that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations Finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either Preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ. Which his practice sheweth to be such as to dispense with the Laws of God as by legitimating incestuous Marriages releasing of lawful Oaths granting Indulgences releasing out of Purgatory Canonizing of Saints Consecrating of things for the expulsion of Devils with many more and iâ— it be true which is related in a Book lately printed to have been asserted by the party of Jesuites in the Colledge of Clermont in France that the Pope is not only infallible in matters of Faith but also in matters of Fact he is elevated to that height as to accomplish the prophesie which is 2 Thess. 2.4 But the present Ministers of England do abhorr the giving such power to the King Bishops or Convocation yea it is disclaimed by the King Bishops and Convocation as blasphemous and that power they ascribe to the Church is set down in the 34. Article of Religion Every particular or National Church hath authority to Ordain Change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying And that which they acknowledge belonging to the King as the only Supreme Governour of the Realm of England and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as temporal is thus explained Artic. 37. We give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers Which is so far from being no other than the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome as this Author saith p. 47. that to shew the calumny of it I need use no other words than those of Dr. John Owen in his answer to a Popish Book entituled Fiat Lux ch 13. p. 271. The Declaration made in the dayes of King Henry the 8. that he was Head of the Church of England intended no more but that there was no other person in the World from whom any Jurisdiction to be exercised in this Church over his Subjects might be derived the Supream Authority for all exteriour Government being vested in him alone that this should be so the Word of God the Nature of the Kingly Office and the ancient Laws of this Realm do require And I challenge our Author to produce any one testimony of Scripture or any one word out of any general Council or any one Catholick Father or Writer to give the least Countenance to his assertion of two Heads of the Church in his sense an Head of Influence which is Jesus himself and an Head of Government which is the Pope in whom all the sacred Hierarchy ends This taking of one half of Christs Rule and Headship out of his hand and giving it to the Pope will not be salved by that expression thrust in by the way under him For the Headship of Influence is distinctly ascribed unto Christ and that of Government to the Pope which evidently asserts that he is not in the same manner Head unto his Church in both senses but he in the one and the Pope in the other I add that Mr. Philip Nye in his Book of the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy and power of the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical affairs and subordination of Churches thereunto Printed 1662. though not published hath these words p. 46. For Persons and Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical that are properly and indeed such as first Table-duties which contain matters of Faith and Holiness and what conduceth to the eternal welfare of mens souls an interest and duty there is in the Civil Magistrate more suâ— to give Commands and exercise Lawful Jurisdiction about things of that nature And for Persons there is no man for his graces so spiritual or in respect of his gâ—fts and Office so eminent but he is under the Government of the Civil Powers in the place where he lives as much in all respects as any other subject Yea in the Apology of the Brownists Printed 1604. these words are alledged for their common defence out of the Letter of Henry Barrow to a Lady 1593. p. 92. I have every where in my writings acknowledged all duty and obedience to her Majesties government as to the sacred Ordinance of God the Supreme Power he hath set over all causes and persons whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within her Dominions Out of these things I infer that asserting the Kings Supremacy or the power of making Laws owned by the Ministers of England is not making another King besides Christ over his Church nor ascribing such a Headship to the King or Governours of the Church as is pleaded for by the Church of Rome and that for the Kings Supremacy those that dissent about Ceremonies and Church Government do acknowledge it as it is meant in the Oath taken by the Ministers Concerning which Supremacy if what I have written in the little Treatise Printed 1660. intituled A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremncy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions be not sufficient to produce from the Scripture the institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto methinks Dr. Rainold his argument which convinced Hart in the conference with him ch 10. div 1. and such other writings as have been written by Bilson Mason Bramhall and many more should have prevented this calumny of making thereby another head besides Christ equivalent to a denial of his Kingly Office And to his Objections I answer 1. to the first That we use not the title of Head but Supreme Governour yet when it was used it meaning the same it might be used as it was given to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 though not as it it is given to Christ Ephes. 