unchristen themselves The persons I mean that they own as Lords and Governours that have a Law-making power are the Prelates in the Convocation-House That they own these as such to them and their Canons they promise obedience and subjection needs no more proof than the Sun at noon-dayes that it shineth Whether this be a denial of Christs authority rebellion against him let the Reader inform himself from Mr. T. Chap. 4. Pag. 119. of his Theodulia He that ascribes Kingly power to a subject doth make another King than the right King and so doth unking him this he tells us the Papists do when they assert the Pope can make Laws to bind the Conscience by virtue of his authority and I know no more power our Convocation of Bishops have to do so then the Pope Till that be shewed the Animadverter grants our Ministers asserting the same of them in this matter as the Papists of the Pope they really unking Christ Nor 3dly Let him think that he is to deal with such Children that with his drollery will be perswaded that they see and know not what they both see and know 'T is not the calling persons as he doth by what spirit let him judge Diabolical Calumniators Railers and Scolds in Latine and English that now a dayes will be taken for an answer or confutation of what the whole Nation know to be true And they themselves will acknowledge and plead for it A 2d Order and Institution of Christ we mention in S. T. viz. That 't is his will that those whom he hath called by his Word should separate from the World walk together in particular Societies and Churches 1 Cor. 1. 2. and 5. 12. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Rev. 18. 4. John 15. 19. and 17. 6. Acts 2. 40. and 19. 9. Phil. 1. 5. Acts 2. 41. and 17. 4. 2 Cor. 8. 5. This Institution we say the Ministers of England are at open defiance with admitting persons visibly wicked and prophane into their Communion To this Mr. T. replies Sect. 4. 1st He hath read somewhat in Ainsworth Cottons Writings for to them we refer the Reader for further satisfaction But he doth not find in them nor the Scriptures mentioned any such separation as these Authors press Answ The Separation we press is a separation from the visible wicked and prophane cannot the Animadverter find this in the Scriptures nor in the Authors instanced in Let me prevail with him in a sedate frame without passion or prejudice once more to review them and beg of the Lord to open the eyes of his understanding that he may see his mind therein 1 Cor. 1. 2. Phil. 1. 1 5. 2 Cor. 8. 5. Give us an account that those who constituted and made up those particular Churches were visible Saints sanctified in Christ Jesus The like instance might be given of the rest of the Churches mentioned in the Scripture The Disciples of Christ are said to be chosen out of the World John 15. 19. and 17. 6. The Saints in a Church-state are commanded not to suffer a Fornicator Covetous person an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner in their Communion though allowed civil commerce with them in the world 1 Cor. 5. 12. In Acts 2. 40. 2 Cor. 6. 17. we find the Apostles pressing and Chap. 19. 9. practising Separation from the wicked World which is also commanded with respect to Antichristian worship Rev. 18. 4. If Mr. T. cannot see such a Separation as we press contained in these Scriptures I cannot but pitty him 'T is said that when this way was more countenanced he practised somewhat not much unlike thereunto 2dly He grants That Separation from the World in respect of Worship is the duty of Saints 2 Cor. 6. 17. but then by the World is meant professed Infidels or at least such as were professed unbelievers as John 15. 19. and 17. 6. Acts 2. 40. and 19. 9. Answ 1. That the word World is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word of various acceptions in the Scripture is known with which we shall not trouble the Reader The Animadverter grants That it is taken for persons living in the World Now these are but of two sorts that I know of regenerate or unregenerate such as walk after the Flesh or such as walk after the Spirit Believers or Unbelievers And when the word World is put in opposition to the Saints it s alwayes taken for the World of unregenerate persons that lies in wickedness or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in subjection to the wicked one 1 John 5. 19. That men are not of the World because from Tradition Education Compulsion Interest or the like they profess the Name of Christ though they never knew a work of Grace or change upon their spirits is a fiction of this Animadverter that he will never make good If such as these are not of the world they are chosen called out of it let us a little consider whether the Characters of these be found upon them 1. They are said to be Branches in Christ that abide in him and bring forth fruit John 15. 2 4 5. 2dly They are clean through the word that he hath spoken to them vers 3. 3dly They have a mighty power and prevalency with God vers 7 16. 4thly They have the words of Christ abiding in them vers 7. 5thly Are such whom Christ loves vers 9. 6thly His Lovers and Friends ready prēst to do whatever he commands them vers 14 15. 7thly To whom he hath revealed the Mysteries of God vers 15. Chap. 17. 6 14. 8thly They are hated of the world vers 18 19 20 21. and Chap. 16. 2 3 33. and 17. 14. 9thly Keep Gods Word Chap. 17. 6. 10thly To them Christ gives the glory that the Father hath given to him Chap. 17. 22. will have them to be with him where he is to behold his glory vers 24. with much more that might be instanced Elsewhere they are called such as are delivered from the power of darkness Col. 1. 13. Quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins Ephes 2. 1. Called to be Saints Rom. 1. 7. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Are Light in the Lord Ephes 5. 8. have received the Spirit which the World or Men of the world cannot receive and abide such John 14. 17. These are the Characters of those that are not of the world Do we refuse to hold communion with do we separate from persons of this complexion What more false We cry aloud to them woe beseech intreat them as many of them as are yet too much holding fellowship with the carnal wicked world in Worship to come out from them which was one and no small part of our design in S. T. As for others that know nothing of the things mentioned they are yet in their sins though they profess the Name of Christ under the regiment of the wicked one and of the world and therefore to be separated from as this Animadverter grants Of the Apostles going
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-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-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
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
that they might not be heard as gifted Brethren Of which he gives us three learned reasons 1. Because the withdrawing themselves from every Brother that walks disorderly cannot be meant of their excluding themselves from Hearing Praying or receiving the Lords Supper if such an one be present Answ Right but though this withdrawment from such a Brother cannot be meant of exclusion from hearing whilst he is present yet I hope it may from hearing him who walks thus disorderly The same may be said of receiving the Lords Supper If he be there as a looker-on meerly this ought not to hinder any from waiting upon Christ in that institution though the Church of England in imitation of the old Pagan custom of the Druides c. of old interdicts the Priests saying service whilst an excommunicate person is there but if he shall be forced upon the Congregation as a member to joyn with them in that ordinance and much more as their Minister to celebrate it as is our case it is the duty of the Saints to surcease the performance of that duty for that season It was the keeping themselves from being polluted that caused them to sever from him that reason remaining which it doth till he hath testified his repentance their withdrawment is to continue He adds 2ly That the withdrawment mentioned 2 Thes 3. 6 14. is only from arbitrary communion in entertainments c. Answ This is an old shift of Mr. T. we have already refuted He further tells us 3ly If we omit it we omit the Worship of God and so break his Commandments Answ 1. This is a meer petitio principii we deny the ministration of the Sacraments according to the rights of the Church of England to be the Worship of God strictly so called 2ly There 's no need through grace of omitting the Worship of God if we worship not with them there are meetings of his people whither we may have recourse to worship him in his own way To what follows in this chapter we have already answered We attend his advance towards the discussion of our third argument of which in the next chapter CHAP. IIII. Sect. 1. Such as act from an Antichristian calling not to be heard proved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifies Who is Antichrist what is Antichristian explained The Ministers of England derive their Office-power from the Papacie The Bishops of England Petty-Popes 'T is unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by a power derived from him Christ calls his People to separate from every thing of Antichrist Rev. 18. 4. and 14. 9. explained Of trying the Spirits 1 Joh. 4. 1. of Christs instituting Officers of his owâ— No promise of a blessing in attending upon an Antichristian Ministry IN Chap. 3. of S. T. a third Argument is produced against hearing the present Mâ—nisters viz. Those that act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but to be seperated from But the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling Therefore The Major is evident for 1. The Power Office and Calling of Antichrist is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and calling of Christ not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office-power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ The sum of what Mr. T. answers hereunto is If by Antichristian Power Office and Calling be meant the Papal Power and the acting in the holy things be by preaching the doctrine of the Trent Council in the points determined therein against Protestants by administring Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and Discipline according to the canon-Canon-Law of the Popes the Major is granted and the Minor denied But if by Antichristian power c. be meant by vertue of ministry according to the Liturgy Articles of Religion and Homilies of the Câ—urch of England from the Ordination and Licence of the Bishops his Major is denied that which he calls Antichristian is not truly such and it is denied that what he calls Antichristian is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and Calling of Christ Answ 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this Animadverter tells us found only in the Epistle of John and principally 1 John 2. 18. where the Apostle distinguisheth between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between the mean Antichrists and the main Antichrist The best interpretation of the word seems to be a false Christ or â— Counter-Christ one that under the pretence of being for Christ doth really oppose Christ the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in opposition and composition signifies For in the Scripture as Mat. 2. 22. Acts. 13. 7. and in Classical Writers as Homer Hesycheius c. in his Offices Ministry Discipline Worship He is Antichrist that under the pretence of acting for Christ doth indeed though covertly act against him in his name and under the vizard of his authority That is Antichristian that though it be pretendedly for and from Christ it really is not And in this sense the Major is to be understood Those that act in the holy things of God viz. Praying Preaching Administration of Sacraments c. by vertue of a Power Office and Calling that is not though pretendedly really from Christ are to be separated from as we plainly declare in the first proof of the Major proposition in S. T. which Mr. T. would have disproved if he could But in the stead thereof he labours to raise a dust with a multitude of words before the eyes of the Reader that he might not be able to perceive wherein the weight of the Argument lay 2ly He acknowledges the Major to be true if understood of the Papal Power Office and Calling so that he which acts in the Holy things of God i. e. in Preaching for whether it be the doctrine of the Trent Councel or otherwise is not in this case considerable for if he act from an Antichristian Office-Power 't is not his preaching Truth which would make that Antichristian Office-Power Christian administration of Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and discipline according to the canon-Canon-Law by vertue of an Antichristian Papal Power is not to be heard but in this sense he denies the Minor And I cannot but wonder at the confidence of the man doth he not know that they derive their office-Office-Power from the Papacy he is not so ignorant as noâ— to know it Do not the Bishops of England exercise the same power over the Clergy and Laity as they are called thereof as the Pope doth over his so that they are upon the matter Papilli Petty-Popes Is this power Antichristan in the Papacy and not so in the Prelacy Is not the manner of administation of Sacraments in use amongst us taken out of the Popish Missal Mr. T. knows
