separate from them and that for the reasons before mentioned which Mr. T. may disprove when he can The rest of this Section being spent in railing and sorry impertinencies I come to his second Section were he sets himself to consider our Minor Proposition viz. That the present Ministers of England do oppose and deny the Prophetical and Kingly Offices of Christ Which we prove thus Those that hearken not to the Revelation Christ hath made and as Supream Lord and Lawgiver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House deny the Prophetical and Kingly Office of
Christ Deut. 18. 18. Acts 3. 22. Isa 9. 6. But the present Ministers of England hearken and conform not to the Revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House Therefore To which Mr. T. replies by denying the Major or first Proposition But he wisely takes no notice of the Scriptures produced for the Proof hereof as Deut. 18. 18 19. where the Lord promiseth to raise up Christ from among his Brethren in whose mouth he would put his words by whom he would speak to them to whom whosoever will not hearken God saith he will require it of him i. e. take vengeance on him as the Greek renders it or as the Apostle Acts 3. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall be exterminated from amongst the People rejected by the Saints as a Despiser oppugner of the Offices of Christ into which he was so solemnly invested by the Father Mat. 3. 17. In Isa 9. 6. It is Prophesied of Christ That the Government should be laid upon his shoulders he should be King in Sion give forth as such Laws and Constitutions for the Government of his People which accordingly he doth and solemnly promulgates them by his Heralds and Messengers fixeth them as upon publick Pillars in the Scriptures of Truth to be seen and read of all men That after all this persons should refuse slight neglect to hearken to these Institutions of Christ violate oppose preach against them and yet not be guilty of denying his Prophetical and Kingly Offices is the first-born of absurdities Go and offer it to thy Prince deal so by the constitutions of thy Rulers and see what they will say to thee what interpretation will be by them put upon thy so dealing with them But he gives the reasons of his denial and tells us 1. Denial is more than not hearkening to Answ There is a denial its true that is more than a not hearkening to but there is a not hearkening to that is a real denial rejection of the Authority of him to whom we refuse to hearken The Scripture expresly affirms it Psal 81. 11. But my People would not hearken to my voice Israel would none of me Ezek. 20. 8. but they rebelled against me i. e. opposed rejected my Authority and would not hearken unto me Nor can I tell how those Luke 19. 14. are said to send a message after Christ saying We will not have this man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to King it over us which is sure a denial of his Kingly Authority but by refusing to hearken and conform to his Royal Appointments He adds 2dly The not hearkning may be out of ignorance incapacity to understand fearfulness c. without any enmity of heart habitual stubbornness which are requisite to a plain denial of the Offices of Christ Answ 1. It may be so indeed but whether this be the reason of the Ministers of England not hearkening thereunto he acquaints us not Certainly they are not fit to be Ministers of the Gospel or to be accounted Overseers of the flock of Christ who are ignorant of his Institutions and incapable of understanding them 2. Though it be out of fearfulness prevalency of temptation that they hearken not yet may their not so doing be a denial of the Offices of Christ It was out of fearfulness the prevalency of temptation that Peter denied his Lord without any enmity of heart yet his denial was a plain denial So false is that which Mr. T. saith That enmity of heart habitual stubbornness or wilful gainsaying are requisite hereunto He tells us 3dly There may be sundry Orders of his House controverted if acknowledged such not thought to be of that moment as to break the Peace of the Church by contending for them or not judg'd perpetual or not binding the Ministers to observe till the Magistrates reform Answ 1. But upon such Principles as these I know not but Christ may be divested of the Scepter of his Kingdom all his bonds and cords broken asunder and cast away and yet no one would be nocent It is evident that this is the lot of many most of them already 2dly There are but few of the Orders of Christs House but are controverted amongst the Children of men will this excuse any from subjection to them May not the Papists plead thus for their rejection of the Institutions of Christ Must Christ lose his obedience till the parties Litigant are at an agreement Nugae tricae sicâ—lae what more frivolous could have been invented 3dly This Animadverter will one day find that there are no Institutions of Christ but what are of moment how derogatory to the glory of Christ the Oeconomie and Administration of the Gospel such assertions as these are others will judge 4thly That any of the Institutions of Christ remarked by us were temporary I challenge Mr. T. to make good i. e. such as were not to endure till his coming Such Principles as these would soon evert all Gospel-Institutions and make way for the Introduction of unwritten Vanities and humane Traditions which the soul of our Lord abhors 5thly I desire to be informed what Appointments of Christ those are that are not binding to the Ministers till the Magistrate reform I know not any such and conceive the assertion to be foreign to Truth 1. The Primitive Believers were obliged to conform to â—hem all though the Magistrate blasphemed and opposed 2. 'T is wonderous derogatory to Christs honour to ask the Magistrate leave whether his Institutions shall be binding or not i. e. â—f he will reform they shall otherwise not such trash as this will nevâ—r pass for sound reason absurd dictates without proof though never â—o importunely imposed Mr. T. must not imagine will meet with reception amongst judicious Christians 6thly That it should be scandalous to hearken to the Institutions of Christ as he suggests is such a monstrous assertion that I aâ— amazed to think it should drop from such a person The reciting it iâ— refutation sufficient So that the Major Proposition I still take for manifest truth notwithstanding his three dictates to the contrary which are now abundantly refuted Sect. 2. The present Ministers of England do not hearken and conform to the Revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House proved by the induction of seven particulars All power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in Christ Mat. 28. 19. 1 Tim. 6. 14 15. John 3. 35. Acts 3. 22. and 5. 31. Mat. 23. 8 9 10. 1 Cor. 11. 23. and 14. 37. Gal. 1. 8. 2 John 10. Rev. 22. 18. Acts 15. 25 28. considered The present Ministers own other Lords that have a Law-making-Power over his Churches besides Christ which Mr. T. grants is a denyal of his Kingly Authority Separation from the World and Saints walking together in particular Societies an Institution of Christ proved This is opposed by the present Ministers 1 Cor. 1. 2. Phil.
Miracles by the Apostle there had been no need to have assembled the Church but it was necessary that to the doing of this act the Church be assembled vers 4 5. 5thly He is to be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved which is not likely to be effected by Satans Ministry 6thly 'T is more than probable the Church did what the Apostle commanded them to do Now this is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the publick rebuke inflicted by many which many cannot signifie the Apostle but the Church of Corinth all which evince that it was a Church-act and no more than what is practised by the Churches of Christ at this day Though 't is true it is more than the ordinary Excommunication of the Church of England by a Chancellour or Proctor several miles from the Parish-Church to which the person is related and it may be unknown to them an argument they own not this Institution of Christ We add in S. T. as another Institution of Christ 4. That the Officers of his appointment are only such as these Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons Widows or Helpers who as they are in one particular Congregation so they have not any Lordly authority over each other Ephes 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7. and 16. 1. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. Acts 6. 5. and 15. 2. and 20. 17. and 28. 21 28. 1 Tim. 3. chapt and 5. 9 10 17. This Law of Christ they subject not we say unto set up other Officers and Offices To which Mr. T. 1st There were other Officers given by Chrst besides these mentioned viz. Apostles therefore these are not the only Officers of his appointment Answ 1. Had he said therefore These were not the only Officers of his appointment he had spoken more properly Apostles were of his appointment are not now as we have proved 2. We are speaking of ordinary fixed Officers in the particular Churches of Christ which the Apostles were not so that his instancing these and inference thereupon is frivoâ—ous and impertinent If these had Superiority over others it will not advantage the Animadverter except he can prove the Bishops in respect of Office to be their Successors which he will never be able to do That because the Elders mentioned 1 Tim. 5. 17. must be accounted worthy of double honour therefore they were of a Superiour order of Ministry to lord it over the rest is one of Mr. T. his Consequences that a youth of half a years stâ—nding in the University would be ashamed of Besides Sir the double honour is due to the working Presbyter not the lording loytering Bishop as is the custom of England The person mentioned 2 Cor. 8. 19. was chosen by the Churches for the present expedition was no standing fixed Officer amongst them therefore appertains not to our present disquisition He adds Whether all the Officers and Offices be rightly ordered in the Church of England is not our present inquiry Answ But this is no small part of our present enquiry for if they are not rightly ordered they are not Officers of Christ if they are not such 't is evident they reject this Institution of his set up other Officers and Offices What he tells us is notoriously false viz. That the present Ministers of England have neither Name nor thing required by Christ in this Law is manifestly true Their Parish Ministers are called Priests not Pastors or Teachers 'T is true they have those are called Doctors which signifies Teachers but that is a School not a Church-Title they are call'd so with respect to an Academick degree not with relation to any particular Church or Churches in whom they are placed They have those thaâ— are called Deacons but they are not such Officers as Christ calls so those that come nearest to these are those they call Church-wardens oâ— Overseers of the Poor But they have the thing the Office of preachâ—ng the Gospel continues with them Answ 1. 'T were well if it could be said of many of them that they preached the Gospel Alas they understand it not 2dly However they have not the Office as we prove whilest he suggests the contrary he doth but beg the Question Whether the Assertion That they set up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of Christs Authority be very unrighteously said others will judge I am sure as was said in S. T. They are such of which it may righteously be said he did at no time command them neither did it ever enter into his heart so to do And I challenge Mr. T. to give an instance of the contrary We remark a 5th Institution of Christ in S. T. viz. That these Officers be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ according to Acts 1. 15 23 26. and 6. 1 2 3 5. and 14. 23. and 9. 26. which we find the Church in the practise of for some Centuries of Years As the Epistle of Clemens to the Church of Corinth Martin Luther Cyprian Lambard Peter Martyr Bullinger Gualter Zanchy Calvin Beza the united Brethren of Bohemia manifest Of which at large we there treat This Institution of Christ we say the present Ministers conform not to Mr. T. replies 1. He finds not this to be an Appointment of Christ in the Scriptures mentioned Answ Whether it be or not let the Reader judge the impertinency of his Answer to the three first we have already shewed Acts 9. 26 27. proves thus much That 't is in the Churches power to reject any one or refuse to receive him as a Preacher amongst them till they have received satisfaction touching him which doth not a little demonstrate the power of Election of their own Officers to be seated in them For he assayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to joyn himself to the Disciples as a Brother in the fellowship of the Gospel as the word signifies Acts 5. 13. 1 Cor. 6. 16 17. but they would not suffer him so to do till better informed of him and then he comes in and goes out at Jerusalem ver 28. i. e. is owned received by them What follows is a repetition of what he had before said Sect. 22. in answer to the Preface to which we have there spoken Clemens speaks fully to our purpose Ministers must be appointed by famous and discreet men with the good liking and consent of ALL the Church without which it seems they could not be constituted In that which follows in Clemens his Epistle touching a readiness in the Elder or Pastor to depart or return according as the multitude of Believers should determine We have sure a proof that the choice or rejection of a Pastor is seated in them That Luther Bullinger meant no more than the not obtruding unable Ministers on the Churches of Christ is Mr. T. his mistake They both assert the Churches priviledge in the choice of their own Pastors Their voice saith