1.22 and 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 Nor is the title of Head so appropriate to Christ but that it is given to the Man over the Woman 1 Cor. 11.3 to the Husband over the Wife Ephes. 5.23 and may in a qualified sense in respect of Government be given to the King over the Church in his Dominions as to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 to the chief of Families as Parents or others of greatest authority or esteem as the heads of houses Exod. 6.14 in which sense Parliament men Judges Ecclesiastical Governours may be termed Heads of the Church or State they represent
the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but to be separated from but the present Ministers of England act in the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling Therefore The major is evident For 1. The Power Office and Calling of Antichrist is opposite and contrary unto the Power Office and Calling of Christ not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office-power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ. Answ. The ambiguity that is in the termes of this argument is that which makes this Argument seem to many well-meaning people to be of some force which will appear to be a meer fallacie when the terms are clearly opened Concerning which that which is chiefly to be explained is who is the Antichrist here meant and what is meant by Antichristian which hath been so strangely abused especially of late years that every thing that hath been mâ—sliked by an opposite party is branded with the name of Antichrist and mark of the Beast and made a sufficient cause of utter separation from such as own any thing so called and of almost Vatinian hatred The word Antichrist I find not in any place in the Bible but in the Epistles of St. John 1 Joh. 2.18 As ye have heard that Antichrist should come even now are there many Antichrists whereby we know that it is the last time v. 22. He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son ch 4.3 And every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and this is that Spirit of Antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the World 2 John 7. For many deceivers are entered into the World who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an Antichrist or the Deceiver and the Antichrist In which passages I observe 1. That Antichrist is described as a Deceiver as one that opposeth the grand truth of the Gospel and therefore the word in the Scripture use is not applied to persecuting Princes and Emperours as the great Turk but to false Teachers 2. That the opposition is by denying not by making himself Christ but by denying Jesus to be the Christ and therefore the term Antichrist is not one that sets up himself as if he were Christ they are expressed by another word Pseudo-Christs Mat. 24.24 but one that is against Christ by teaching contrary to him 3. That the term Antichrist is applied to many false Teachers who were in St. Johns time 4. That yet there was one Antichrist more notable than the rest to come into the World About whom hath been variety of opinions of old and of late much controversie whether he should be a single person or a state or rank of persons succeeding one after another whether the Antichrist be already come or is yet to come whether the Popes of Rome for some generations have been the Antichrist or they and some other The opinions of the Fathers were various as conceiving of Antichrist by conjectures after the Popes of Rome began to be so haughty as to usurp dominion over Emperours and Kings and to be tyrannous in cruel persecutions of them that opposed the Papal corruptions many pious and learned men stuck not to stigmatize the Popes of Rome as Antichrists and since the Reformation begun by Luther it hath been the common tenent of Protestants that the later Popes of Rome have been the man of sin foretold 2 Thess. 2.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. the City of Rome the Whore of Babylon and the Papacy or Popes the Beast described Rev. 17. which is taken for a Prophesie of Antichrist And though some have endeavoured to apply these Prophesies to Caligula Simon Magus Domitian Mahomet the Turkish Sultans yet generally not only the French and German Protestants but also the English the most esteemed for learning even of the Order of Prelates such as Downham Robert Abbot Usher Bedel Prideaux together with King James and his Defendant Andrews and many more have applied the Prophesies in the Revelation and 2 Thess. 