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-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-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
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
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-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
account the Apostles or Elders were Heads of the Church that in respect of ministration and government they were so as our Dictator speaks is notoriously false 1. There is not the least intimation of any such thing in the N. T. Nor 2. any Language or Speech of any Headship over the Church but Christs till the rise of that man of sin who prophaned the Crown of our Lord by casting it to the ground 3. We find not the Apostles talking of themselves at this lofty rate they confess themselves to be the Brethren of the Saints their Servants for Christs sake 4. Why talks he of Heads of the Church Doth the Scripture mention any more than one Is this the Language of Christ or Antichrist Will he make the Church a two-headed Monster but Quô passim sequerer corvum I am sorry and ashamed that so learned a Person as Mr. T. should suffer such trifles to drop from his Pen. We proceed in S. T. and say 5thly If any be Head of the Church beside Christ they either have their Headship from an original right seated in themselves or by donation from Christ To assert the first were no less than blasphemy if the second let them shew when and where and how they came to be invested in such a right and this controversie will be at an end To which our Animadverter answers Their Headship is by donation from Christ in the places often alleadged He means Rom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 17. That they refuse to afford shelter to this dying Cause we have already manifested We add 6thly He that is asserted in Scripture to be Head of the Church is said to govern feed and nourish it to eternal Life is he◠Husband 2 Cor. 11. 2. In which sense none of the Sons of men can be the Head thereof and yet of any other Head the Scripture is wholly silent But of this matter thus far It cannot by any sober person be denied but an owning a visible Head over the Church having power of making Laws with respect to Worship such an Headship not being of the institution of Christ must needs be a denyal of his Sovereign Authority and Power To which Mr. T. replies None can be said to be the Husband of the Church as Christ is or to govern feed and nourish as he by the influence of his Spirit yet the Apostles and such as convert and build up Souls may in a qualified sense be said so to do as 1 Thes 2. 7 11. the Apostle saith of himself Answ 1. This is a meer Dictate without proof and so fit to be rejected the Apostle saith not any such thing 1 Thes 2. 7 11. 2. He tells us not in what qualified sense they may be said so to do Nor 3. doth he shew us where any one is said to be the Husband of the Church beside Christ nor indeed can he so that the Argument abides firm He that is in the Scripture said to be the Head of the Church is also said to be her Husband to govern feed and nourish her to eternal Life but Christ alone is and doth so Therefore We add That the present Ministers do own such an Headship is undeniable witness their Subscription Oath Conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads-of the Church which are not onely forreign to but lift up themselves against the Royal Institutions of Christ This being matter of fact the individuals charged herewith must prove themselves not guilty or manifest that what they do is lawful The former being notoriously known to be true the latter must be insisted on Mr. T. answers Sect. 12. 1. He cannot justifie all the present Ministers do in their subscription and conformity Answ 'T is good to be ingenuous we know he cannot Longa dies citior brumali tempore noxque Tardior Hyberna solstitialis erit Nor is there any one will compel him to more than he hath a will to He adds 2. The Ministers may own Laws given forth by men as the Governors and Heads of the Church that lift up themselves in opposition against the Institutions of Christ and yet not deny his Kingly Office Because 1. this may be done out of weakness or error Answ This is already removed out of the way 2dly A man may subscribe yeeld subjection to the commands of a Usurper as some did to Richard the Third who acknowledged him not to be King of right and some do to the Decrees of the Trent Council or the Popes Edicts and yet not own his power Answ 1. This is such a legerdemain so like to those Jesuitical equivocations condemned by our Protestant Writers that I understand not nor desire to be acquainted with 2. By my subscription to the Laws mentioned and promising obedience to some of the formers of them as my Reverend Fathers in God I avowedly own their power except I have learned Fallere mille modis nec non intexere fraudes to use such hard dissimulation and treachery as an Heathen would abhor 3. Will Mr. T. stand by this plea will he undertake the Ministers of England shall do so If not Why doth he multiply words to deceive the Reader if he will he egregiously scandalizeth the King and Bishops supposing them to be Usurpers Though he hath taken the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy he hath not thereby manifested his loyalty in acknowledging him to be King of right but onely hath submitted for peace-sake to what though he owns not to be just or right he cannot remedy If the Laws of Trent Council or the Popes Edicts should be established amongst us which God forbid Mr. T. can it seems subscribe to them without owning them as just or the power imposing them he seems well acquainted with the cursed carnal Machiavellian principle of self-interest and preservation Cum fueris Romae Romano vivito more No need of taking up the Cross daily to follow Christ to subscribe to what is uppermost which we may do without owning it or the Authority by which it is established is better and safer We proceed in S. T. to the answering of some Objections that lay in our way as 1. That the Headship owned by them is an Headship under Christ To which we Answer 1. But this Headship is either of Christs appointment or 't is not if it be let it be shewen where it was instituted by him If it be not the assertion and owning of such an Headship is a denyal of Christ's Authority To this Mr. T. replies Sect. 13. The tearm Head of the Church is not used in the Oath of Supremacy this we have already answered in this Sect. and need not say more but Supream Governour And this is agreeable to Rom. 13. 1. 2 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Answ By Supream Governour over the Church of Christ is meant one that hath power seated in him for the prescribing Rules in things undetermined as Mr. T. grants the establishing
were wont to receive Tythes they were not Levites neither for to them were Tythes paid Neh. 10. 37. 13. 12. Heb. 7. 5. Numb 18. 31. And if neither Priests nor Levites lawful Officers or Expounders of the Law by virtue of office-Office-power committed to them by the Lord they could not be for to these only by virtue thereof did the Exposition of the Lay appertain as is known 2. He seems to grant that they were such ordinary Magistrates as were in the Jewish Synedrion which is as much as we need plead for From an attendment upon the Synedrion of the Jews determining in cases of Judgment and Justice a lawful attendment on the preseâ—t Ministers will never be proved He himself afterwards grants Thaâ— the Scribes and Pharisees were many of them Rulers of the Jews but very learnedly tells us not as Scribes and Pharisees which none ever thought they were being as he acknowledgeth particular Sects among the Jews That these here mentioned were not such he is not able to demonstrate They sate in Moses Seat as Magistrates though their jurisdiction or power was not so great as his He adds That what we say some observe that these Scribes and Pharisees are especially charged with the omission of Judgement and Mercy things most nearly relating to the Office of Magistracy to whom it doth especially appertain to look thereunto is frivolous Answ But others think not so nor hath Mr. T. said any thing to encline them to think so That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judgment is any where taken for right ordering the conversation towards God and man he cannot prove in Mat. 12. 18. 't is not so taken 'T is rather taken for the Ruledom and Government of God Christ was to publish true Religion among the Gentiles and to cast out Superstition which thing where ever it is done the Lord is said to Reign and Judge there And Mr. T. cannot be ignorant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judgment is the act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oâ— the Judge or Magistrate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which passeth sentence or judgeth and that this is the proper notation of the word which its being joyned with Mercy and Faith Luke 11. 42 doth not disprove except he will suppose that these are not to be regarded by Governours in the Administration of Justice which they eminently are Faith or faithfulness in the discharge of the trust committed to them by the Lord with the exercise of Mercy and bowels towards the Body and Souls of men is what especially becomes a Ruler so that the observation wants not iâ—s weight For disputations sake we suppose in S. T. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees to be Teachers and Expounders of the Law at that day But if such they were lawful Church-Officers of the appointment of the Lord which we have proved the present Ministers of England are not and therefore a lawfulness to hear these from a lawfulness to hear them cannot be pleaded except we grant they were meer intruders into the Ministry which upon supposition that they were Ministers we cannot yeeld for these Reasons 1. The Pharisees are expresly said to be Priests and Levites John 1. 19 24. which were the ordinary lawful Ministers of that day To which Mr. T. Sect. 3. This onely proves that some of the Pharisees were Priests and Levites not that all were so Answ True but the Scripture testifying there were some Pharisees that were Priests and Levites when it speaketh of their doing what peculiarly and by way of office did belong to the Priests and Levites 't is but rational to interpret it of them and not of any others He adds 2dly But if they were Priests it doth not follow that they were the lawful Ministers of that day 1. Christs Apostles were the lawful Ministers of that day Answ 1. 'T is true they were so but not of the Jewish Church exclusively to others so that this Allegation is impertinent 2dly It 's certain that the Priests of those times got their places by bribing the Roman Deputy as Josephus reports the high Priest did Answ Grant the high Priest did so it doth not follow that the inferior Priests should so do nor doth any Historian report so of them We add in S. T. 2. These of all others were most apt to question the Authority of such as taught the People So when John appears Preaching and Baptizing and professes to them that he was not the Christ they immediately question his Authority John 1. 25. which they could not be supposed to have the face to do if they themselves of all others had been the greatest intruders To which our Animadverter saith That they did so is no wonder for they were puft off with conceits of their Authority and Righteousness Answ This is no reason of his Assertion they had great Authority amongst the people their outward conversation was Righteous and blameless as saith Josephus Jewish Antiq. l. 18. c. 2. so that in this matter they had whereof to glory We add 3dly When they question Christ himself about his Authority he asks not them from whence they had theirs which doubtless upon that occasion he would have done had they not been lawfully seated in the Seat they did possess but from whence John had his who was esteemed as a Prophet To which our Animadverter Though Christ did not then yet he doth afterwards calling them a Generation of Vipers blind Guids and his charging them with affectation and ambitious seeking the chief Seats and to be called Rabbi What is it but an evidence that they did unlawfully climb into Moses his Seat Answ A marvelous evidence indeed which no one in the World would have 't is likely lighted on if it had not been Mr. T. his hap to have stumbled on it nor he himself if he could else have told how handsomly to have salved up the matter 2. Christ calls them Generation of Vipers therefore he seems to charge them that they did unlawfully climb into Moses his Seat of which he speakâ— not one word is such an absurd consequence as he will not be able easily to make good As if a man should say such a one is a Drunkard therefore he saith he is a Thief or such a one affects the title of Batchelor of Divinity therefore he usurps it which every one wouâ—d smile at as inconclusive We say further in S. T. 4thly We have the Lord Jesus many times crying out above all others against the Pharisees condemning them of pride hypocrisie avarice but not the least tittle of the usurpation of Moses his Seat is by him charged upon them or in the least intimated which doubtless would have been had they been guilty thereof Mr. T. replies 1. 'T is no wonder that Christs charging them herewith is not in express tearms related sith their instigation of Herod to take away John Baptists life related by Josephus is not related as impuâ—ed to them by him Answ 1. 'T is very uncertain