Luther ought not to be severed from the choosing Ecclesiastical Persons 'T is tyranny to do so saith Bullinger Let the judicious Reader peruse the words of the rest recited in S. T. and he will be convinced that they speak home to the matter in hand and that Mr. T. doth but trifle whilest he labours to avoid their Testimony That there is nothing like this Institution of Christ practised amongst the Ministers of the Church of England is known And Mr. T. acknowledgeth That by reason of the continuance in force of so much of the Popes Canon Law things are far otherwise than they should be Now this is that we say A non-hearkening to the Institutions and Laws of Christ with an imbracement and subjection to the Cannon-Law of Antichrist is a real denial of Christs Kingly Authority This the Ministers of England are guilty of The latter our Animadverter hath the ingenuity to confess the former we have proved What difficulties Congregational men have found in the rectifying these things besides what they have ground to expect in any work of God in which 't is no new thing to find Satan at our right hand to resist us I know not That Separation and Election by the Churches makes things worse than they are is a plain calumny against the known experience of them all We proceed and in S. T. instance a sixth Institution of Christ viz. 6thly That Saints may Prophesie one by one and ought to admonisy exhort and build up one another in their most holy Faith 1 Cor. 14. 40. Rom. 8. 26. and 12. 6. 1 Cor. 4. 17. and 5. 4. and 11. 23. Ephes 4. 7 11 12. 1 Tim. 2. 1. and 3. 15. Jude 20. 1 Cor. 12. 7 11. Mat. 25. 24. 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. 1 Cor. 12. 15. and 14. 12 24. Ephes 4. 3 7 15 16. Acts 2. 42. Rom. 15. 14. Ephes 5. 19. Col. 3. 16. 1 Thes 5. 14. 2 Thes 3. 15. Heb. 3. 13. to which might be added the frequent Examples of the Saints in the Old and New Testament 2 Chr. 17. 7 8 9. John 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 Tertullian in his Apol. Justin Martyr in his Apol. and many others This Institution of Christ the present Ministers trample under foot rail against oppose reproach do all they can to cause to perish from amongst the people of Christ To which Mr. T. Sect. 8. upon the matter speaks not one woâ—d in a way of contradiction tells us Prophesying was an extraordinary gift by an immediate Revelation of the Spirit whereby some hidden thing is discovered and this prophesying the Ministers of England neither do nor can hinder none that he knows of have this gift Answ 1. Were all this granted it would not at all advantage him There is a Prophesying that was as he saith an extraordinary gift But that is not the Prophesying as he knows we are treating of but a speaking to men to edification exhortation and comfort This we say is an Institution of Christ bottom'd upon the forecited Scriptures which notwithstanding the present Ministers of England oppose and deny Are not these things so Is Mr. T. able to disprove them Doth he attempt to do so nothing less A very fardle of Contradictions not worth the mentioning is the whole of what he is pleased to return in Answer hereunto one while the restraint of such exercises is no transgression of Christ's Command and yet immediately adds that the duties in the Texts ought to be cherished furthered and such meetings countenanced Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo An Institution of Christ he denies not this to be nor that it is not hearkened to but rejected opposed by the present Ministers His imputing practises to us tending to Sedition and Disturbance very ill becomes him The whole Nation is under the conviction of the contrary 'T is no more than what of old was charged upon the Saints A very false crimination for which I advise him that he pray to God to give him repentance unto Life A 7th Institution of Christ remarked in S. T. is this That nothing be offered up to God 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. Mat. 15. 6 9. Heb. 8. 5. 1 King 13. 33. and 12. 13. Jer. 7. 31. Numb 15. 39. Deut. 12. 1. 4. 31. This the Ministers of England conform not to they act what is contrary thereunto whilst they offer up a Service not of his prescription affect Legal Shadows worldly Pomp and carnal Excellency Mâ— T. replies Sect. 9. Where God hath left us free not forbidding us to use a prescript form of words Musick in the praising of God there we may so do Answ 1. This is such a shameful petitio principii or begging the thing in question that he could not sure write without blushing 2dly Contrary to what he hath in other Treatises formerly asserted 3dly Directly opposite to some of the Scriptures instanced in which he takes no notice of 4thly An open door for the Introduction of all the Popish trinkets and fopperies 5thly A most Papistical assertion generally exploded by Protestant Writers when they dispute against the Papists who affirm that an Argument from the authority of the Scripture negatively is valid i. e. 't is not commanded in Scripture not to be proved thence therefore not to be believed nor practised as Sutcliffe argues against Bellarmine de Pontif. l. 2. c. 9. p. 134 135 and others So that notwithstanding what Mr. T. is able to say to the contrary the present Ministers of Engl. refuse to subject to despise oppose persecute the Orders and Institutions of Christ in his House and therefore deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office We proceed in S. T. to the removing an Objection which is thus proposed 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 hath already been proved To say that any part thereof is a small matter is no small derogation to the wisdom of him who instituted it To this Mr. T. Sect. 10. Replies 1st Though nothing commanded by God is small yet some things are comparatively small Mat. 23. 23. Answ 1. Christ speaks not of Gospel-Institutions of which we are treating But 2. Of Commandments and Ceremonies that were then drawing apace to their period and full point 3. He saiâ—h not that they were so small that they ought not to be observed but the contrary 4. The Appointments instanced in by us are of such import as that in them the visible Kingship of Christ in and
and I would be more phrenetical for the Interest of my dear Lord Sorne think these expressions might have been spared though for our parts Contenti sumus hoc Catonâ— 3dly What Interpreters he hath met with I know not The Assembly in their Annotations upon the place are of our mind Their setting of their thresholds by my thresholds i. e. adding their Traditions to my Precepts Isa 29. 13. So is Mr. Greenhill c. We further propose in S. T. an Objection to consideration viz. That though these Canons and Constitutions owned by the Ministers of England be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ in so many words yet by consequence they may rationally be deduced from thence As where it is commanded that all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14. 40. which 'tis the duty of the Church to make Rules and Constitutions about which when it hath done it is the duty of every Son thereof to own or subject to them without questioning its Authority To this Mr. T. Sect. 3. subjoyns 1. He asserts not that the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England may rationally be deduced from Scripture Answ Goodly Constitutions surely that cannot rationally be deduced from Scripture but have their Original singly from the bloody canon-Canon-Law of the Papacy and worthy to be submitted to by such as profess themselves Ministers of the Gospel what greater contempt any one could pour forth upon them I know not But 2dly Whilst Mr. T. refuseth to assert this he plainly relinquisheth his concern in the Objection proposed by us and tells us He will not stand up in its defence However 2. This he asserts in the room thereof That Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Divine Worship and Church-Government may be made by Governours if not opposite to such Rules as are in Scripture about Gods Worship and the Rule of his Church and be indeed subservient and conducible to the well-ordering of such Worship and Rule which 't is the duty of the Members of such a Church to obey Answ 1. But I would be informed whether by Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Divine Worship he means only Canons touching the spreading the Table at the Communion with a linnen Cloth the Sermons beginning at the Reading of the Text at which rate he speaks in Sect. 4. Or whether he means Canons and Laws for the Institution of considerable parts of Worship together with such accidentals as he calls them that must be submitted to by such as are admitted to the publick managery of Worship without which they shall not be permitted so to do If the first he doth but trifle we have not been taking notice of things of such an inferiour allay If the latter I desire to be satisfied by what Law any Rulers or Governours do assume to themselves such an Authority which when Mr. T. shall be pleased to shew us we shall further consider it Heb. 13. 17. speaks not a tittle thereunto Of the vanity of its Application to the Governours of the Church of England we have already spoken The Reasons of his Assertion are these 1. Without such Regulations Church-Societies cannot be continued by reason of the difference of miâ—ds Answ 1. The contrary is manifest before ever such constitutions as those he speaks of were in the World Church-Societies were continued One of the first open breaches amongst them was because of them as he knows fell out betwixt Victor Bishop of Rome and the Eastern-Churches about the observation of Easter All the confusion differences breaches that have been in the Churches so called is for the most part to be charged upon their Impositions 2dly The Animadverter supposeth That without such Constitutions the Churches should be wholly destitute of Regulation but falsly 'T is derogatory to Christ the Scriptures perfection a pitiful begging the thing in question As Christ hath a Church in the world he hath Laws with respect to external politie by which he rules it needs not be beholding to Antichrist for his 'T is impious scandalous to conceive endite such dictates He further adds 2dly All sorts of Churches have had their Synods to this end Answ 1. To what end To make Laws and Constitutions for an Order of Ministry that Christ never established to impose a Lyâ—urgical Worship upon his Churches to set up an unpreaching Ministry in his House Mr. T. knows that these things are false and untrue If he mean not these I would advise him to speak pertinently in hâ—s next These are the Institutions we charge the present Ministers wâ—th submitting to 2. That all sorts of Churches have found it necessary to have Synods is more than Mr. T. can prove The Learned Whitaker tells us That they are not simply and absolutely necessary De Concil q. 1. p. 22. and I am sure they may be well enough without them Licinius interdicts them Euseb de Vit. Constant l. 1. c. 44. yet the Câ—urches continued aâ—d in a flourishing sttate 3dly That few or no Synods that ever were yet in the World have had a right Constitution were a facile undertaking to demonstrate The Synod so called of the Câ—urch of England by which the Laws we mention were out of the Popes Canon-Law collected was not so A right Synod is constituted of the Messengers of the Churches upon the account whereof they are said to be the Churches Representatives sent by them with Instructions from them touching matters to be debated in that Convention This cannot be affirmed of the aforesaid Synod nor of any Synod that ever was in the World since the Apostles fell asleep So that whilst our Animadverter is discoursing of them as necessary he is talking of the necessity of â— Non-ens a meer Chimaera 4thly The Churches of Christ had a perfect Discipline before ever the Synods he speaks of had a being in the World Nor 5thly had these ever from Jesus Christ any Authority and what they have not from him is not Obligatory to impose any thing upon the Churches to be observed by them by virtue of an Authoritative power seated in themselves 'T is a Yoke not to be endured by the free-born Subjects of Christ that any of the Children of men should impose upon them in the matters of their God The Synod of Jerusalem did not do so as we have proved His third Reason is down-right begging the thing in question Christ hath left nothing relating to the Worship and Government of his House as such undetermined against which I advise him not to talk so confidently in his next till he hath proved the contrary The Texts mentioned by him 1 Cor. 14. 