2. to the Roman Popes as the Antichrist that was to come Whence every thing that is retained in the Protestant Churches not taught or exemplified in the Scriptures according to the use of the Church of Rome is usually termed Antichristian as coming from Rome and the mark and image of the Beast in which sense I conceive this Author useth the term Antichristian as being against Christ and by power Antichristian he means Authority and Rule Prelatical by Office-Antichristian the Office of Preaching reading the Common-Prayer Administration of Sacraments and Discipline according to the Church of England by Calling Antichristian he means Ordination by a Bishop Now out of this may be gathered an answer to the Argument If by Antichristian Power Office and Calling be meant the Papal Power Office and Calling and the acting in Holy things be by preaching the Doctrine of the Trent Council in the points determined therein against Protestants by administring Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and Discipline according to the Canon Law of the Popes in which Papal power is established the major is granted and the minor denied For though I deny not that a person Ordained by a Popish Bishop if he forsake Popish Doctrine and preach the Truth taught by Protestants may be heard preach the Gospel though he do not renounce his Ordination yet while he holds that Doctrine he is not to be heard as being an Antichristian Deceiver But if by an Antichristian Power Office or Calling be meant by vertue of Ministry according to the Liturgie Articles of Religion and Homilies of the Church of England from the Ordination and License of the Bishops which this Author terms Antichristian the major is denied and to the Arguments to prove it I answer that that which he calls Antichristian is not truly such but only miscalled such by him and therefore till he proves that Power-Office and Calling which he calls such and means in his major proposition is such his major is denied and it is denied that what he calls Antichristian is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and Calling of Christ or not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ until he proves such acting to be really so And this answer might suffice to invalidate all the other Arguments he brings for his major they all moving upon this unproved Supposition That what he calls Antichristian and standing by and pleading for Antichrist is in truth such But because there are some things to be examined in the other Arguments also I shall survey them also 2. Saith he It 's unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by
pretenders hereunto have done If the second let one iota be produced from the Scripture of the Institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto and we shall be so far from denying of it that we shall cheerfully pay whatever respect homage or duty by the Laws of God or Man may righteously be expected from us But this will not we humbly conceive in hast be performed and that because 1. The Scripture makes mention of no other Head in and over the Church but Christ Ephes. 1.22 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 2. If there be any other Head he must either be within or without the Church The latter will not be affirmed Christ had not sure so little respect unto his flock as to appoint Wolves and Lions to be their Governours and Guides in matters Ecclesiastical nor can the former for all in the Church are Brethren have no dominion over each others Faith or Conscience Luke 22.25 3. If any other be Head of the Church but Christ then is the Church the Body of some others besides Christ but this is absurd and false not to say impious and blasphemous 4. There was no Head of the Church in the Apostles dayes but Christ. 5. If any be Head of the Church beside Christ they either have their Headship from an Original Right seated in themselves or by donation from Christ. To assert the first were no less then blasphemy if the second let them shew when and where and how they came to be invested in such a right and this Controversie will be at an end 6. He that is asserted in Scripture to be the Head of the Church is said to govern feed and nourish it to eternall life is her Spouse and Husband 2 Cor. 11.2 In which sense none of the Sons of men one or other can be the Head thereof and yet of any other Head the Scripture is wholly silent But of this matter thus far It cannot by any sober person be denied but an owning of a visible Head over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship such an Headship not being of the institution of Christ must needs be a denial of his Soveraign Authority and Power Answ. This Author in this Argument seems to me to hide his meaning as they say the Fish Saepia doth by casting out some black colour whereby the water is infected and she not discerned A Headship over the Church besides Christ's he makes the present Ministers to acknowledge in some of the sons of men but who they are he means what the Headship is and how it is opposite to Christs Kingly and Prophetical Office is not plainly expressed nor in what Subscription Oath or Conformity they own and submit to it Headship is a Metaphor and sometime notes Origination vital influence direction or guidance superiority power authority or government which may be in many things No Minister I think gives such a Headship to any of the sons of men as to Christ over his whole Body either so as to derive their being members having their faith or eternal life or dominion over their Consciences or Sovereign power authority to rule or dispose of soul or body as Christ hath And that which the Bishop of Rome claims over the Universal Church is utterly disclaimed by the present Ministers The Headship which is made a denial of Christs Headship ascribed by the present Ministers to some person on Earth is expressed in various phrases A Headship in and over his Church