is a contract of the word Worthy-ship and notes singular respect by reason of some worth in the thing worshipped conceived in the heart and expressed by some sign which he gathers from the use of the word Worshipful and your Worship given to Superiours and gives us several distinctions about Worship which as they are trite and obsolete so what the intendment of the Animadverter should be in producing them excepâ— to shew his reading or amuse the Reader with a multiplicity of words and distinctions and thereby render him the more unfit to examine what is offered in the Controversie to consideration I cannot divine As the quibling upon every particular word in a Dispute is much like that which the Apostle condemns 1 Tim. 6. 4. 2 Tim. 2. 14. so I know not of what use it can be to the Reader nor that it serves to any thing save to render the Controversie more arduous and difficult when the meaning of each other is obvious to any considerate understanding without it There is as I know of no more than a twofold Worship of God 1. That which is natural original or moral which I call natural because in the principle of it it was concreated with man and moral because it is invariable and alway the same and is comprehensive of our saith affiance and trust in God our subjection to him as the God sovereign Lord and King and Lawgiver to all That Worship which the Law of Nature or the Law written and engraven upon the hearts of the children of men teacheth is that I call the natural Worship of God Four things this Law teacheth with respect to Worship First that God is to be worshipped Whether there were ever any so guilty of Atheism as to deny a Deity is not much to our present purpose to enquire Cicero saith Nullam unquam fuisse Gentem c. That there was never any Nation so barbarous which knew not that there was a God And to the same purpose Seneca Epist 3. Veritatis Argumentum est omnibus aliquid videri tanquam Deos esse quod omnibus de Diis opinio in sita sit neque ulla gens usquam est adeo extra Leges moresque posita ut non aliquos Deos credat Nor is there any thing Psal 14. 1. opposit thereunto which the Chaldee Paraphrast renders No power or dominion of God in the Earth But this as was said is not of our present disquisition Upon the acknowledgment of a Deity the principles of Nature dictate that he is to be worshipped 2dly That as God is to be worshipped so is he not only severally each one by himself but by persons in particular bodies and societies to be worshipped and served is another dictate of Nature The erection of Temples for Worship with the forms of publick Service and Priests for the managery thereof to be found amongst the most ignorant and dark corners of the World both before and since the Gospel-dispensation sufficiently evince the truth of the suggestion Yea 3dly That God is to be worshipped according to that Revelation â—â— Himself he is pleased to exhibit to the children of men not according to their wills one or other of them Hence when any had a design of imposing Laws upon others of their own devising they presented them unto them not as their own inventions upon which foot of account they knew they would meet with little respect from persons attending the dictates of Nature but as received from the Godds Thus did Zaleucus Lycurgus Minos Numa the most famous Lawgivers amongst the Gentiles Famous is the saying of Socrates in Plato to this purpose That every God will be worshipped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that way which pleaseth best his own mind Contrary to which as if those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enstamped upon the hearts of men as men were totally obliterated Some assume the confidence to plead that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or manner of Worship is not from divine direction and prescription but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Worship it self 4thly That the Voice of God when he should be pleased or in what manner soever to speak to them was to be hearkned and attended to the same Law of Nature did indoctâ—inate them in I say the Voice of God for however unto some of them there were Godds many and Lords many yet the wisest and most learned amongst them did acknowledge but one chief Deity or God at whose beck and ordinance all the rest were whom therefore they contemn'd as things of naught Hence Plautus in Casina Act. 2. Unus Tibi hic dum sit propitius Jupiter Tuistos minutos cave Deos flocci feceris Hence Satan easily abused them to an attendance upon his dictates as the Oracles of God though never so cruel and sanguinary That it was usual amongst the Gentile Nations to offer up Men and Women in Sacrifice to the Godds is known Tacitus tells us of the Germans that they were wont to sacrifice Men to Mercury Tacit. de morib German Tertullian assures us that the people of Africa sacrificed their Children to Saturn and that openly even to the time of the Proconfulship of Tiberius Apol. c. 8. And when the Carthaginians were overcome by Agathocles the Sicilian Tyrant judging the Godds to be greatly angry with them they at once sacrificed two hundred Noblemens Sons to Saturn as Pescenninus Festus witness The same Abomination was rife among the Romans which seems to have continued amongst them to the time of the Consulship of Cornelius Lentulus and Publius Licinius Crassus as witnesseth Pliny Natur. Hist l. 3. c. 1. the French as Cicero Orat per Fontei the Britans as Tacitus Annal. 14. of whom saith Horace Visam Britannos hospitibus feros were led captive to the like ferosity to their own flesh That they received this Abomination from their diabolical Oracles which they mistook for the voice of the Gods to them is more than probable That the destruction of Menecaeus and Iphigenia is to be fixed here is known Nor had the maner of the Lacedemonians wounding themselves in the worship of their Gods any other spring as witnesseth Apollonius apud Philostrat l. 6. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. in the honour of Diana it was their custom to wound themselves according as men say to the Commandment of the Oracles And Pausanias Baeotic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Oracle of Delphos enjoyns that a beauteous Child be offered in Sacrifice to Bacchus This was the state and condition of the Gentile World whilst God was known only in Jewry the times of which ignorance he winked at and suffered each Nation to do what was good in their own eyes under the regiment of Satan perpetrating the most horrible abomination being fearfully cruel to their own flesh The review of which may fill us with pity and bowels towards the poor dark corners of the World wâ—ere this gross darkness is still residing and
nor the practice of them in the Worship of God under the Old Testament do at all hinder them from depending on the meer Institution of Jesus Christ as to those especial ends of the glory of God in and by himself and the edification of his Church in the Faith which is in him whereunto he hath appointed them nor as unto the special manner of their performance which he requireth in which respects they are to be observed on the account of his Authority and Command only Mat. 17. 5. 28. 20. John 16. 23 24. Heb. 3. 4 5 6. Eph. 1. 22. 2. 20 21 22. Heb. 12. 25. In the explication whereof he speaketh after this wise The principal thing we are to aim at in the whole Worship of God is the discharge of that duty which we owe to Jesus Christ the King and Head of the Church Heb. 3. 6. 1 Tim. 3. 15. This we cannot do unless we consider his Authority as the formal reason and cause of our observance of all that we do therein If we perform any thing in the Worship of God on any other account it is no part of our obedience unto him and so we can neither expect his Grace to assist us nor have we his Promise to accept us therein for that he hath annexed unto our doing and observing what ever he hath commanded and that because he hath commanded us Matth. 28. 20. This promised Presence respects only the observance of his Commands Some men are apt to look on this Authority of Christ as that which hath the least influence into what they do If in any of his Institutions they find any thing that is suited or agreeable to the Light of Nature as Ecclesiastical Societies the Government of the Church and the like they say are they suppose and contend that that is the ground on which they are to be attended unto and so are to be regulated accordingly The interposition of his Authority they will allow only in the Sacraments which have no light in Reason or Nature so desirous are some to have as little to do with Christ as they can even in the things that concern the Worship of God But it would be somewhat strange that if what the Lord Christ hath appointed iâ— his Church to be observed in particular in an especial manner for special ends of his own hath in the general nature of it an agreement with what in like cases the Light of Nature seems to direct unto that therefore his Authority is not to be considered as the sole immediate reason of our performance of it But it is evident First that our Lord Jesus Christ being the King and Head of his Church the Lord over the House of God nothing is to be done therein but with respect unto his Authority Mat. 17. 5. Eph. 4. 15. 2. 20 21. Secondly and that therefore the suitableness of any thing to right Reason or the Light of Nature is no ground for a Church-observation of it unless it be also appointed and commanded in especial by Jesus Christ Thirdly That being so appointed and commanded it becomes an especial Institution of his and as such is to be observed so that in all things that are done or to be done with respect unto the Worship of God in the Church the Authority of Christ is alway principally to be considered and every thing to be observed is commanded by him without which consideration it hath no place in the Worship of God Thus far he with convincing brightness and evidence 'T is true Mr. T. tells us there are some particularities which God hath tied us to in the New Testament in hearing But of what nature they are he expresly tells us not Whether such as do constitute it New-Testament-Worship without which it is not or cannot be accounted to be so The Scriptures cited by him are not wholly strangers to such a thing First Mat. 17. 5. fairly intimates that what ever is to be done in the New-Testament-Worship is to be done solely upon the Authority of Christ In v. 2. we have an account of Christ's transfiguration before Peter James and John Vers 3. Moses and Elias appear talking with him Moses was the great Lawgiver to the Old-Testament-Church Deut. 33. 21. i. e. in the portion or inheritance which Moses the Lawgiver according to the Command God had given to the Gadites Elias was the great Reformer of the Church in the dayes of Jezebels Apostacy from God men of great renown in their day Peter and the rest of them being amazed cryes out It is good for us to be here let us make three Tabernacles one for thee one for Moses and one for Elias Whereby he seems to equalize them with Christ each of them a tabernacle v. 4. What saith the voice of God v. 6. While he yet spake behold a bright cloud overshadowed them and behold a voice out of the cloud which said This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him And Mark tells us chap. 9. 9. That suddenly when they looked about they saw none but Jesus Moses and Elias were vanished and gone The intendment of the whole seems to be this That though betwixt Christ Moses and Elias there was a sweet coalescency and agreement they talked together yet in the Worship of God under the Gospel not Moses nor Elias but only Christ is to be hearkned and attended unto Therefore but a reasonable postulatum that the whole of the Worship of Christ in the times of the Gospel be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New-Testament He being appointed and deputed by the Father solely to be attended unto for Laws and Directions touching it for which also he came from the bosome of the Father John 1. 18. By whom he hath spoken to us in these last dayes Heb. 1. 2. To whom fulness of Power and Authority is delegated by the Father Mat. 28. 18. From whence the Commission to the Apostles for preaching the Gospel v. 20. doth originally spring and consequently our hearing or attending upon Preachers in that work is to take its measure from the Laws and Statutes which as Lord of the Family he hath given forth thereabout for his Houshold to observe and do Nor 2dly doth Luk. 10. 16. cited in the second place by this Animadverter serve to any other purpose but to cut the throat of the cause he hath at present undertaken the management of They are the words of Christ unto the Seventy whom he sent two and two before his face v. 1. and prove thus much That hearing those that are sent out by Christ is a positive Institution of his and such an Institution that therein we hear him which proves not the lawfulness of attending upon the Ministry of such as act not by vertue of any Authority received from him but the contrary If the Argument Christ here useth be valid That he who heareth them whom he sends in his Name heareth him and he