40. Heb. 13. 17. prove no such thing as the lawfulness of additional Institutions in matters of Church-Polity as a part thereof to the Institutions of Christ 1 Cor. 14. 40. is afterward in S. T. Heb. 13. 17. hath already been considered That because Paul gives direction in some
Kneeling at the Sacrament is wisely done and had he wav'd the whole Controversie some think it had been no argument of his indiscretion but his so doing is no Answer He that will justifie the present Ministry and Worship of the Church of England persons of such dull capacities as our selves conceive must justifie these too They being made so necessary a part of their Worship that the Worship it self must rather be omitted than these devices of their Prelates or rather the Arch-Priest of Rome a Minister though never so able must not Preach if he will not wear the Surplice nor Baptize if he will not Cross nor may any either administer the Communion or receive it without Kneeling In which things if they transgress they are liable to be presented suspended excommunicated I have no power to compel Mr. T. to plead for any thing that he hath no mind to plead for In due time for ought I know he may as fast draw off from the tents of these men as he hath of late been advancing towards them He will not plead for their Canons nor for their Ceremonies at least some of them he tells us p. 54. It may be the next step may be nor for their Ministry To what purpose Mr. T. disputes for the power of Governors to Institute Rules for Church-Polity when he will not plead for those they Institute I know not We manifested in S. T. the invalidity of this Argument The Apostle by an infallible Spirit adviseth the Church of Corinth That all things de done decently and in order and discovers to them wherein that Decency and Order lay therefore persons that pretend not to such a Spirit may of their own head bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the Service of God To this Mr. T. replies He conceives none would thus unadvisedly conclude Answ And I believe so too but if they will argue rightly from this Scripture thus must they argue as we have demonstrated But he will yet prove the power of Governours in this matter from 1 Cor. 14 40. thus That which belonging to Decency and Order is commanded in general but not in the particularities determined is in respect of Communities left to be determined by their Rulers But so is the Apostles command 1 Cor. 14. 40. Therefore Answ 1. Both Propositions are liable to exception 1. Upon supposition that what in the Worship of Christ belongs to Decency and Order is left undetermined it doth not follow that it belongs to the Rules of the Church to determine thereof which is to make the Rulers Lords over Gods Heritage to introduce insupportable Tyranny into the Churches of Christ They are the Churches Servants not Lords that are her Ministers 2dly The Minor Proposition is notoriously false and untrue the Apostle is debating the business of Prophesying touching this he lays down particular rules for Decency and Order which he requires them to conform to Let any sober Christian peruse the Chapter he will see this shining therein in brightness So Ambrose Aquinas c. inform us Decently and in Order that no unseemliness or tumult arise But this prescription of the Apostle is not to be applied to any Episcopal Traditions but the Apostles own viz. such as he had delivered to the Churches saith a learned man Thus the heat of this contest is allayed Pulveris exigui jactu We further reply in S. T. But let this be granted suppose that 't is the Priviledge and Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of men in matters of Decency and Order this Church herein is bounded by the Scripture or 't is not If it be then when it hath no prescription therein for its commands it 's not to be obeyed and so we are where we were before That Decency and Order is to be determined by the Scripture If it be not bounded thereby then whatever Ceremonies it introduceth not directly contrary thereunto they must be subjected to which how fair an inlet it is to the whole Farrago of Popish Inventions who sees not To this Mr. T. adjoyns That he doth not plead that it is the Priviledge and Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of men in matters of Decency and Order Answ Very good The Church of England Mr. T. thinks hath no such Power Priviledge or Authority granted unto them by the Lord Jesus Then have they whilst they have so done invaded his Throne and Kingly Authority The Parish Priests whilst they own abet and subscribe to what they have done in this matter are Co-partners with them in their iniquity are really guilty of opposing the King-ship of Christ which was the matter we have been all this while contesting about and is now in effect granted by our wary Antagonist We argue thus Those that assume power to make Laws and impose the reception of them upon the People of a Nation beside those and without any Priviledge or grant to them by such given in whom the Soveraign Power of Ruledom resides are guilty of Rebellion against such their Rulers and Governours Those that abet them herein are guilty of the same Rebellion But this the Church of England with respect to Jesus Christ the onely Soveraign Lord and Ruler of his Churches hath done her Ministers have abetted her herein Therefore The Major cannot be denied The Minor is evident 1. That the Church of England hath made Constitutions for the binding thâ— Consciences of men in the maters of Decency and Order their Book of Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical evince that they have no authority from Christ so to do Mr. T. grants So that in what follows we are little concerned partly because he hath already yeelded the cause and partly because the particularities he speaks of be they what they will are only he tells us of Decency and Order not determined in the Scripture Now we deny any such particularities undetermined we think it a most fearful undervaluing of the Wisdom of Christ to assert That mans ' Devices can add Beauty Order or Decency to Christ's Institutions i. e. They are not Orderly or Decent without Humane Impositions Nor see we how these can be prescribed by Canons Ecclesiastical to be obeyed because enjoyned by the Rulers of the Church to whom we are saith Mr. T. in Conscience bound to submit if it be not the Priviledge nor Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding the Consciences of men in matters of this nature and think that the latter part of his Answer is in contention with the former Besides we are yet â—o seek for a proof of this matter That we are obliged to obey Rulers Ecclesiastical commanding us any thing in the Worship of God as such under the notion of Decency and Order and believe this very assertion is contrary to the Law of Nature and right Reason which teacheth us That God
is to be served after that way that pleaseth him best That â—he Will of God who is the alone Master of the House not man is solely to be heeded in the Ordering of his Family and Houshold Mr. T. would take it ill should I prescribe Rules to him for the well-ordering of his Family and that without his Licence and that after I know he hath Constituted and appointed Laws himself for that very end And yet I conceive he is not so far above me as the great and only wise God is above the mightiest and wisest of mortals So that whilest he would avoid the horns of the Dilemma that of the Poet is verified of him Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Carybdim Nor do I see how he avoids the horns of the Dilemma by what he replies in this matter The Rulers Ecclesiâ—stical are either when they make Laws binding the Conscience indirectly bounded in their so doing by Scripture or they are not i. â— they must impose no Laws upon us without Scripture Precept or they may If the first we are bound to obey them no further than they are able to evince the justness and righteousness of their Commands upon the account of their being bottomed upon the Scripture Then no Obligation lies upon us to observe the Canons Ceremonies of the Church of England any further than they can manifest their Observation commanded therein then she and her Ministers do wickedly to Excommunicate Imprison Ruine us for not yeelding subjection when and where none is due If the second then whatever Ceremonies they introduce under the notion of Decency and Order that are not contrary to the Scripture must be subjected to which is an open in-let to the whole Farrago of Popish Inventions We fear the General Rules in Scripture the Laws of Nature right Reason other laudable Customs that Mr. T. tells us must be observed in this matter will be but a weak defence against them For who shall be judge of their consonancy to these Principles Shall every man be judge for himself This our Rulers think to be absurd and contrary to the Principles asserted by our Animadverter to be observed If our Governours they will tell us whatever they impose 't is consonant to all the forementioned Principles that we subject to them therein Ask our Bishops they will tell you so with respect to the whole of their Popish-English-Canon-Laws and Ceremonies Ask Mr. T. and he will tell you little less than That a blind obedience should be yeelded to them in undetermined particularities Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Ask the Pope and his Conclâ—ve they will tell you 'T is consonant to the fore-mentioned Principles that we subject to all his Ceremonies Nor indeed can we say of most of them that they are more dissonant to right reason than some that are retained amongst us So that the horns of the Dilemma are piercing the heart of the Cause whose defence Mr. T. hath undertaken We further argue in S. T. Yet were this also yeelded them they were never a jot nearer the mark aimed at except it can be proved that supposing a power of introducing Ceremonies to be invested in the Church thence a power for the Institution of new Orders and Ordinances the introducing of Heathenish Jewish and Superstitious practices in the Worship of God may be evinced And yet should all this be yeelded them how will they prove the Constitutions mentioned to be the Constitution of a right constituted Church a National Church the Church of England is not so Yet if all this were granted where are the Constitutions of this Church that we may pay the homage to them that is meet When was it assembled in the same place together in its several Members freely to debate and determine what Laws and Constitutions were fit to be observed by them If it be said That 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 being not the