to act in the Holy things of God a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of Christs Kingdom with respect to Worship a visible head over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship which it 's said they own by conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads and Governours of the Church thâ—y own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a a Law making and Law-giving power touching Institutions of Worship that never came into his heart Headship over the Church to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship This can be conceived to be ascribed by the present Ministers to no other than the Bishops or Convocation or the King whose Supremacy in Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical seems to be that Headship here meant by the answer to the second Objection What Headship is ascribed to the Bishops or Convocation in making Laws or Constitutions about Worship to wit the accidentals thereof undetermined in order to the orderly decent performance of it to edification by the present Ministers hath been examined all along in the answer to this Book specially to the 4. and 5. Chapters Sect. 3. and as yet no such Headship is proved by this Author to be ascribed by the present Ministers as amounts to a denial of the Prophetical and Kingly Offices of Christ that the taking of the Oath of the Kings Supremacie or submission to his Edicts about matters of Worship is not owning such a Headship is further to be cleared And first I deny his major That those who acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ by acknowledging the King as Supream Governour in Causes Ecclesiastical or Spiritual as the Oath of Supremacy is proved by me in my Book of the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy ought to be understood particularly that he or with him the Bishops or Convocation may make Laws or Constitutions in the accidentals of Worship undetermined in Scripture observing the rules of Order Decency Edification deny Christs Prophetical and Kingly Office and to the proofs of it I answer This Author doth most injuriously suppose the power and authority asserted to the King of England in the Oath of Supremacie to make Laws or Canons about the Worship of God with the Counsel of a Synod or Convocation or Parliament is making another King besides Christ over his Church For there is no such thing acknowledged thereby which is proper to Christ to wit to be the universal Monarch of the whole Church to prescribe what Faith or Worship shall be given to God to be Infallible Interpreter of Gods Will and the Supreme Judge and Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy or which is arrogated by the Popes of Rome and thus acknowledged by Hart the Jesuite in his Conference with Dr. John Rainold in the Tower of London ch 1. div 2. in these words The power which we mean to the Pope by this title of the Supream Head is that the Government of the whole Church of Christ throughout the World doth depend of him in him doth lye the power of judging and determining all causes of Faith of ruling Councils as President and ratifying their Decrees of Ordering and Confirming Bishops and Pastors of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the coasts of the Earth of reconciling any
or are subject to them To the second though all in the Church are Brethren have no dominion oâ— authority over each others faith or conscience yet neither are all equal in the Church nor doth Luke 22.25 prove it The Apostles sure had power over the members of the Church to command 1 Cor. 7.10 to give orders 1 Cor. 16.1 to judge 1 Cor. 5.3 though no superiority over one another And though the King and Bishops or Convocation are Brethren yet are they Superiours Rulers Rom. 13.1 Heb. 13.17 and though they have no dominion or authority over each others faith or conscience so as that their Laws shall bind the conscience immediately and must be obeyed as precisely and fully as the Laws of God and Christ yet their Laws Edicts Commands Canons or Rules even in the worship of God in things undetermined by God and according to such Rules as the Scripture directs them to observe bind in some sort the conscience as the commands of Parents and Masters by virtue of the authority given them by God Rom. 13.5 1 Peter 2.13 14 16 18 19. though not in respect of the things commanded by them To the third the Church is not the body of any other than Christ as joyned to any or depending on any or subject to any absolutely as unto Christ yet may particular Churches in respect of that Ministration and Government which their Governours afford them be said to be the bodies of their Governors as a wife is in some râ—spect the body of her husband Ephes. 5 28. nor is there any impiety or blasphemy in so saying And in this sense the Apostles and Bishops or Elders were heads of the Church in the Apostles dayes which answers the fourth To the fifth their Headship is by donation from Christ in the places often alledged and in answer to the sixth though not as Christ is termed the Husband of Believers 2 Cor. 11.2 can any be termed Husband nor to govern feed and nourish to eternal life as Christ by influence of his Spirit or power to give eternal life 1 Cor. 6 17. John 17.2 nor their Father as God is said to be Ephes. 