that heareth or receiveth Mat. 10. 40. him heareth or receiveth him that sent him viz. the Father as most certain it is I do not see that this can be accused of weakness and invalidity though such an one as Mr. T. cares not it may be to hear of viz. that he who heareth the Parish-Ministers heareth the Bishops and he who heareth the Bishops heareth the Pope from whom they originally received and derive their power and authority And yet it may be this may not be so distastful to this Animadverter as I had thought whom I already find pag. 344. pleading it lawful to hear the Jesuites a fair advance towards the personal hearing of his Holiness Thus insuccesful is Mr. T. in producing Testimonies every one of them speaking otherwise than he would have them and much to the disadvantage of the cause he undertakes the management of Nor do we say that the many Precepts in the Old-Testament about Hearing are vacated we rather establish them whilst we make it part of instituted Worship God was of old to be attended in his speaking in and by his Servants and Prophets whom he instituted and inspired to whom the Word of God came to communicate it to his People They that indeed came in his Name were to be heeded and hearkned unto and that by obligation from positive Law and Institution So are those that now come in the Name of Christ the alone Lord Lâ—wgiver and King over his House to whom all Power is given and intrusted by the Father who hath appointed his Stewards in his absence over his Houshold to give them their portion of meat in due season Luke 12. 42. Nor will those of the Houshold be ever able to acquit or justifie themselves before the Lord when he cometh if a thief or stranger break-in upon them and eject the Stewards appointed by him in their attendance upon him to say the meat he feeds us with is our Lord's meat which 't is true they should be ready to receive but from the hands destined and appointed to give it them 2dly Mr. T. supposeth that what is spoken of the Law and the Prophets Luk. 16. 29. is spoken as obliging to New-Testament-Saints but without the least attempt of proof If his own Ipse dixit will not carry the cause and persons will not suffer themselves to be guided by a worse if possible than the Popish phanatique Câ—edo or implicite Faith there is not much danger of his captivating any to his at present espoused opinion This being most usually the whole of what is tendred by way of evidence of what he is pleased confidently to aver from one end of his Theodulia to the other The contrary is evident 1. 'T is spoken to the Pharisees v. 14 15. 2dly One part of the aim and intendment of our Lord in the Parable seems to be to exalt the Institutions of God above whatever may be fixt upon by the children of men one or other of them as more probable to effect what they are instituted and appointed by the Lord for The rich man supposed that if one rose from the dead and testified to his Brethren they would repent v. 28. 30. No saith Abraham i. e. Christ If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded though one arose from the dead Hereby testifying the unalterable obligations that lie upon persons what ever specious pretences of edification profit or the like may be urged by the sons of men to an attendment upon Divine Institutions Not as if the Lord would have his New-Testament Saints attend upon Moses's Appointments or go to Mount Sinai for the pattern of his Gospel-Worship 3dly v. 16. he expresly tells us that the Law and the Prophets were but until John and since that time the Kingdom of God or Gospel-Church-state frequently so called in Scripture is preached But suppose Mr. T. had evinced or should ever be able to do so that the words of Christ did respect New-Testament-Believers any otherwise than hath already been intimated by us he had need do one thing more before they will stand him in any stead viz. manifest that they are spoken by Christ with relation to Worship that therein New-Testament-Believers are to be regulated by Moses and the Prophets for if they respect onely the Doctrine taught by the peculiar Types of that day and the Truths dropped by them touching Christ the Messiah they make nothing at all to his purpose which when he hath done Erit mihi magnus Apollo Nor doth 2 Pet. 1. 19. the other place cited by him contribute the least mite of assistance to his dying cause The Apostle understanding by Divine Revelation as 't is thought that he must shortly dye v. 14. As he was resolved whilst he lived not to cease to call upon them and stir them up as v. 12 13. so he was willing to leave this Epistle with them to put them in remembrance of the great things he had taught and communicated to them v. 15. which he tells them v. 16. were not cunningly devised fables so artificially interwoven as though they seemed to be true they were most false store of which had been in those dayes invented by Jews and Poets Oh no! had they been so he could have had no comfort in the review of them now he was going off the stage of the world which he had not having followed these when he made known unto them the power and coming or the powerful coming or coming in the power of our Lord Jesus Câ—rist manifested to be so in the efficacy of his Doctrine working Miracles his Resurrection from the dead they were he tells them eye-witnesses of his Majesty The honour and glory whereof he proves by a double Argument 1. The testimony and witness the Father bare of Christ the honour and glory put upon him when that Voice came from Heaven when he was on the Mount transfigured before them viz. Peter James and John 2dly From the word of Prophecy lest they should think the former Apparition was a fiction of his own he acquaints them that the Prophets have testified of his coming and glory Of which Word of Prophecy he asserts 1. That 't is of no private â—nterpretation i. e. the holy men to whom it came gave it forth as they received it from God without putting any of their own glosses meanings private interpretations to it 2dly That to this they do well to take heed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which taking heed ye do excellently worthily and as becometh Saints as unto a light that shineâ—h in a dark place Yet 3dly with this limitation as to the time of their so doing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 until the day dawn and the day-star arise in their hearts Which if we should interpret of the day of the Gospel and the more clear revelation of the administrations thereof which some learned and judicious men do as the Assembly in their Annotations on the place
not at all to his purpose At the best it is but a recrimination I know not how this Animadverter could imagine that the owning and asserting of these things as lawful had the least tendency to the establishment of a National Church But some men are so distempered that they suppose every thing makes for the advancement of that design they are driving on If he deems Synods owned by men of Congregational Principles and his Ecclesiastical Convocation of National Officers are of the same nature he is mistaken 1. Those are chosen by the particular Churches to which they are severally related and what they act and do is in their name and upon the account of that power and authority they receive from them The Convocation of the Clergy act in their own name and authority being never chosen by any one Congregation to sit and make Laws 2ly Those pretend not to be the Church nor to any self-self-power to make Laws and impose them upon the Churches as obligatory and binding to be received and subjected to by them without the least judgement of discretion allowed them or liberty of dissenting if not perswaded in their consciences of the truth of what is decreed by them and its consonancy with the Scriptures of the Lord. As is known to be the case of the Convocation of the Church of England to dissent from whose Canons at least to oppose them is censured with no less than an Excommunication or delivering up to Satan Which how directly it leads to the Popish implicit faith of believing as the Church believes every one is able to discern For my part with reference to these I am much of the mind of the learned Whitaker de Concil p. 12. General Councils may erre and imbrace false opinions Nam Concilium Antiochenum veritatem damnavit haeresin apertam propugnavit Similiter Ariminense Ephesinum secundum ex quo patet veritatem non esse metiendam ex numero Episcoporum Of them he saith 1. That their calling together is a certain politick and humane invention pag. 35 77. 2. That they cannot frame Articles of Faith to binde the Conscience pag. 19. 3. That their end in coming together is not to feed as Pastors but to consult what is best for the Churches pag. 85. 4. That they are not simply necessary pag. 23. 5. That they do not give authority to the Scripture pag. 242 243. 6. That their Decrees are not immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost pag. 262 263. 7. That the ultimate determination and judgment of a General Council may be false pag. 231. 8. That there is no judgement of a Council properly in matters of Faith ibid. 9. That the truth of things determined in Councils may afterwards be called into question and again disputed pag. 283. 10. That the Churches of Christ have been kept sound in Faith without them for the first 300 years pag. 23. To which I add 11. That I never yet read of any Council or Synod since that Act 15. but 't were easie to demonstrate that in one thing or other it hath erred The most of the Hay and Stubble that is built upon the Foundation at this day not to mention their attempts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 owing its original to some of them So that I confess I am no admirer of them and am bold to affirm of any that have yet been it had been better for the Church of God that they had never been in the world But these things are little to Mr. T. his purpose That persons owning the lawfulness of Synods from Scripture-warrant as they conceive should therefore be necessitated to own a National Church as a true Church of Christ is a position that Mr. T. will never make good I suppose by the view I have taken of some of his Writings he is very confident of his own abilities but he is a rare man indeed that can compose a Rope of Sand. The lawfulness of a National Church or unlawfulness thereof having no dependance upon Congregational Synods but is to take its measure from somewhat else of which before Of Churches of a greater number â—han can meet at one place for the celebration of all the Ordinances of Christ I shall not need to say any thing till he acquaint us what Congregational men are of that perswasion it will be accounted a meer Calumny The assembling of the members of a particular Church in the same place for the celebration of the same Numerical Ordinances being one considerable part of the definition given by our Congregational Brethren of such a Church And yet if they did own Churches of a greater number 't is ridiculous to imagine that they could from thence be compelled to the owning of a National Church which wants both the matter and form of a true Church of Christ which yet the other may have So that we need not turn aside to consider the proofs used by those that held That many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government Printed 1645. Of which this Animadverter reminds us For though I am not of their mind nor do I conceive their Reasons to be cogent Yet were that true a National Church could not from thence be proved a true Church of Christ For 1st They suppose these Congregations to be particular Churches of Christ constituted and made up of visible Saints which cannot as yet be affirmed of any National Church in the world or any Parish Church as a part thereof 2dly They also affirm that these particular Churches have power within themselves to determine differences by their own Elders to excommunicate Offenders obstinately guilty of notorious scandals 3dly They are utterly against all Archiepiscopal National Officers the source and spring of a National Church 4thly They conceive not all in England nor all in a Parish to be lawful Church-members because born there nor will they compel them as such to receive the Sacrament with them which is the known case of the Church of England That at Jerusalem there were more Churches than one under a Presbyterial Government is a fond conceit which the numerous multitude of Believers thereunto belonging contribute not the least mite of assistance to Be they never so many they are called Acts 8. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church which was at Jerusalem The like may be said of the Church of Corinth it was one single Congregation the Church of God which was at Corinth 1 Cor. 1 1. 2 Cor. 1. 1. So was the Church at Ephesus Rev. 2. 1. But as was said The grant of more Churches than one under one Presbyterial Government is remote enough from the establishment of a National Church which by other bonds and ligaments than the Assertors thereof will own must be united to one National Head or it hath not cannot have a being in the world So that these things are little to his purpose The next attempt of this Animadverter is to remove an obstruction which he
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.