Church nor are true Officers of a right constituted Church any where so called in the Scripture I owe no subjection to their Laws or Constitutions it being pleaded that 't is the Church that hath only power in this matter It remaineth therefore notwithstanding what is pleaded in this Objection That the present Ministers of England own Laws and Constitutions that are not in any sence of Christ's revealing and therefore oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ To which Mr T. 1. I do not plead for the Constitutions of the Church of England Answ But the framers of the Objection proposed do Which if Mr. T. will justifie he must also plead for them but I shall not coâ—pel him to a warfare he is not willing to engage in he may take his liberty to stand by and look on but then he had done fairly not to have pretended to justifie what he scarce speaks a word to The impertinent Questions he speaks of are pertinent to the Objection and Objectors we have to deal with What he hath spoken of a National Church in answer to the Preface Sect. 15. we have removed out of the way by our Reply thereunto He tells us 2dly That the Church of England was Assembled at London in its several Members by Deputation freely to debate things at was the usage of the Synods in the antient times as the Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod Answ 1. No doubt Mr. T. and his Abettors thinks he hath now spoken to the purpose indeed but the emptiness of the whole is soon manifested No Synods whether antient or new can be supposed to represent the Church but upon the account of the free Election of the persons constituting them and deputation by the Members of that Church which they represent Whosoever is sent by the Church represents the person of the Church saith the Learned Whittaker De Concil q. 3. c. 3. p. 103. Yea Bilson himself tells us None are bound to the Council but those who send to the Council No Council doth bind the whole Church except the consent be general Con. Ap. p. 49 51. And Saravia tells us The Council represents no Churches except those who send their Messengers to the Churches Con. Gretz p. 379. Yea in every rightly constituted Synod the Laity as they are called are not to be excluded 'T is a Rule founded in Nature and Reason Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet That which concerns all ought to be handled by all Although the Priests and Clerks do alone exercise Judgements Ecclesiastical yet where a matter is agitated that pertains to the Church Universal which consists not only of Clerks but also of Laicks it is not equal that the Laicks or Lay-People should be removed from these deliberations but all Decrees ought rather to be confirmed by
common consent Which that it was observed by the Apopostles of Christ the sacred History testifies Acts 15. And this is the Opinion of the most famous Doctors of the Canon-Law saith Durandus De Sanct. Minist Lib. 1. c. 11. He saith more truly perhaps than he was aware That as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod and no otherwise Now we know that the meeting of a company of Knights Gentlemen at Westminster is not the Parliament the Representative of the Kingdom Their free Election by the Body of the People of the Nation renders them so In like manner the Convention of a company of Prelates and Priests make not a Synod by our Animadverters own Argument but their Election by the People to meet and sit in Council together as their Representees which the Synod so called at London One thousand six hundred and three nor any National Synod ever since had not the Choice of the People was never minded never was their consent required So that in the sence he takes the word Church which yet is forreign to the Scripture as we say in S. T. the Church of England was never yet concerned In what follows in this Section Mr. T. himself will acknowledge I am not further concerned Sect. 2. The present Ministers oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ whilst they own Laws contrary to the Revelation of Christ That they do thus evinced by the induction of particular instances Acts 8. 27. â— Tim. 6. 15. Jer. 51. 26. Luke 11. 2. Mat. 6. 7 8 9. Whether Christ there instituted a form of Prayer Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. Mark 14. 18 22 23. opened That Christ sate with his Disciples in the celebration of the Ordinance of breaking Bread evinced Of Kneeling The reason of its first institution It s opposition to 1 Thes 5. 22. manifested Of forbidding to Marry and commanding to abstain from Meats IN Sect. 6. Mr. T. proceeds to the examination of what is further produced in S. T. for the manifestation of the guilt of the present Ministers in their opposing the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ which we further prove because they own submit and subscribe to Laws Constitutions and Ordinances that are contrary to the Revelation of Christ This we prove by particular instances They own 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. 22 25. 26. To which our Animadverter replies 1. They do not acknowledge them in opposition to these Scriptures Answ But that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. T. may be ashamed of such pitiful beggery He adds 2ly They do not acknowledge Arch-Bishops over the whole Church as the Pope but in their own Province Answ This is not at all material the authority of Arch-Bishops over a Province is as much against the Texts mentioned as over the whole Church 'T is not the extent of Authority Lordship that is therein condemned but the thing it self 3ly He further tells us They have no such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5. 3. Luke 22. 25 26. Answ 1. This is again to beg the thing in question 2ly We have proved the contrary He adds 4ly They are not Lords in the Church but in the Kingdom and Parliament Answ False and untrue I wish he speak not against knowledge in this matter 1. When invested into their Episcopal Sees they are stiled Arch-Bishops of such a place or Province Lord-Bishop of such a See 2. The Priests submit to them pray for them as their good Lords 3. They have Power Authority Precedency as such over the rest of the Clergy give forth Laws and Canons to rule and guide them to whom they promise obedience at their Ordination 4. They exercise jurisdiction authority over their respective Diocesses in their Ecclesiastical Courts and Consistories as such all evident Ensigns and Demonstrations of Lordly Dignities even in and over that which they call the Church That which he 5ly adds of the Eunuchs being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 8. 27. without contradiction to 1 Tim. 6. 15. where Christ is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frivolous 1. The Eunuch is not said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Potentate with respect to the Church of God over it he was not such but with respect to the Kingdom of Aethiopia where he was a Noble Man a Governor under Candace the Queen Our Bishops are Potentates in and over that which they call the Church of Christ 2. That any other besides Christ should exercise Lordship and Authority in the World is not interdicted as is their so doing in the Churches of Christ in the Scriptures mentioned He saith 5ly He hath not shewed that what is acknowledged is a Law Constitution or Ordinance nor the Ministers own it by subscription Answ True indeed I did not do so for I thought it needless to demonstrate that the Sun shines at noon-dayes Are not the Offices of Arch-Bishops Lord-Bishops Constitutions and Ordinances Have they not their Foundation and Establishment by Law Doth not Mr. T. know it Is he onely a stranger in our Israel Of the Truth of this there are not many in the Nation that are or can be ignorant That the Ministers own these whether by subscription or otherwise is not considerable Mr. T. deals injuriously whilst he suggests I say they own these with the rest of the particulars mentioned by subscription when I assert onely That they own submit and subscribe to i. some of them they manifest they own by Subscription others other wayes but they own submission to them all is too notorious to admit of a denyal They do so in their Ordination when they promise Canonical Obedience to them in their prayers for them subjection to their precepts from time to time transmitted to them which they dare not transgress 2ly That men may and ought to be made Ministers onely by these Lord-Bishops is we say in S. T. owned by the present Ministers which is contrary to Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1 7. 13. 20. Acts 14. 23. with 6. 3 5. What Mr. T. adjoyns hereunto touching Ordination by Suffâ—agan Bishops hath already been removed out of the way How much they own a Presbyterian Ordination of which he speaks many good men in the Nation feel and find Of these things we have already spoken That Ordination by Lord-Bishops is established by Law is known and that exclusively to any other without them Hereunto the Ministers subscribe Can. 36. The Scriptures instanc'd in prove this to be contrary to the Revelation of Christ Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1 7. 13. 20. manifestly evince That who-ever undertakes to be a Minister of the Lord in his Church must
be called of sent by him So was Aaron Acts 14. 23. 6. 3 5. manifest that the Way of the Lord's mission is not by Lord-Bishops but by his Churches and People What he tells us he hath said in answer to any of these Scriptures we have replyed to Chap. 2. We add in S. T. 3ly That Prelates their Chancellors and Officers have power from Christ to cast out of the Church of God is owned by them contrary to Mat. 18. 16 17. 1 Cor. 5. 4. To which our Animadverter subjoyns He finds no such Law Answ It may be he is willingly ignorant hereof This he cannot but know that in the Name of Christ the Officers mentioneâ— do excommunicate out of the Church so call'd of Christ Do they do this without Law Is it not one of their Church-constitutions that they may do so Do not the present Ministers own them herein Whilst they cite present persecute their Neighbours for not coming to Divine Service as they call it it may be for refusing to pay them a four-penny-due in the Ecclesiastical Courts even to an Excommunication whose Act therein they afterwards publickly denounce and declare once and again in obedience to them What more evident The weakness of his answer to Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. we have already manifested We say further in S. T. That they own 4ly that the Office of the Suffragans Deans Canons are lawful and necessary to be had in the Church contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 18 28. Rom. 12. 7. Ephes 4. 11. The Officers instituted by Christ are sufficient for the edification and perfecting of the Saints till they all come unto a perfect man v. 12 13. In what sense the forementioned being not one of them of the Institution of Christ may be owned as lawful and necessary without an high contempt of the Wisdom and Sovereignty of Christ I am not able to conceive this is the sum Mr. T. replies 1. He knows not where this imagined Ordinance is Answ That there are such Officers and Offices in the Church of England established by the Laws thereof he cannot be ignorant To say They are Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God is censured by the Canons thereof Can. 7. That the Ministers own submit to some of them is known The vanity and impertinency of Mr. T. his pleading for them not to mention his perjury therein is discovered in our present Vindication of Chap. 3. from his exceptions against what is by us therein argued We say they own 5thly That the Office of Deacons in the Church is to be imployed in publick Praying administration of Baptism and Preaching if licensed by the Bishop thereunto contrary to Act. 6. 2. Ephes 4. 11. Mr. T. replies 'T is not contrary to Christ's Revelation that they should be imployed in those works Ans 1. But when Christ hath instituted the office of Deacons for this end to attend Tables or look after the provision and necessities of the Saints That any persons may own an Office of Deacons in the Church to be imploy'd by virtue of Office-power in any other work than that for which they are intrusted by Christ and called unto Office without an advance against that Institution of Christ is absurd to imagine 2. That the present Ministers own such an Office he doth not deny 3. What he speaks of Stephen and Philip he had said before and to it we have replied already and need noâ— add more A sixth Law or Ordinance that we say they own is this That the Ordinance of Breaking Bread or the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be administred to one alone as to a sick man ready to die Which is diametrically opposite to the Nature and Institution of that Ordinance 1 Cor. 10. 