1. 1 5. 2 Cor. 8. 5. John 15. 19 and 17. 6. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Acts 2. 40. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Acts 19. 9. Rev. 18. 4. considered Of the acception of the word World Characters of persons that are not of the World A third Institution of Christ remarked Of the power Christ hath intrusted his Church with Acts 1. 23. 1 Cor. 5. 5. explained Of the Officers of Christ's appointment Their Election by the Church Of the Liberty of Prophesying Nothing must be offered up to God in Worshiâ— but what is of his own prescription The present Ministers of England refuse to subject to these Ordinances of Christ An Objection answered Mr. T. his Exceptions considered and removed out of the way 2dly THat the present Ministers of England do not hearken and conform to the Revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House we prove in S. T. by the induction of seven particulars To this Mr. T. replies in Sect. 3. Chap. 4. 1st In the stead of Argument he proves all with Interrogations Answ False and untrue I wonder at the conscience and confidence of the man in asserting it He knows I prove it by the induction of the most remarkable Orders of the House of Christ which they hearken not to 2dly He askes Which of the Ordinances of Christ have they made void Answ They were under his view whilest he wrote these words so that his question is frivolous I enumerate seven of the Orders and Institutions of Christ they have so dealt with He adds 3dly He should have reckoned up seven times seven Answ 1. And why so If guilty of a rejection of these which are the principal they oppose his Kingly and Prophetical Office though they embrace some others that are of his appointment The Romanists do so yet this Animadverter grants they are guilty of the crime instanced in 2. Mr. T. cannot reckon up seven times seven Institutions of Christ that are of the peculiar Institutions of his House to be performed by Saints embodied and united together in the fellowship of the Gospel nor many more than these seven mentioned by us He instanceth in hearing the Word praying to the Father in the Name of Christ which he tells us they have not made void by their Traditions Answ 1. The first of these is in a great measure if not totally made void by them 1. They oppose and deny the management of this duty in the way of Christ's appointment whilest they debar Christians from electing their own Officers or attending upon the Ministry of such as are according to the mind of Christ elected by them 2. The Preaching of the Word must give way to their Service-Book-Worship or Forms of humane devising which I am much mistaken if it be not in a great measure a making void of that Institution of Christ he speaks of by their Traditions 2. I wish the same may not be said with respect to the most of them at least of praying to the Father in the Name of Christ which none can do but by the Spirit whom they despise reproach set up their stinted Formâ— in opposition to him and his breathings The first of the Orders of Christ's House instanced in is That all Power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Mat. 28. 19. 1 Tim. 6. 14 15. John 3. 35. Acts 3. 22. and 5. 31. Hence Christ chargeth his Disciples not to be called of men Rabbi nor to call any Father viz. not to impose their authority upon any or suffer themselves to be imposed upon by any in the matters of their God Mat. 23. 8 9 10 because one is their Master and Lord viz. Christ. Hence also the Apostles lay the weight of their exhortations upon the Commandment of Christ 1 Cor. 11. 23. and 14. 37. proclaim all to be accursed that preach any other Gospel Gal. 1. 8. Charge Chrâ—stians not to receive such as bring any other Doctrine 2 John 10. The Spirit terribly threatens such as shall add to the Revelation of God Rev. 22. 18. This Institution we say they conform hot really unto they own other Lords Heads and Governours that have a Law-making Power over his Churches beside him To this Mr. T. 1. That all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in Christ as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof he grants as a Truth Though 2dly He assents not to our Paraphrase on Mat. 23. 8. As if Christ did forbid the Apostles to impose their Authority upon any in the matters of their God which they did Acts 15. 25 28. Answ 1. By imposing their Authority is meant giving forth Commands Doctrines in their own Names as from themselves without the Authority of Christ Where did they so Do they not every where disavow it 1 Cor. 1. 15. 2 Cor. 4. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 1. Divine Revelation not the Dictates of men one or other of them is the Foundation of a Christians Faith 2. Mr. T. mistakes when he saith they did this Acts 15. 25 28. For 1st They enjoyned nothing but what was before enjoyned by the Lord only acquainted the Gentile Believers therewith as is 1. Abstinence from Fornication Exod. 20. 14. Ezek. 16. 26 29. Mat. 5. 32. 2. From things Strangled Deut. 12. 24. 3. From Blood Gen. 9. 4. 5. i. e. the Life-Blood or any member of the creature pulled from it whilest it is yet alive as the Jewish Rabbins expound it and that truly 2dly He speaks against the express Letter of the Scripture vers 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us Expressions very remote from the countenancing such an authoritative imposition as he speaks of 2. He askes How comes this to be an Order of the House of Christ he took such Orders to be Precepts of Christ to us but this seems to be Gods gift to him Answ That Christs Ruledom and Soveraignty over his House is a gift of God to him we grant but such a gift as doth necessarily imply a duty on the part of his Houshold viz. That they own obey subject to none in the matters of Worship but only him admit no Laws or Institutions amongst them but his And this is expresly asserted in S. T. which we took then and still do for an Order of Christ's House 3. He tells us further That to assert the present Ministers of England own other Lords that have a Law-making Power over his Churches besides him is to unchristen them Answ 1. And however Mr. T. his Book came to be licensed with an intimation from the reverend Licenser That he finds nothing in it contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England Some of them think though I assure him I do not he hath asserted that pag. 123 that doth indeed unchristen them 2. However if the assertion mentioned unchristens them they
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
Soveraignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom with respect to Worship be granted by him to any of the sons of men absolutely or conditionally If the first tâ—en must the Church be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ trampling upon his Royal Commands and Edicts for so its possible it may fall out those that attain this Headship may do as its evident many Popes of Rome the great pretenders hereunto have done If the second let one iota be produced from the Scripture of the Institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto and we shall be so far from denying it that we shall chearfully pay whatever respect homage or duty by the Laws of God or man may righteously be expected from us But this we conceive will not in hast be performed and that for these Reasons 1. The Scripture makes mention of no other Head in and over the Church but Christ Ephes 1. 22. 5. 23 29. 2 Cor. 11. 2. To this Mr. T. answers 1. We use not the title of Head but of Supream Governour yet that title being given to Saul 1 Sam. 15. 17. and others 1 Cor. 11. 3. Ephes 5. 23. Exod. 6. 14. and may be used Answ 1. What We Mr. T. means when he saith We use not the title of Head I know not 't is the usual form of the present Ministers to stile the King in their prayers Under Thee and Thy Christ Supream Head and Governor But 2dly Head of the Church is a title nor to be given to any in that sence in which it is given to Christ this Animadverter grants I ask Hath Christ onely an Headship of influence to his Church communicating vital Spirits unto the true Members thereof Hath he not also an Headship of Government over it If he assert the first he knows he is departed into the Tents of the Antichristian Papal Shepherds who allow indeed such an Headship to Christ alone The second they divide betwixt him and the Pope as Mr. T. seems to do betwixt him and the King If the second be owned by him than none of the Children of men have an Headship of Government over the Churches of Christ they are not so the Supream Governors thereof as to give forth Laws and Institutions of their own for the Saints to conform to For this title of Head is not to be appropriated to any in that sense in which it is given to Christ as saith our Animadverter Besides 2dly If the Kings of the Earth are the Supream Governors of the Churches of Christ they have this Supremacy over them by grant from Christ and that either absolutely or conditionally if the first then whoever ascends the Throne of worldly Ruledom hath a right of supremacy over them though they themselves be such as have cast off the Yoak of Christ are trampling upon his Royal Laws and Edicts If the second let us see the proof thereof from Scripture with the conditions annexed to this their supremacy and we are satisfied This we told Mr. T. before but he was not pleased to take notice of it That because the Scriptures mentioned by him attribute â—he title of Head of the Tribes to Saul and the Man is called the Head of the Woman Therefore the Governors of the World may be called the Head of the Churches of Christ when that title of Head of the Church is given to none but Christ in the Scripture is such a piâ—iful non-sequitur as Mr. T. will not surely without blushing review Sir Saul was constituted by the Lord King over Israel a Man to have superiority over the Woman with allusion hereunto they are called their Head by the Spirit of the Lord But where is the Scripture constitution of the Superiority Kingship of any over the Church beside Christ Amongst whom he saith He will have no such thing Where is it that any have this title of Head of the Church ascribed to them by the Holy Ghost This must be proved or you must acknowledge the impertinency and invalidity of their present arguing the best of it is whether you will be so ingenuous or no 't is but a Fig-leaf covering that every eye can discern your nakedness through it We say in S. T. 2dly If there be any other Head of the Church besides Christ he must be either within or without the Church The latter will not be affirmed Christ had not sure so little respect to his Flock as to appoint Wolves and Lyons to their Governors and Guides in matters Ecclesiastical nor can the former for all in the Church are Brethren have no Dominion or Authority over each others Faith or Conscience Luke 22. 25. Mr. T. replies Though all in the Church are Brethren yet all are not equal nor doth Luke 22. 25. prove it Answ 'T is enough for our present purpose that all in the Church are thus far equal that being all brethren none may exercise any Ruledom or Authority over the rest without their consent nor any such Ruledom as to command in case of Worship where Christ is silent which is at least asserted Luke 22. 25. and Mr. T. may confute it when he is able Of this Scripture we have spoken at large Chap. 4. and of Rom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 17. frequently and have fully removed out of the way what is here repeated touching the Laws of Rulers and their obligation upon Conscience nor need we add more We say further in S. T. 3dly If any other be Head of the Church but Christ then is the Church the body of some others beside Christ but this is absurd and false not to say impious and blasphemous To which Mr. T. Particular Churches in respect of that ministration and government which their Governors afford them may be said to be the bodies of their Governors Answ Boldly ventured however 1. The Church is frequently said to be the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 12. 12 27. Ephes 5. 30 32. Col. 1. 18. 2dly Is no where said to be the body of any other not of Peter Paul much less of Nero Domitian the Supream Governours of the Empire at that day By what Authority Mr. T. takes the body of Christ and joyns it to another Head besides himself I am yet to learn 3dly The Church is call'd his Body upon the account of that glorious nearness and union is betwixt Christ and them the reception of Spirits life from him their absolute indisputable subjection to him Is the Church the body of any other with respect hereunto beside Christ Where is it so called Is it united or in subjection to any other besides Christ as the Woman is to the Man upon the account whereof she is call'd his body Ephes 5. 28. his I say not anothers That Mr. T. should assert That upon the same account the Church may be called the body of some other beside Christ We add 4thly There was no Head of the Church in the Apostles dayes but Christ That upon any
c. that never entred into the heart of Christ the judicious Reader will easily from what we have already offered discern the impertinency of Ezra 6. 7. and 7. 13. Dan. 3. 29. and 6. 26. to the present design 'T is true as he saith Christianity alters not civil Relations or Estates 1 Cor. 7. 24. And 't is as true that if in the time of my infidelity I have been the servant of men that are my Political Masters with respect to Worship though I am whilst I continue their servant to perform faithful service to them with respect to things Civil yet am I not to own them or subject to them as my Lords Governours with respect to the Service of God therein one only being my Lord and Master viz. Christ 2. I say not that all the Kings of Israel were Types of Christ but that the Kings of Israel were so i. e. some of them nor do I restrain the word Israel to the ten Tribes but to the twelve headed by David Solomon a pair of eminent Types of the Messiah That Christ and the Apostles yeelded subjection to Civil Powers with respect to things sacred of which this Animadverter must speak or he speaks impertinently is a gross mistake unworthy so learned a person We say in S. T. 3dly That the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church is false God was its alone Head and King Hence their Historian saith Their Government was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when they would needs choose a King God said They rejected him to whom even as to their Political Head a Shekel was paid yearly as a Tribute called the Shekel of the Sanctuary True indeed as they were a Political Body they had visible Political Governours but that these had any Headship over them to make any Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matter relating to Worship will never be proved To which Mr. T. replies 1. That the Church of Israel was different from the Kingdom of Israel is one of the proper opinions of those who would establish from that example an Ecclesiastical Independent Government in the Church distinct from the Civil Government of the State Answ 1. 'T is no matter whose opinion 't is if Truth it ought to be imbraced 2. That there is a real and formal distinction betwixt the two Societies Church and Common-wealth is at large proved by several As Mr. Gillespy in his Aarons Rod Blossoming b. 1. c. 3. The Assembly in their Jus Divinum Hear their Reasons p. 88 89. 1st The Society of the Church is only Christ's and not the Civil Magistrates it s his House and he hath no Vicar under him as is abundantly proved by Mr. Rutherford in his Divine Right of Church-Government Chap. 27. Q. 23. Pag. 595 to 647. 2dly The Officers Ecclesiastical are Christ's Officers not the Magistrates 1 Cor. 4. 1. Ephes 4. 8 10 11. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 3dly These Officers are elected and ordained by the Church without Commission from the Civil Magistrate by virtue of Christs Ordinance and in his Name Acts 6. 3 4. with 14. 23. 1 Tim. 4. 14. with Acts 13. 1 2 3 4. 4thly The Church meets not as Civil Judicatories for Civil Acts of Government but as Spiritual Assembles for such as are spiritual viz. Preaching 5thly Should not these two Societies be acknowledged to be really and essentially distinct from one another several gross absâ—rdities would follow As 1. Then there can be no Common-wealth where there is not a Church but this is contrary to all experience Heathens have Common-wealths yet no Church 2. Then there may be Church-Officers elected where there is no Church seeing there are Magistrates where there is no Church 3. Then those Magistrates where there is no Church are no Magistrates And if so then the Church is the formal constituting Cause of Magistrates 4. Then the Common-wealth as the Common-wealth is the Church and the Church as the Church is the Common-wealth 5. Then all that are Members of the Common-wealth are because so Members of the Church 6. Then the Common-wealth being formally the same with the Church is as Common-wealth the Mystical Body of Christ 7. Then the Officers of the Church are the Officers of the Common-wealth the power of the Keys gives them right to the Civil Sword and consequently the Ministers of the Gospel as such are Justices of the peace All which how absurd let the world judge He adds 2dly That Solomon and other Kings did exercise power over Ecclesiastical persons is evident because he deposed Abiathar Answ 1. Who denies it How this proves the power of the Kings of Israel as Heads of the Church to innovate in Worship which is the thing to be proved I know not Hic labor hoc opus est And Mr. T. hath more wit than seriously to attempt it 2. Solomon deposed Abiathar not as High Pontifee or Head of the Church for male administration in Church-affairs but as King of Israel for treason against the Common-wealth in the business of Adonijah Ergo Solomon was the Head of the Church of Israel risum teneatis amici Of 2 Chr. 29. 30 and 30. 2. which he produceth to prove That the Kings of Israel had power in Ecclesiastical things we have already spoken What follows in this 14th Sect. is not worthy our spotting paper with the repetition of 1. He grants That God was the alone Head and King of the Church of Israel with respect to power Legislative to assign what Faith Worship Judicatories and what other things were necessary for that Congregation all which solely appertained to him which is all we need contend for The Kings of Israel had not any Legislative power with respect to these he grants from the power of these Kings then it cannot be argued that any have power now to innovate in matters of Faith and Worship they are not Heads of the Church invested with authority to introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship as such nor had the Kings of Israel any such Authority Jam sumus ergo pares nec ab uno dissidet alter 2. What he talks of Kingly Government we are not at all concerned in All that we assert in S. T. is that Josephus saith Their Government was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Theocracie that when they choose a King they rejected God 1 Kings 8. 17. which when he attempts the confutation of we may attend him 3. That a Shekel was yearly paid to the Lord Ex. 30. 13. which continued to the destruction of Jerusalem Josep l. 7. c. 28. of the Jewish Wars he grants that it was paid to him as their Political Head he denies Now though this be not of any moment as to our present concern therein yet the truth thereof is easily demonstrated 1. It was paid to the Lord in token of their thankfulness for his delivering them from the Egyptian yoke which he did as their Political Head 2. None were
to pay it under 20 years of age because till then they were not so fit for the service of the Common-wealth though at 8 days old they were reckoned as Church-members That because it was converted to the service of the Temple therefore it was not paid to God as their Political Head is a consequence Mr. T. will never make good since it belongs as he will say to Political Heads and Governours to take care for the furtherance and maintenance of the Worship of God 4. The sayings of the Author of S. T. interfere not inasmuch as he owns God to be both their Political and Ecclesiastical Head which the having visible Political Governors doth not in the least enervate 5. That the Kings of Israel had an Headship over the Church of Israel to make Laws relating to Worship as such is not proved by the Scriptures cited by him Hezekiah 2 Chr. 29. 27. commands no more than what was long before commanded by the Lord. Jehoshaphats act oh 20. 3. is warranted by divine precept Joel 1. 14. 2. 15. in appointing singers v. 21. he only revives what was by David from divine Revelation instituted Of c. 30. 1 2. we have already spoken What is mentioned ch 31. 2 3. makes against our Animad It was no constitution of his own framing but a revival of what was written in the Law of the Lord vers 3. CHAP. VII Sect. 1. A 5th Argument against hearing the present Ministers That they have the Characters of false Prophets upon them proved Jer. 23. 21. Rom. 10. 15. reviewed and expounded Of Christ's Mission Whether such a Mission be of the Essence of a lawful Ministry Of Spiritual Adultery Jer. 23. 14. opened THE 6th Chap. of S. T. contains a fifth Argument against hearing the present Ministers which is thus formed Those who have the Characters and Properties of false Prophets and Priests upon them are not to be heard but separated from But the present Ministers of England have the Characters and Properties of falsâ— Prophets and Priests upon them Therefore The Major or first Proposition is proved from the Injunctions and Cautions of Christ Mat. 7. 15. and 24. 4 5 23. 1 John 4. 1. 2 John 10. 11. Acts 20. 29. To which Mr. T. faith nothing but what we have already replied to The Minor we prove by the introduction of the signal Characters of false Prophets which are visibly upon the present Ministers The whole Nation knows they are truly affirmed of them Mr. T. hath assumed a forehead of brass whilst he deâ—ies it 2 Pet. 2. 1. is manifestly true of them as we prove Chap. 1. Sect. 10. The 1st Character we mention is That they run before they are sent Jer. 23. 21. That a Mission from the Lord is of the Essence of a lawful Ministry That whoever wants such a Mission is no Officer of Christ but a false Prophet and Minister of Antichrist may hence by way of Analogy be deduced is evident Which also exactly accords with what is asserted by the Apostle Rom. 10. 15. That the present Ministers of England want such a Mission hath already been demonstrated and we shall not actum agere from whence it follows that they have this Character of False Prophets upon them To which Mr. T. Chap. 6. Sect. 2. 