16. and 11. 33. Mat. 26. 26. Acts 2. 42. and 20. 7. To which Mr. T. This is not easily proved from the Scripâ—ures instanced in Answ Whether it be or not is left to the judgment of the judicious Reader to determine I am weary in pursuâ—â—g him in his impertinencies He grants a Communion is proved in that Sacrament 1 Cor. 10. 16. but vers 17. and 1 Cor. 12. 13. prove the Communion to be rather with all Christians Of which yet there is not one word in either of the places In vers 17. He speaks of the Church of Corinth that was one bread one body The other Scripture speaks nothing of Saints Communion one with another in this Ordinance 1 Cor. 11. 33. Acts 20. 7. he confesseth prove That it should be administred when all the Communicants Church or Brethren he should say are come together Whether its administration to one alone be not diametrically opposite hereunto as also to the very first Institution of this Ordinance Mat. 26. 26. let the Judicious judge Though it be said Act. 2. 46. that they brake bread from house to house it doth not follow there was none beside the Minister and the sick man the words import the contrary We manifest further in S. T. That they own 7thly a prescript form of Words in Prayer that a ceremonious pompous Worship devised â—y man and abused to Idolatry is according to the will of God and may lawfully be used under the New Testament Dispensation contrary to Mat. 15. 9. and 28. 20. John 4. 23. Deut. 12. 32. Jer. 51. 26. Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. By this prescript form of Words this ceremonious pompous Worship the Common-Prayer-Book Collegiat-Worship and Service is intended This I say is devised by man the owning whereof is contrary to Mat. 15. 9. and 28. 20. Deut. 12. 22. abused to Idolatry The owning hereof is opposite to Jer. 51. 26. It is Ceremonious and Pompous the abetting whereof is adverse to Joh. 4. 23. as is the owning of a prescript Form of Words to Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. To which our Animadverter replies 1. He should have told us what part of the Common-Prayer-Book was abused to Idolatry Answ The whole of it is so being Worship not appointed by the Lord and used in that Church that is the most Idolatrous Church in the world What he hath said in this Chap. Sect. 3. or in Chap. 3. Sect. 4. We have already answered His great out-cry of our abuse of Jer. 51. 26. produced to prove it unlawful to use any thing in the Worship of God abused to Idolatry will soon be evinced to be an empty sound Vox praeterea nihil 1. We have for our Companions in this Exposition persoâ—s not contemptible for wisdom and holiness who make conscience of applying Scriptures and abusing the Reader 2. Of all men Mr. T. iâ— the most incompetent for the management of this charge who most egregiously perverts Scriptures in this Treatise contrary to former Interpretations given by himself to them and to the plain intendment of the Spirit therein As we have in part manifested and may do further in our Appendix 3. He egregiously abuseth the Reader in this very passage whilst
he bears him in hand that we expound the words of a prohibition to the Jews That they should not use the stones of Babylon to build a Temple to God at Jerusalem because abused to Idolatry which we do not Nor was it likely they would ever have gone about to do so Babylon was too remote for them such a prohibition had been altogether needless and vain But 4. That Chap. 50 and 51. are one entire Prophesie that reacheth farther than the Destruction of Literal Babylon even to the ruine of all the Scripture calls so is evident For 1st This Prophesie relates to the restauration of all the Tribes Israel as well as Judah vers 4. 5. which to this day hath not been fulfilled The ten Tribes represented by Israel being in a dispersed state ever since they were carried away Captive by Salmanasser 'T is true Judah after the 70 years Captivity did return but what is that to Israel when this Prophesie is accomplished they must also be brought to their habitation which is again repeated vers 19. And I will bring Israel again to his habitation and he shall feed on Carmel This Carmel was the portion of the half Tribe of Manasseh belonging to the ten Tribes Jos 19. 2dly When God doth this the iniquity of Jacob shall be sought for and there shall be none vers 20. 3dly He will then make use of Israel as his Battle-Axe and weapon of War to destroy and break in pieces Kingdoms and Nations vers 20 21. 4thly The Deliverance and Vengeance here prophesied of is the issue of the groans and cries of the Inhabitants of Sion against Babylon vers 35 36. But against Literal Babylon the Children of Israel were not to cry but the contrary Jer. 29. 7. 5thly Many material passages in this Prophesie are applied by the Spirit of the Lord to Mystical Babylon as Chap. 50. 8. Rev. 18. 4. vers 29. Rev. 18. 6. Chap. 51. 6. Rev. 18. 4. 6thly The Babylon mentioned in this Prophesie and the Babylon spoken of in the Revelation is one and the same Babylon differing at most but as Type and Antitype Babylon is a Type of the City and Seat of Antichrist saith the Learned Ainsworth on Psal 137. v. 1. This is evident to the eye of the understanding Reader from the ensuing Scheme Jeremiah's Babylon Jer. 50. 8. Remove out of the midst of Babylon And 51. 6. Flee out of the midst of Babylon and deliver every man his soul be not cut off in her iniquity for this is the time of the Lords vengeance he will render unto her a recompence Jer. 50. 29. Recompence her according to her work according to all that she hath done do unto her for she hath been proud against the Lord against the Holy One of Israel Jer. 50. 39. The wild beasts of the desart shall dwell there and the owls shall dwell therein and it shall be no more inhabited for ever neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah Jer. 51. 7. Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lords hand that made all the earth drunken the nations have drunk of her wine therefore the nations are mad Jer. 51. 8. Babylon is suddenly fallen and destroyed howl for her John's Babylon Rev. 18. 4. Come out of her my People that ye be not partakers of her Sins and that ye receive not of her Plagues for her sins have reached unto heaven and God hath remembred her iniquities Rev. 18. 6 7. Reward her even as she hath rewarded you double unto her double according to her works in the cup which she hath filled fill to her again How much she hath glorified her self and lived deliciously so much sorrow give her Rev. 18. 2. Babylon the Great is fallen is fallen and is become the habitation of devils and the hold of every foul spirit a cage of every unclean and hateful bird Rev. 18. 22. The voice of harpers and musicians shall be heard no more at all in thee and no crafts man shall be found any more in thee vers 8. she shall be utterly burnt with fire Rev. 17. 2. With whom the Kings of the earth have committed fornication and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication And 18. 3. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornications Rev. 14. 8. Babylon is fallen is fallen Rev. 18. 2. Babylon the Great is fallen is fallen vers 9. And the Kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived deliciously with her shall bewail her saying alas alas for in one hour is thy judgement come vers 11 15 19. The sum is the Prophesie not being confined to Literal Babylon but eminently relating to Mystical Babylon or the false whoâ—ish Church in the Revelation the not taking a stone of her for a foundation having no respect to the Jews not using the stones of Babylon in building the Temple which it is not like they had the least intendment to do points out the duty of the spiritual Jew or Christian Believer in his departure from the Antichristian Church not to introduce any of her things once abused to Idolatry into the Worship of the House of God which we cited this Scripture to prove Mr. T. proceeds and tells us 2dly That external words and gestures are not contrary to John 4. 23. Answ Nor do we say they are this we affirm That a form of words enjoyned the Ceremonious pompous Worship of England managed and carried on in our Collegiat Churches and Chappels with outward pomp and state is so That which he saith in answer hereunto viz. That this Text excludes the Legal shadowy-Worship of the Law establisheth what we say For if a pompous shadowy-Worship once of the Institution of the Lord be excluded by this Scripture much more that which is so and of the devising and establishment of Antichrist In what he saith 3dly That we conceive a form of Words prescribed and devised by man to be contrary to Mat. 15. 9. and 28. 20. Deut. 12. 31. he openly prevaricates For though as commanded in the Worship of God it be so yet we rather refer those Scriptures to the whole of their humane devices in their Worship and Service viz. Surplice Organs Cross in Baptism c. that have not the least foundation in Scripture and are therefore contrary to them What Mr. T. dictates That if no prescript form of Prayer devised and imposed by penal Laws to be used by man for thus he must speak if he speak pertinently may be used then conceived forms of Prayer may not be used I desire him not to attempt the proof of because t is such an imposible task that he will never be able to make good That Christ hath commanded a set form of Prayer Luke 11. 2. Mat. 6. 7 8. is first false For 1st If he had done so it were utterly unlawful to use any other than the
leisure In allusion to the Priests of old the Porters or New-Testament Officers are commanded to watch Mark 13. 34. viz. that as much as in them lies they hinder persons morally unclean from entring into Gospel-Churches 2. He tells us That none but Saints are to be admitted thereinto 3. Threatens those Ministers that shall be careless and negligent in this matter with a deposition from their Office Ezek. 44. A Prophesie though in Old Testament-clothing expresly relating to New Testament dayes as is acknowledged by most And to any that shall compare what is there spoken with what is recorded of the New Jerusalem Rev. 20 21 22. Chap. 't will manifestly appear so to do 4. Acts 20. 28. is most impertinently alledged and wretchedly abused by the Animadverter It only preacheth forth thus much That the Gentile Nations were not so unclean as the Jews fondly imagined but that persons might go unto them and preach the Gospel amongst them as vers 28 29 34 evince But that Adulterers Drunkards should not be accounted unclean and common so as not to admit them into Church-Communion or if admitted that they ought not legally to be ejected Mr. T. attempts not the proof of The Scriptures fully manifest that they ought so to be Whether every single Minister hath power to keep any professing the Faith from the Lords Supper is not of our present disquisition if Ministers of Christ they with the particular Church to which they relate have power so to do The constant practice of the present Ministers in admitting the visibly wicked and prophane to the participation of Church-Ordinances and Priviledges is a manifest discovery that they symbolize with the Priests of Old of whom the complaint of the Lord is That they put no difference betwixt the holy and prophane The 10th Character of false Prophets instanc't in is this that they do not exercise 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. This we say is evidently true of the present Ministers with force and cruelty they rule over us in stead of exercising pity towards us threaten us with Excommunications Imprisonment dispoiâ—ing us of our Goods yea condemning us to Death if we stoop not to their lure All that can be called an Answer hereunto Sect. 9. is this 1. The Shepherds mentioned in Ezek. 34. are Civil Rulers for the Prophets did not rule over the People with force and cruelty but with lies and deceit Answ 1. Junius the Marginal Notes of the Geneva Translation Diodati the Assembly in their Annotations on the place the most of Interpreters expound it of false Ecclesiastical Shepherds or Ministers That this is the intendment of the Spirit of the Lord is evident 1st He speaks of such Shepherds whose special duty it is to feed the flock the neglect whereof he condemns them for v. 2 3. But this is the duty of Ecclesiastical Shepherds Cant. 1. 