1st The sending mentioned Jer. 23. Rom. 10. is not meant the mediate regular outward calling Answ Nor did we say it was but a Mission or sending from God either immediately or mediately which whoever wants and goes sorth notwithstanding to preach the Gospel authoritativè or by way of Office hath the Character of a false Prophet upon him The former of these the present Ministers pretend not to the latter we have already demonstrated they have not He dictates 2dly That a regular outward mediate Calling is not from a rightly constituted Church of Christ. Answ But we have proved the contrary by such evident Testimonies as Mr. T. will not in hast be able to refell He adds 3dly That either an immediate or mediate Mission are of the essence of a lawful Minister I deny Answ 1. If neither of these be of the essence of a Minister then a Minister may be a Minister without either of them then an outward calling is not necessary for him that takes on him the publick function of Preaching but this Mr. T. in the very next Page in contradiction to what he here asserts affirms to be necessary Then 2. The Institution of Officers by Christ to be sent forth in the way appointed by him is needless men may be Officers in his House without any such Mission from him which must be either mediate or immediate a third way of sending I believe he cannot easily coyn and both these he hath exploded 3. The directions given by Paul 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. with respect to the right management of this affair are vain and frivolous If a man spend a few years in Oxford or Cambridge read a little of Aristotle Logick Physicks and Metaphisicks get a few Notions of Divinity from some Common-place-Book though he have never read the Bible over in his life and is Ordained by a Prelate with a black Cassock and Girdle a Presentation Institution and Induction he is if Mr. T. may be believed because he can Preach some Truths a Minister of Christ without any more a-doe nobis non licet esse tam desertis The Churches of Christ have other thoughts and ever had from the beginning of this matter That because it is said They stood not in the counsel of God they prophesied lies in his Name therefore their running without a Mission from God is not condemned in them and made a Character of a false Prophet is such a perverting of the Scripture as cannot be justified He tells us 5thly To make an outward Mission of the Essence of alawful Minister is contrary to the Authors grant chap. 2. where he allows gifted Brethren to preach without such a Mission Answ He doth so indeed but who allows this Animadverter thus sophistically and openly to prevaricate I know not I aâ—low them to Preach but not by virtue of an Office-Power as Ministers of the Gospel which I expresly deny in the fore-cited place they may do Of the Preaching of the Brethren Acts 8. we have already spoken It is added in S. T. as a second Character of false Prophets 2. That they commit adultery i. e. spiritual adultery a departure from the Institutions of the Lord in Worship to the Inventions of meâ— is usually in Scripture expressed under that Notion Jer. 3. 8. Ezek. 23. 37. Rev. 2. 22. All Interpreters that I have met with so expone it and walk in lies a worship of humane devising called a lie Isa 28. 15. Am. 2. 4. Joh. 8 44. 2 Thes 2. 11. Jer. 23. 14. This Character we say appertains to the Ministers of England and ask which of the Institutions of Christ have they not mixed with their own inventions To which
they make the hearts of the Righteous sad we affirm and 't is generally known and felt amongst such whose hearts the Lord hath made tender So that till Mr. T. proves that by lies is not meant devices of their own they have by his coâ—fession the character of false prophets upon them Which renders his heap of perhapses and conjectures frivolous The dirt he casts upon the Churches of Christ he will one day find will rather tend to his own disparagement than theirs and that herein he hath reproached the Tabernacles of God Till he prove that the Pastors of the Congregational Churches have by introducing practising humane devices and such as have been abused in the Papacy in the Worship of God made the hearts of the Righteous sad which 'tis universally known they have not done he will acknowledge that his reflection upon them is impertinent and not at all to his purpose All that he hath as yet said amounts not to the least mite of proof cannot at all be called so That the insinuations of the Author of S. T. against the Ministers of England would have proved the Teachers of the best Churches in the Primitive times to have been false Prophets is untruly said These made not the hearts of the Righteous sad by prophaning the Ordinances of Christ introducing subjection to the inventions of men which is known to be true of the present Ministers The seventh Character mentioned is That they mix the Word of God with their Dreams Jer. 23. 25 29. The answer Mr. T. intimates Sect. 7. that he hath given to this before is already replied to We add 8thly as an eighth Character of false prophets That they come in Sheeps clothing having the Horns of a Lamb but are inwardly ravening Wolves and speak like Dragons i. e. pretend to the holiness and meekness of Christ and Saints but are inwardly full of raven and cruelty yea terrible in their Edicts and Laws stirring up and making use of the powers of the World to persecute kill and destroy the Saints Mat. 7. 15. Rev. 13. 11. which second Beast is no other than the false prophet mentioned Rev. 19. 20. This Character we say is upon the present Ministers Upon this Generation of men all the cruelties that the first Beast hath exercised upon the Saints for these 1260. years is to be charged They now press a rigid conformity to the infringing the liberty of the Saints Mr. T. replies 1. Outward holiness and meekness inward ravenosity and cruelty is not a signal Character of false prophets Answ Christ saith it is and 't is fit we believe him before Mr. T. for having cautioned his Disciples to beware of them he tells them in what manner they will come to them what is their signal character and property They will come to you in Sheeps-clothing which the Apostle phraseth they shall be transformed as the Ministers of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11. 15. but inwardly they are ravening Wolves which if not their character and property had in vain and to no purpose been mentioned by Christ The second Beast and the false prophet Rev. 19. 20. we say are the same by it is understood Antichrist in his Ecclesiastical State or the Antichristian Clergy their character is Rev. 13. 11. That they have the Horns of a Lamb and outward semblance to the meekest of Lambs the Lord Jesus but speak like Dragons are cruel in their Edicts and Laws Doth Mr. T. disprove what is herein affirmed by us doth he attempt it nothing less He confidently tells us That this did not shew them false prophets Answ But this is made the character of the second Beast which is no other than the false prophet as say Mede Brightman And therefore what shews them to be the second Beast shews them to be false prophets Which if Mr. T. will confute he must prove the second Beast Rev. 13. and false Prophet Rev. 19. not to be one and the same Which it's manifest they are by a serious comparing what is said of the second Beast Rev. 13. 13 14 15 16. with what is said of the false Prophet Rev. 19. 20. 1. The second Beast is a worker of miracles Rev. 13. 17. so is the false Prophet Rev. 19. 20. 2dly The second Beast deceives them that dwell on the Earth Rev. 13. 14. so doth the false Prophet Rev. 19. 20. 3dly The first and second Beast are helpful one to the other Rev. 13. so are the Beast and false Prophet Rev. 19. 19 20. As to what follows 1. I say not that all the persecutions of the Children of God that the Antichristian Civil State or powers of the World hath exercised is to be charged upon the present Hierarchy and Ministry of England but upon this Generation i. e. Persons that have appertained to the same Hierarchy Yet 2. whilst the present Hierarchy and Priests of England are as 't is known they are pressing rigid Conformity to the ruining as to the outward man of the Saints are walking in the steps of their Progenitors they entitle themselves to all the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus that by the perswasions of those that possessed the same Seats before them was poured forth by the Civil Powers of the World that upon them may come as it will undoubtedly do if they repent not all the blood that was shed from the beginning to this very day A manifest demonstration that the Lineaments of the second Beast or false Prophet is visibly to be read and found upon them Sect. 4. A 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th Character of false Prophets each applicable to the present Ministers Ezek. 22. 26. 8 34. 4. explained Ecclesiastical Shepherds therâ— meant Rev. 13. 11. explained Of the obscurity of the Revelation Rev. 13. 13 14 15. opened THE ninth Character of false Prophets mentioned is That they put no difference betwixt the holy and prophane Ezek. 22. 26. Of this the present Ministers we say are deeply guilty Drunkards Swearers living and dead are their dear Brethren and Sisters i. e. the children of them all are admitted to the Font and they themselves to the Lord's Table Our Animadverter replies 1. This is a charge against the Priests of the Law accusing them of neglecting to discern between clean and unclean persons or offerings but is no character distinguishing a false Priest from a true Answ Whether it be or not let the Reader satisfie himself from the serious review of the words compared with Jer. 15. 19. Ezek. 44. 23. However 2. This is nothing saith he to our Ministers who are not now to count any wan or creature common or unclean Acts 10. 15. 28. Answ 1. That the Lord hath not as great care that his New-Testament Churches be not polluted by the admission into them of persons morally unclean as that the Sanctuary and Congregation of Israel of old was not by the entrance thereinto of persons legally so is this Animadverters dictate of which we expect his proof at his
so great the action it self casting contempt upon the Institutions of Christ they are guilty hereof And thus far in Reply to Mr. T. his Answers to Arguments and Questions proposed His next attempt is to make good the Catasceuastick part of this Dispute how well he dischargeth that Province shall be considered in the next Chapter CHAP. XI Sect. 1. Mat. 23. 1 2. explained Mr. T. his two Arguments drawn from thence to prove the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers refuted Whether the Scribes and Pharisees were Teachers and Expounders of the Law Mr. T. his proofs thereof examined The Titles of Rabbi Doctor Master Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not peculiar to Ecclesiastical Officers Of their paying Tythes Mat. 12. 18. If they were Ministers they were lawful Ministers proved Christ doth not command or permit his Disciples to hear them demonstrated Of the true reading of the words Mr. T. his mistakes manifested THE first attempt of Mr. T. in his 10th Chap. is to vindicate the Arguments produced by others mentioned in S. T. as Objections against the Truth contended for therein from the Answers we have given thereunto The first whereof is thus proposed Object 1. Christ commands or at least permits his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees who were men as corrupt in their Doctrine as vitious in their Lives as the present Ministers of England can be supposed to be Mat. 23. 