8 John 21. 15 16 17 1 Cor. 9. 7. 1 Pet. 5. 2. 2dly They are condemned for ruling over them with force and cruelty vers 4. The like condemned in Ecclesiastical Rulers 1 Pet. 5. 3. 3dly It s a Prophesie that runs down to the times of the Gospel and speaks of such Shepherds in opposition to whom Christ is said to be the true Shepherd vers 23 24. John 10. 11 12 14. The Reason alledged by Mr. T. to prove Civil Rulers are here meant being weighed in the Ballance is found wanting They may righteously be said to rule over the flock of God with force and cruelty when they provoke the Magistrate to do so as the Woman or Antichristian Church is said to be drunk with the blood of the Saints Rev. 17. 6. And in her 't is said was found the blood of all that were slain upon the earth Rev. 18. 24. because she prompted and provoked the Civil Magistrate to pour it forth That the present Ministers of England are not righteously charged with ruling over us with force and cruelty he saith not thinks there are some to whom this evil may be imputed 'T is added in S. T. What should I mention 13thly that â—hey come u out of the Earth Rev. 13. 11. i. e. are raised up by men of earthly spirits and principles To this after an harangue of words Sect. 10. that I might leave him upon second thoughts to correct himself for As 1st Thaâ— the Book of the Revelation is obscure which in it self is not but a Lanthorn a Light 'T is a horrid disparagement to any part of the Scripture so to speak of it The Sun is not dark though blind men discern not the lighâ— and brightness of it The obscurity is in us not in the Scripture 2. That sober men have wished it were less read Which wish whatever the men are I am sure is not over sober being directly opposite to the advice of the Spirit for the reading of it with an encouragement thereunâ—o Rev. 1. 3. He answers 1. That the first and second Beast Rev. 19. are differently conceived Answ Who the first and second Beast are we have already explained which Mr. T. may confute when he is able That the second Beast and the false Prophet Rev. 19. are the same we have but now demonstrated The Hierarchy of England and Rome are the same Antichristian Hierarchy their Original the same the Canon Laws by which their Jurisdiction is supported their Courts Officers c. the same He further acquaints us 2dly With horrid consequences that attend this Principle that the second Beast is to be interpreted the Hierarchy and Ministry of England 1. The first we own with this limitation The first Beast is the Antichristian Civil Powers who if at the coming of Christ are found such and in actual rebellion against him shall be cast into the Lake burning with fire 2. The second about worshiping the first Beast if understood of the Pope as he saith may be truly affirmed of the present Hierarchy who cause the Earth and them that dwell therein so to do whilst they cause them to own bow down subject to his Canon-Laws in their Consistories Ecclesiastical Courts 3dly That all who subject to the Image of the Beast or Ecclesiastical Government shall drink of the Wine of the wrath of God Without general or particular repentance being no more than this That those that die in any one sin unrepented of shall do so as Mr. T. will grant we affirm and challenge Mr. T. to prove these things to be horrid consequences monstrously uncharitable an argument of dotage the speech of a furious Bedlam Sir you will one day know that your tongue is not so your own but you must give an account of these hard speeches with which you are beating your fellow-servants I pray may not be laid to your charge He asks 3dly How doth it appear that to come out of the Earth is to be raised by men of earthly
truth of the assertion we fully manifest in S. T. nor doth Mr. T. deny but that the hearing the present Ministers doth pour out contempt upon the Institutions mentioned he denies them to be the Institutions of Christ Sect. 5. tells us That 't is a gross error which is oft in the mouthes of the Seperatists that they may not hear with the world nor pray with the world whence it hath come to pass that some have left off praying in their Families unless Members of their Church Answ The first and second we have proved beyond what Mr. T. hath as yet been able to reply to 2dly The last I hope is not true God forbid that any that pretend to Christianity much more such as are so in truth should so far degegenerate into the Spirit of Heathenism as not to call upon God in their Families or cease to do their uttermost to convert their Children and Servants to the Lord and instruct them in his fear 3. That this is the consequence of the principle of Seperation or that 't is in it self a gross Error that 't is unlawful for me to hear with the world or pray with the world i. e. joyn with them in their Worship he may prove when he is able What follows hath either already been replied to or will be in its proper place so that we need not attend it here The second thing in the Minor Proposition incumbent upon us to prove we say in S. T. is 2dly That hereby poor souls are hardned in a false way of Worship what can be thought less supposing the worship in the Parish-Assemblies of England to be so as hath been proved when they shall see Professors that were wont to pray and preach together to prosess and protest against Common-Prayer-Book Worship and Priests to cry up or at least approve of as Mr. T. 't is thoâ—ght did Laws made for their ejection if guilty of no other crime than conformity to the Worship they now conform to and practise now flock to their Assemblies and hear their Priests What can they imagine less than that these persons thus acting in a direct contrariety to their former judgment and practice do now see they were mistaken and are begining at least to return unto those pathes from whence they departed and that these wayes in which they and their forefathers have walked are the good Old Way in which rest is to be found To which Mr. T. Answers nothing but what hath already been considered noâ— any thing that deserves our stay The 3d Particular asserted in the Minor Proposition it s said in S. T. is That hereby poor souls are hardned in their rebellion and blasphemy against God his Spirit and Tabernacle and them that dwell therein This is not to be questioned we every day hear stout words spoken against the Lord because of the practice of some in this thing what say the wicked less thanthat Religion is but a fancy that the professors thereof are but a generation of Hypocrites that will turn to any thing to save themselves that the Spirit by which they are acted is but a Spirit of Phanaticism and delusion Yea how do they bless themselves that they are not nor ever were of the number of such Professors and that because they see these for fear of Persecution desert their former principles strike in with their Assembly and Ministers To which Mr. T. adjoyns 1st Papists have thus insulteâ— over Protestants upon the return of any seeming zealous Protestant into the Romane Church yet the Answerer knows how to reply to such that mens instability shews their own weakness not the thing in which they have been zealous to have been good or bad Answ Very right and we know how to reply to the insulting of the Conformists upon the account of the return of any seeming zealous Professors to them but still we say that their return to them gives them too just occasion of insulting The contrary to which Mr. T. should have proved of which he speaks not one word He adds 2dly This Author doth not do well to call the Obloquies against his party speaking against Religion blaspheming God the Spirit Tabernacle and them that dwell therein Answ Sir the party I am through grace of are not mine but Christs the followers of the Lamb in opposition to the wicked profane world of no other party do I own my self to be 2. The Obloquies Blasphemies mentioned being such as are vented against the Institutions of Christ as we have proved them to be and such as conform to them by the Beast and his party may well be called Blaspheming God his Temple Tabernacle and them that dwell therein They are so called by the Spirit Rev. 13. 5 6. He adds 3dly It were very sad should we be afraid to do a thing because of Clamours Answ True if the thing done be our duty which if he supposeth in the present case he begs the question or continue in that which we cannot justifie because men will be hardened in their own way Answ Very right but if a man depart from that way which he once owned to be the way of God which he justifies in the Scriptures to be such and in so doing hardens persons to cleave to a way of Superstition Formality to their utter undoing and gives them just occasion to open their mouthes against the Institutions of Christ reviling blaspheming them and those that walk in them this is not justifiable nor will it be found matter of joy to us at the end of our dayes that we have administred such occasions to them It remaineth then that inasmuch as the hearing the present Ministers pours out contempt upon the wayes and Institutions of Christ hardens persons in a false way of Worship Rebellion and Blasphemy against God it s utterly unlawful for Saints to be found in the pâ—â—ctise thereof Sect. 2. A 10th Argument proving the unlawfulness of hearing the present Ministers 'T is not lawful to go to the places of false Worship All Monuments of Idolatry to be abolished proved The judgment of the learned Mede Cotton Ainsworth Robbinson 2 Cor. 6. 17. 1 John 5. 21. Jude 23. 1 Sam. 2. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 20. 14. 26. explained THE 10th Argument against hearing the present Ministers is in S. T. thus formed God calls his People out of and strictly chargeth them not to go ro the place of False Worship Hos 4. 5. Amos 4. 4. Therefore 't is unlawful for the Saints to attend upon the present Ministers of England The Reason of the Consequence is because we cannot go to hear them without we go to the Places and Assemblies of false Worship as the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship hath been proved to be To which Mr. T. replies Sect. 7. 1st This Argument is bottom'd upon this Opinion That all Monuments of Idolatry all Temples Altars Chappels dedicated by the Heathens or Antichristians to their false Worship ought by lawful Authority to be rased and
the Apostle would have them abstain from 2. Mr. T. himself saith pag. 279 That it was unlawful for them to touch or go to the Idols Temple and sit at meat there 3. The place it self in our case is the Idol it s worshipped adored idolized by the People of the Nation as it s known therefore not to be touched He saith further 2. They which joyn not in any Idol-Service or Honour keep themselves from Idols as is required 1 John 5. 21. Answ All self-devised Worship as is the Worship carried on in those places at this day is Idol-worship the deviser thereof being in a conformity thereunto idolized the second Precept touching Idolatry thereby violated those that would keep themselves from Idols must upon Mr. T. his own grounds keep themselves from that Worship and consequently from those places where it is solemnized and carried on 2. The place it self as was said is the great Idol of the Nation if we must keep our selves from Idols we must keep our selves from it Jude 23. enjoynes us to avoid the very appearances and occasions of evil and is therefore righteously urged by Mr. Robinson for Separation from the places of false Worship Rev. 14. 9. 18. 4. enjoyn a total relinquishment of all the things of Antichrist whereof his Ecclesiastical Holds as Mr. Mede calls them are a part What he talks with respect to the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship hath been shewed we have already replied to and proved it to be false-worship notwithstâ—nding all our Dictator is able to say to the contrary He adds Were there some superstition in the Worship it were not sufficient to make the places places of false-Worship as is evident from 1 Sam. 2. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 20 21 22. 14. 26. nor were it necessary to go out of them except Idolatrous Answ But if false-worship be managed and carried on in the places they must undoubtedly be places of false-worship i. e. places where false-worship is managed and carried on to assert the contrary were absurd and ridiculous Nor is there any thing in either of the Scriptures produced by our Animadverter that speaks the least syllable to what 〈◊〉 produced by him for The first gives us an account of the wickeâ—â—â—â—s of Samuels Sons but that they offered not the Sacrifices commanded by the Lord upon the Altar of the Lord at the place appointed by him it saith not The latter condemns some disorder about some acts of Worship in some Members of the Church but thâ—t there was any superstition in the Worship it saith not much less was there as in our case the introducing a new formal sapless Service cut out dressed and served in for the nourishment of an Idol and idle dumb Priesthood of which the Scriptures speak not a tittle 3. The places themselves are superstitious and Idolatrous as we have shewed and therefore Hos 4. 15. Am. 4. 4. are rightly cited by us as our Animadverter hiâ—self acknowledgeth What he adds That Gods People were required to go up to Jerusalem to worship after it had been defiled with Idolatry and the Idol removed and that Christ himself went up thither he â—ill upon the review I suppose raze out upon the account of its egregious impertinency That place was built by the appointment of the Lord his Name placed there there was the Ark Altar c. there he was solemnly to be worshipped and would be no where else none of which can be said of the Temples of England He further tells us That its false that we cannot go to hear the present Ministers without we go to their places and Assemblies of false Worship Which if understood of the publick Meeting-places allowed by Law as he must mean if he speaks pertinently for of such is the reason of the consequence meant I suppose he cannot prove That they frequent private Meetings set up Conventicles as they are call'd is not likely it being expresly against the Canons of their Church To which he adds That we are guilty of Judaizing in tying people to worship only in the place of the separated Churches contrary to John 4. 21. 1 Tim. 2. 8. Answ 1. This is notoriously false we tie persons to worship in no place upon the account of its holiness but an House a Mouâ—tain a Ship any place if not polluted with Idolatry is equal and alike esteemed by us 2. This may righteously be retorted upon the Clergy of England who judaize in their going about to compel us to worship in their Temples dedicated to Antichristian Mahuzzims and consecrated with Popish Holy Water and Prayers and accounted more holy than other places in the Nation of which they are notoriously guilty contrary to John 4. 21. 1 Tim. 2. 8. Sect. 3. There is no promise of a blessing upon hearing the present Ministers therefore 't is not lawful to hear them Isa 55. 3. Luke 11. 28. explained Sion typical of the New-Testament-Churches Babylon of the Antichristian Herd National Churches bear a resemblance not to Sion but old Babel THE 11th Argument produced in S. T. against hearing the present Ministers is That upon the doing whereof Saints have no promise of a blessing nor ground to expect it is not lawful for them to do But in the hearing the present Ministers there is no promise of a blessing nor ground to expect it Therefore The Major or first Proposition we took for granted But Mr. T. is pleased to enter his demurrer against it Sect. 8. He tells us Blessings are of many sorts 1. Immunity from evil or punishment in this sense the Major is true 2. Collation of some special good in this sense it is not true there are many things lawful to be done as eating drinking buying selling in respect of which men have no ground to expect any such blessing Ezekiel preached lawfully when he was told Israel would not hearken Ezek. 3. 2 7. And Jonah when he thought Niniveh would not repent Jonah 4. 2. Answ 1. Not to make many words the things done by the Saints are either such as appertain to the sustenance of their life and being the management and carrying on the concerns of their particular Callings in the World in respect unto which they have ground to expect not only a general but a special Blessing Psalm 1. 3. 1 Tim. 4. 8. 2. The things relating to the Worship and Service of God in which sense the Major is to be understood his instances of eating drinking are impertinent hereunto that I am to do nothing in the Worship of God in the doing of which I have no promise of a blessing nor ground to expect it viz. a special Spiritual Blessing God having said Where he records his Name he will meet with his People and bless them Exod. 20. 24. That where two or three are met together in his Name he will be in the midst of them Mat. 18. 20. viz. In respect of his gracious prâ—sence or communication of special Grace I had thought we
might rationally have inferred from hence That that upon the doing whereof relating to the Worship and Service of God of which we were treating Saints have no promise of a Blessing nor ground to expect it is not lawful for them to do for when they are attending â—pon God in his own way he hath promised to meet them and bless them Isa 64. 5. 3. What he writes of Ezekiel's being told that Israel â—ould not hearken is very frivolous and impertinent 1. He had in his going forth to act for God in that Work a promise of his presence and Blessing though Israel abode obstinate Ezek. 3. 8 9 19. 2. There were a Remnant that attended upon the Word of the Lord from his Mouth to whom God made it a blessing But he is upon second thoughts willing to wave this and denies the Minor He tells us That the Saints have a promise of a Spiritual Blessing by hearing these men while they preach the Gospel which he proves from Isa 55. 3. Luke 11. 28. Answ 1. The former place relates not at all to a meer external hearing or an outward attendment upon that Ordinance nor doth the latter but an obediential giving up our selves unto the Word of God Yet 2. they both imply an hearing according to the appointment of the Lord which if we do not but go out of his way atâ—ending upon a false Ministry as we have proved the present Ministery of England to be these words import not the least promise of a blessing 3. They may be as well urged to prove an attendment upon the Ministry of Rome and that upon our so doing we had ground â—o expect it He adds 2dly The experience of former times tells us that more have been converted strengthened by Conformists yea Bishops themselves than by the best of Separatists Ans 1. Of this the Animadverter is no competent Judge Reformation to civility is not Regeneration Conversion to Christ and Holiness 2. Should it be granted all that could be inferred from hence were this that God did of meer Grace honour his own Word for the conversion of sinners not that we have any ground to expect a blessing upon our attendment on that false Ministry by whâ—m 't is dispensed We say in S. T. To prove a promise of a blessing upon our attendment on the present Ministers we conceive is no easie task for any to do for these Reasons 1. The blessing of the Lord is upon Sion Psal 87. 2. 78. 68. There he dwells Psal 9. 11. 74. 2. Jer. 8. 19. Isa 8. 18. Joel 3. 17 21. The presence of Christ is in the midst of his Golden Candlesticks Rev. 1. 12 13. 2. 1. 'T is his Garden in which he feedeth and dwells Cant. 6. 2. 8. 13. And we are not surer of any thing than we are of this that the Assemblies of England in their present constitution are not the Sion of God his Candlestick his Garden but a very wilderness and that Babel out of which the Lord commands his People to hasten their escape Rev. 18. 4. 2. God never promiseth a Blessing to a people waiting upon him in that way which is polluted and not of his appointment as we have proved the Worship of England to be 3. The Lord hath expresly said concerning such as run before they are sent that they shall not profit the people Jer. 23. 32. 4. He professeth that such as refuse to obey his calls to come out of Babylon shall partake of her plagues Rev. 18. 4. 5. Where the Lord is not in respect of his special presence and Grace there is no ground to expect any blessing But God is not so in the midst of the Parochial Assemblies of England Where are the Souls that are converted comforted strengthened stablished by their Ministry To which Mr. T. answers 1. The first reason is a fond application of what is said of Gods dwelling in Sion meant of his special presence there in that his Temple and Service was upon that Hill in the time of the Old Testament to the Congregational Churches exclusively to the Assemblies of England who in their present constitution are not the Sion of God Answ 1. Will Mr. T. stand to this that by the Lords dwelling in Sion we are to understand nothing more than his presence in the Temple with his people of old worshipping there This he seems immediately to retract whilst he cites the Assembly in their Annotations on Heb. 12. 22. making Mount Sion a Type of the Gospel-Church with approbation 2. That the People of Israel were Typical of the Saints in Gospel-dayes we have already demonstrated Sion was so 1st Their Assemblies are call'd the Assemblies of Mount Sion Isa 4. 5. 2dly The solemn investment of Christ into the exercise of Kingship and regal Authority over them is call'd The Lords setting his King upon Sion or over Sion the Mountain of his Holiness Psal 2. 6. 3dly Saints Believers are call'd Sion Psal 146. 10. 147. 12. 149. 2. 4thly The New-Testament Churches are call'd his Temple 2 Cor. 6. 16. with allusion to the Temple that was built upon Mâ—unt Moriah one of the Mountains of Sion to which the true Worship of God was affixed not only in opposition to the Heathen Worship of the Nations but the Worship of the Apostatick ten Tribes under Jeroboam the infamous head of their Apostacy as to these the true Worship of God is fixed in opposition to the Antichristian worship of the Mother-Church of Rome and her Daughters 5thly Mount Sion is call'd the Holy Hill the people that Worship there an holy People evidently expressive of the qualifications of the Church-Members in the times of the Gospel as we have proved 6thly As Sion was typical of Gospel-Churches so was Babylon of false Antichristian-Churches who are her very Picture the Church of England is so as 't were easie to demonstrate That Old Babylon was given to superstiaion and self-invented-worship Jer. 50. 38. 51. 44. Isa 46. 1. bottom'd upon no better Authority than tradition and antiquity compell'd others to Uniformity in her false worship under Penal Laws and Statutes Dan. 3. 3 6. was cruel and tyrannical against the People of God Jer. 51. 25. Isa 14. 17. 47. 6. Jer. 50. 33. and would not permit them to build the Temple at Jerusalem and worship God there according to his appointment that in anâ—wer hereunto the false Antichristian Church or New-Babel is described as given to superstition and self-invented-worship Rev. 13. 14. 17. 5. compelling others to uniformity thereunto under Penal Laws and Statutes Rev. 13. 15 16 17. 17. 2. 18. 3 9. most cruel and tyrannical against the Saints who cannot conform to her Inventions Rev. 13. 7 10 15. 16. 6. 17. 6. 18. 24. is so evident that none can deny it So that 7thly except Mr. T. can prove the Assemblies of England in their present constitution to be Gospel-Churches they are not