1 2. Therefore its lawful to hear these The Animadverter after many words which our present hast admits not our stay to consider of nor is it at all necessary that we should do so draws up a twofold Argument from this Scripture Arg. 1. That hearing of Ministers against which there is no more just exception than was against the hearing the Scribes and Pharisees is lawfull for Christian Saints now But there is no more just exception against hearing the present Ministers of England than was against hearing the Scribes and Pharisees Therefore Answ 1. We deny the Major Proposition to the proof whereof we say That Christ allowed not his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees as we prove in S. T. 2. The Minor also is short of Truth to the proof where of we say That the Exceptions against the present Ministers are upon some accounts greater and more just than against the Scribes and Pharisees Neither of which he attempts the proof of but prays it may be granted him which upon these terms will never be the contrary we afterwards manifest Arg. 2. That which warranted Christs Disciples hearing the Scribes and Pharisees notwithstanding other defects warrants the Saints hearing the present Ministers of England notwithstanding other defects But the Scribes and Pharisees preaching the will of God warranted Christs Disciples hearing the Scribes and Pharisees notwithstanding other defects Therefore Answ 1. By the very same Argument the lawfulness of hearing the Priests of Rome the Friars may be evinced for they preach some some Truth 2. We deny his Minor and to the proof thereof say 1st That sitting in Moses Chair is their teaching the observation of Gods Laws is begg'd by him without the least tender of proof So is 2dly That Christ therefore permitts the Disciples to hear them because they so taught And 3dly That he allowed the hearing them a◠all Each of which is denied by us and fail he in the proof thereof his Argument sinks of it self as he himself knows To the Objection as proposed by us which contains the sum of Mr. T. his two Arguments we answer in S. T. That there are some things which the Objectors take for granted which are the very Basis upon which the stress of the Objection lies that will never be proved As 1st 'T is supposed that the Scribes and Pharisees here spoken of were in the Ministerial Seat Teachers and Expounders of the Law Some of them 't is granted were these here mentioned are said to sit in Moses Seat which was the Magistratical Seat to the Posterity of Aaron the Office of Priesthood did appertain and are condemned for neglecting Judgment and Mercy things most nearly relating to the Office of Magistracy Now 't will not in the least follow that supposing Christ enjoyned his Disciples to attend upon the Scribes and Pharisees acting as Magistrates and conform to what is justly and righteously prescribed by them as such that therefore 't is lawful to attend upon the present Ministers To which Mr. T. Sect. 2. 'T is supposed that the Scribes and Pharisees here spoken of were Teachers and Expounders of the Law which he attempts the proof of 1. Because vers 4. 't is said They bind heavy burdens and lay them on mens shoulders Answ But Mr. T. should have proved that they did this as expounders of the Law and not as Magistrates by civil sanctions till when he saith nothing 2. They affected to be called of men Rabbi Masters Fathers Leaders vers 8 9 10. Answ What then This is no proof that they were Ecclesiastical Officers 1. They might affect these Titles and not have them 2. Others besides such who were Expounders of the Law had them given to them 1st The very words that were spoken at the time of the Investment of any into the Title of Rabbi viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold thou art promoted and there is power given to thee of exercising capital Judgments which I am sure appertained not to them as Expounders of the Law abundantly evince that that Title was given to those that had authority in things Civil As is the Title 2dly Of Master Exod. 1. 11. 1 Sam. 26. 16. 2 Sam. 2. 7. 2 King 10. 2 3 6. 1 Sam. 29. 4. 2 King 9. 31. 19. 4. 1 Chr. 12. 19. 3dly Of Father 1 Sam. 24. 12. 1 King 5. 13. 16. 7. In which sense Machir is said to be the Father of Gilhad i. e. the Prince of that Country 1 Chr. 2. 21 23. And David is called the Father of the Jews Mark 11. 10. Nor 4thly Is it necessary that we restrain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leaders to Ecclesiastical Leaders or Guides when it may as propperly be referred to Civil Rulers 5thly The Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctors or Teachers he tells us is translated Master in Israel Joh. 3. being applied there to Nichodemus who was a Ruler of the Jews i. e. a Civil Ruler amongst them The other Title 6thly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Blind Guides or Captains there is no necessity that we refer to Ecclesiastical Rulers so that hitherto he fails of the proof of his Assertion He adds 2dly They were not Priests for they paid Tythes vers 23. Answ 1. This upon the present supposition makes rather for than against us If they were not Priests 't is the more probable they were not Teachers of the People who were to seek the Law at their mouthes Mal. 2. 7. And if his Argument be good they were not Priests because they paid Tythes whereas the Priests
trial for satisfaction He further argues Arg. 29. This Author Chap. 2. allows the hearing gifted Brethren He would not think it unlawful to hear Parents or Masters catechize or Readers in the University when they read Divinity Lectures Therefore by a like reason must allow hearing the present Ministers Answ This consequence we deny there is no parity or likeness of Reason in it why we cannot hear them as gifted Brethren we have manifested Chap. 2. There are more reasons against hearing them than against hearing Parents catechize as their acting from an Antichristian Call or Readers in the University to which I go not as to a part of instituted Worship but School-Exercise That they are ordain'd according to the Discipline of the Church in which they live is nothing at all for their commendation except that Church were a true Church or the Discipline thereof more different from the Discipline of Rome than it is His thirtieth Argument is not worth the mentioning That our Arguments may be retorted upon our selves is not improbable any mans Arguments may be so The difficulty lies in proving the justness of their retortion which when he shall be able to effect Erit mihi Magnus Apollo To dictâ—te that Ordination by other Ministers besides the Elders of their own Congregation is necessary for the constitution of a Gospel-Ministry that the Church of England is a true Church or that separation from a company of wicked and ungodly persons is not warrantable by Scripture when we have proved the contrary is to expose himself to the pitie or contempt of the judicious Arg. 31. The grounds upon which the Author of S. T. and other Separatists deny the unlawfulness of hearing the present Ministers are neither false nor doubtful That nothing is to be done in the Worship of God and Church-Discipline relating to it as the Worship of God without a particular Institution we have abundantly before proved Arg. 32. That the Ministers of England have proved the truth of their Ministry against Papists and Separatists That the Prelates have so opposed Popery that were not men resolved never to lay down a calumny they have once taken up they would not cry them down as Antichristian Popish is but what he at present thinks They have opposed the person of the Pope and retained his Laws and Canons They oppose the Pope of Rome and his Conclave and set up and maintain the Pope of Canterbury and his Hierarchy against whom the very Arguments they use against the Pope â—f Rome directly point Arg. 33. The absurdities will follow upon denying to hear the present Ministers because not rightly elected or because they use the Common-Prayer-Book or are faulty in their lives are either not such or really follow not thereupon Answ 1. Every Christian Reader is able to judge of at leâ—st some of the Reasons in the S. T. whether they can warrant his not-hearing 2. He must be able to judge every Minister he hears whether he be rightly elected but this his judgment may proceed from the information of the Church to which the Minister is related or if his Minister he tries and judgeth with the Church as a Member thereof which gives not Authority to individual Hearers but to the Church or rather Christ Jesus who hath entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven with them over their Ministers Much less 3. must every individual hearer have power to silence or withdraw from his Minâ—ster This he hath power to do and this he ought to do with respect to the Pastor of that Church to which he is related if he knows any sin or evil upon him to admonish him and in case of perseverance therein to take two or three with him and again admonish him and if he remain obstinate to bring it before the Church who have power if he will not hear them to depose him If he be a Pastor of some other Church to which he is not as a particular Member related to bring iâ— to the Elders of that Church or some Brother of known integrity appertaining thereunto who is to observe the same Rules already minded which would not introduce oppression upon Ministers nor will they if truly Christian account the execution of the Righteous Laws of Christ to be so The Scepter of his Kingdom is a right Scepter To compare the corrupt bloody Popish Canons herewith is little less than blasphemy 4. That hereby there should be any danger of Gospel-Mâ—nisters being exposed to penury deserted of their Members is not likely 5. That there can be no setled Government in Church or State if the stated Ministers according to the present Laws should be deserted or disobeyed is a false and bloody assertion Arg. 34. That such a Plea as this is made by the Papists for their Recusancy we have already answered Arg. 35. To this we say 1. Christ hath debar'd us from hearing the present Ministers as we have at large proved 2. Whilst we press men to an obedience to the Voice of Christ we make not men Rabbies it hath not the least tendency thereunto but Christ Nor are we against hearing any whom Christ in his Royal Law forbids us not to hear Arg. 36. To this we say Not to hear the present Ministers is no Negative Superstition 't is built upon Divine Precept as we have proved it occasions not the neglect of Gods Command he beggs the Question whilst he supposeth it or any duty of love incumbent upon the Saints It begets not unnecessary perplexities in mens Spirits nor puffs them up with conceit of more holiness than others nor causeth them to be censorious of others Nor hath Mr. T. proved these things to be so or the consequent of the Opinion contended for The whole of his 37th Argument That the denying the hearing the present Ministers is a usurpation of Christs Regal Office in putting a Law on the Consciences of men arrogating that power which is proper to Christ James 4. 12. Mat. 23. 4. is a meer calumnie Nor is the Animadverter able to prove what he saith nor hath he so much as attempted so to do We have demonstrated that the non-hearing the present Ministers is no imposition of our own but a Yoke of Christ We forbid not any to hear Preachers of the Gospel but such as pretend to be so and are not To his 38th Argument we answer By this means the knowledge of the Word of God is not at all hindred nor the furthering his Kingdom neglected but the contrary 'T is not true that those who hold the Opinion of not hearing the present Ministers in publick think it enough if they can teach those of their own Society they are willing to instruct others also which they do as they have opportunity That 't is seldom by conference that we insâ—ill any truths into others without somewhat that alienates them from others and engageth them to our own Society with diminution of love to others is a most false