pretence out of envy may be heard by the Saints lawfully But the Saints may rejoyce in the present Ministers of England preaching Christ though they should not preach him sincerely but in pretence Therefore Answ 1. We deny his Major I may rejoyce and that lawfully in those mens preaching Christ whom I have no warrant to hear There may be cause of rejoycing as we told Mr. T. in S. T. in respect of the issue and event of things by the wise Providence of God though the means used for their production be evil and not to be complied with In what have Christians greater cause of rejoycing than in the death of Christ Yet had it been utterly unlawful to have joyn'd in Counsel with or any wayes abetted or encouraged those wicked persons that crucified or slew him Should the Pope send some Jesuites into any remote parts of Asia to preach the Gospel to the poor Indians there here were upon some accounts ground of rejoycing yet no ground to attend upon a Jesuitical Ministry Nor do his Scriptures in the least prove his Major Isa 52. 7. 〈◊〉 1. 15. being applied by the Apostle to Gospel-Preachers Rom. 10. 15. evince onely thus much That such as act from Gospel-Authority in that work are to be welcomed and heard What Mr. T. replies is not considerable 1st 'T is true preaching Christ is a good thing and to be rejoyced in but preaching Christ by virtue of an Antichristian Call and Office-power is not so nor to be rejoyced in or complied with 2dly That he knows no reason why the Saints may not attend on the Ministry of the Jesuites sent from the Pope to preach the Gospel if they do so is no Argument that there is no reason That they act from an Antichristian Call and Commission is to Christ-loving Saints reason sufficient 2dly We deny his Minor Proposition Saints may not rejoyce in the present Ministers of England preaching Christ Because 1st All preaching of Christ is not to be rejoyced in as the Devils Mar. 1. 24. Luke 4. 34 41. Acts 16. 17 18. The Judaical Preachers preaching Christ with the Ceremonies of the Law Gal. 5. 12. Phil. 3. 2 3. Grievous Wolves Acts 20. 29. Such as hate to be reformed Psal 50. 16 18. as the Author of Prelatical Preachers none of Christ Teachers Argues Which though Mr. T. thinks to put off with this All these Texts are impertinent for as much as these do not preach Christ in which I wish he speak not against his own Conscience yet others will not take this for an answer They all preached Christ and upon other accounts are not to be heard but turned from as the intelligent Reader may inform himself by the perusal of the Scriptures instanced in We shall only infer If the Judaical Teachers were not to be rejoyced in though they preached Christ because they mixed therewith the Doctrine of Mosaical Ceremonies much less is their preaching to be rejoyced in who mix therewith the Doctrine of Antichristian fopperies and manifest themselves to be grievous Wolves in their persecuting the flock of Christ who cannot conform thereunto Because 2dly In propriety and strictness of speech as saith the Author of the forementioned Treatise Christ cannot be said to be preached by a Prelatical Ministry they justifie them who deny Christ to be the sole Lawgiver of his Church and so make him an Idol What the Animadverter hath dictated Chap. 5. in opposition hereunto is there answered by us Nay 3dly In case such a Minister as this that preacheth by the Bishops License should in his Doctrine affirm Jesus Christ to be the sole Law-giver to his Churches yet in and by his very act of Preaching he should deny it Which though Mr. T. makes a dreadful out-cry against spitting the fire of his passion on the face of his Antagonist an Argument that he hath nothing soberly to reply is evidently true For 1st Thereby he doth own an Officer no where of the Institution of Christ in the Scripture 2dly He makes the Biship a Law-giver to himself by whose License he preacheth and not otherwise What Mr. T. would rejoyce in I am not concerned to take notice of there are some men who dare rejoyce in a thing of naught Arg. 2. He adds That preaching of Christ that is no other than Paul rejoyced in the Saints now may rejoyce in But such is the preaching of the present Ministers Therefore Answ 1. To wave the general exception we have against the Argument which proves not what it is produced to prove viz. The lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers which we find not in the Conclusion nor is it deducible from the Premises We answer 2dly The Minor is most notoriously false and untrue There is other exception taken against hearing the present Ministers than against the persons mentioned by Paul And we told this Animadverter so in S. T. 1. It cannot be proved as it hath been with respect to the Ministers of England that those mentioned by Paul were not true Gospel-Ministers 2. Their preaching Christ out of envy doth not evince it the Object whereof was not Christ but Paul notwithstanding which they might be real Saints and true Gospel-Ministers To which he only opposeth his Dictates without proof which we are not concern'd to take notice of There might be in them at the root Brotherly-love to Paul though under the power of temptation they preached Christ out of envy to him We say in S. T. 4thly Here is not in this Scripture the least word requiring Christians to hear them That because Paul rejoyceth at their Preaching therefore 't is the duty of Saints to attend upon their Ministry is such a non-sequitur as will never be made good To which he speaks not the least word that may be called a Reply he attempts not at all to manifest the validity of the consequence which he should have done if he would have reinforced this Argument What he cites out of Mr. Robinson in his Justification of the Separation p. 307. we are not concerned to take notice of it Had he not cited it by halves the Reader would soon have perceived his cause smitten by it through the fifth Rib. Sect. 3. The answer to the fourth Objection vindicated All that preach truth are not to be heard proved The Ministers of England preach truth but by halves as the Bishop is pleased to allow them Many of the truths they preach they contradict in their practice With them they mingle many errors Particular Instances in the most remarkable Heads of Divinity hereof produced THE fourth Objection proposed in S. T. is The Ministers of England preach Truth and is it not lawful to hear Truth preached To which we answer 1. That 't is lawful to hear Truth preached but this must be done lawfully and in the way of Christs appointment Which the hearing the present Ministers we have proved is not 2. All that preach Truth are not to be heard nor will our
answers hereunto being a meer begging the thing in question viz. that their way is the true way of Christ the contrary to which we have proved in the former part of this Discourse requires not our stay further to consider We say further in S. T. 4thly The goodness of any as to the main is no warrant for any to hold communion with them or attend upon their teachings there are Brethren that walk disorderly whom 't is the duty of Saints to separate from that the very best of the Ministers of England do so will not be denied to all which Mr. T. saith nothing The incestuous person 1 Cor. 5. was as to the main for ought I know a good man yet the Corinthians were not to hold communion with him till upon his repentance he was again received 2 Cor. 2. 6. To which our Animadverter It cannot well be conceived that he was a good man since he committed such a sin as was not named amongst the Gentiles Answ 1. Before his admission into the Church of Corinth he was by them thought to be so else they had not received him 2. When they excommunicated him they well hoped he might be so for they did it that the Spirit through the destruction of the flesh might be sayed in the Day of the Lord. 3. The kind and blessed effect that Sentence had upon him doth not a little demonstrate as much for had he not had the Seed of God in him more probably he would as others have been hardened thereby gone on opposing blaspheming God and his Church 4. The Animadverters reason hath no reason in it for I know not any security a Child of God hath from any particular word of promise that he may not fall into the worst of sins except the sin unto death 5. That it would be now the sin of any to mourn that an Antichristian drunken ignorant Minister from whom for the most part prophaneness is gone forth into the Land are not removed more than it was twenty or thirty years agoe When Mr. T. and the whole Generation of the People of God almost sought their removal with Prayers and Tears I am not able to understand He cannot be ignorant that they are the burden and plague of the Nation the great obstacles of the work of Reformation in it We yet add 5thly 'T is utterly unlawful to communicate with a devised Ministry upon what pretext soever 6thly So is it for any to partake in other mens sins as hath been proved but every usurped Ministry is the sin of him though never so holy a Person that exerciseth it In answer to which Mr. T. dictates nothing but what is notoâ—iously false and hath already been replied to We proceed to the seventh Objection Object 7. But many learned and good men have in dayes past and do now hear the present Ministers To which we answer 1. That the greatest Scholars and most accomplished for humane Wisdom yea visible Holiness have sometimes been the greatest opposers of Christ ignorant of the Will of God in respect of the truth and work of their Generation as the Scribes and Pharisees who opposed Christ and the Doctrine of the Gospel preached by him Mr. T. answers 1. Learned and good men amongst Christians are never found the greatest persecutors and opposers of Christ Answ Nor do we say they are but that men of Learning anâ— visible Holiness are so Which Mr. T. knows to be true many of that complexion have been found amongst the Papacy and are that have poured forth the blood of many millions of Saints and opposed the Wayes of Christ to the death and that out of Conscience as they thought to God So Paul before his Conversion 2. That the greatest Scholars have not alwayes been on the Lords side have been stupendously ignorant of his Will he grants With the rest we are not concerâ—ed We add 2dly That persons of as great holiness and renown for learning and all manner of accomplishments as learned Ainsworth have been and are of the same apprehension with us in this matter not to mention the Reformed Churches who generally renounce the Ministry of the Church of England not admitting any by virtue of it to the charge of souls What our Animadverter speakes by way of disvaluation of Cotton Ainsworth redounds to his own disparagement their praise is in the Churches 2. That Mr. Cotton was at least in part of our perswasion in this matter let the Reader inform himself from pag. 111. to the end of his Way of the Churches in New England 3. Of the judgment of the Reformed Churches and Mr. T. his mistake thereabouts we have already spoken We say in S. T. 3dly To the Law and to the Testimony Isa 8. 20. If they speak not according to this Rule though Angels for knowledge or holiness they are not to be received or heeded One word from the Lord is of more weight to hearts made truly tender than the example of an hundred professors can be 4. The Apostle hath long since determined this case 1 Cor. 11. 1. Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ So far as Saints follow Christ I may and ought to follow them but no further So that the learning parts oâ— holiness of any that attend upon the present Ministers of England is no warrant for me so to do All this he tells us he likes well So that he grants this Objection to be of no value What he afterwards adds Of resting in some cases on learned Guides we have already answered We proceed to the review of the 8th Objection Object 8. But the Magistrate commands us and ought we not to obey Magistrates To which we answer 1. That Magistrates have no power to command in matters of Instituted Worship where Christ is silent or to govern in his Church is affirmed by many What Mr. T. Sect. 12. saith of the confession of the Brownists Art 39. is altogether impertinent they speak nothing thâ—t is contrary to what is affirmed by us What he hath said Chap. 5. is already refuted should it be granted that Magistrates may command men and ought therein to be obeyed to be present at the true Worship of God yet till he hath disproved whâ—t we have offered to prove the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship to be false and Idolatrous Worship the Ministers of the Church of England false and Antichristian we are not conceâ—ned in it 2. The conformity of the Disciples to the just and righteous Decrees of Magistrates we said was permitted them was a meer supposition for Arguments sake relating only to things Civil and therefore is not at all of our present concern 3. What he talks of Popish Recusants and the Laws of the Land I am not at all concerned in Better all the Laws of that nature in the world were evacuated that one Command of Christ should be violated We add 2dly The Commands of Magistrates when contrary to thâ— will and way of Christ as we have proved