4.6 1 Cor. 8.6 Jam. 1.18 Joh. 1.13 yet the Apostles and all others may be in a qualified sense who are instruments to convert or build up others by the Word or Discipline be termed their Fathers in Christ 1 Cor. 4 15. and to govern feed and nourish them to eternal life as 1 Thess. 2.7 11. the Apostle saith of himself Whence I conclude in answer to his major that notwithstanding what he hath said it may by a sober person be denyed that an owning of a visible head or heads over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to worship as the King Parliament Bishops or Convocation do may be no denial of Christs Soveraign authority and power Le ts view that which remains Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christ's proves not owning another King coordinate to him That saith he the present Ministers of England do own and submit to such an Headship is undeniable witness their Subscription Oath Conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads and Governours of the Church which are not onely foreign to but as hath been already demonstrated lift up themselves in opposition against the royal institutions of Christ. This being matter of fact the Individuals charged herewith must either acquit themselves by a denial of what they are impleaded as guilty or prove what they do is not criminous but lawful to be done The former being too notoriously known to admit of a denial 't is the latter must be insisted on what is therein offered is nextly to be considered Answ. Though I cannot justifie all that the present Ministers of England do in their Subscriptions and Conformity as if it were no way criminous but in every thing lawful to be done nor perhaps will all of them plead so for themselves as being mindful of the Psalmists words Psal. 19.12 Who can understand his errours cleanse thou me from secret faults Yet for the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which are the only Oaths I know they have taken as I have so I do still plead that the taking of them is not criminous but may be lawfully done And I further say that were it yielded that the Laws and Edicts made and given forth by those sons of men he means as Heads and Governours of the Church not only foreign to but which I utterly deny he hath demonstrated that they lift up themselves in opposition against the royal Institutions of Christ yet might the Ministers be free from that which he chargeth them with as denying Christs Kingly Office and setting up another King besides Christ as his Peer sith it is clear that such Conformity and Subscription may be out of weakness or errour not out of Faction or Rebellion nor doth he who conforms or subscribes to the Laws or Edicts of an Usurper own his power when he yields subjection to his commands Those who obeyed the Laws of Richard the 3. of England did not thereby acknowledge him to be the King of right nor do all that submit to the decrees of the Trent Council or the Popes Edicts either own the one or the other as being just or the power as rightly claimed but for peace sake submit to what they cannot remedy Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ is not monstrous It is added This is that some say Obj. 1. That they acknowledge another Head besides Christ cannot indeed be denied but the Headship owned and acknowledged by them is an Headship only under Christ. To which we answer Answ. 1. But this Headship is either of Christs appointment or 't is not if it be let it be shewn where it was instituted by him and as we said this controversie is at an end if it be not the assertion of such an Headship even in subordination to Christ over his Churches as such hinders not but persons owning submitting thereunto are guilty of denying the Kingly Office of Christ. 2. The Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other 3. 'T is not so as is pretended they own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a Law-making and Law-giving power touching institutions of Worship that never came into his heart are flatly against his appointments as hath been proved 4. One Head in subordination to another doth as really make the Body a Monster as two Heads conjoined Answ. 1. The term Head of the Church is not used in the Oath of Supremacy but Supreme Governour and this is agreeable to Scripture Rom. 13.1 1 Tim. 2.2 1 Pet. 2.13 and how out of these and other Scriptures his Government is proved in that sense in which it is asserted by the Ministers is shewed by me in my Book of the serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings
I must confess that however he thinks that by a serious observation of the characters which are given in the Scriptures by the Holy Ghost it will be made exceeding perspicuous and evident yet to my understanding he hath made neither of his charges perspicuous or evident in any degree For 1. His charge is against all the present Ministers of England and therefore his proof should have been of that which all even the best of them are guilty of taken from that which they all unanimously agree in and practice and not from things which may perhaps be personally objected against some but not against the whole order 2. The Characters which he gives should have been such as are convertible so as that it may be truly said all that have these Characters are false Prophets and false Priests and all false Prophets and false Priests have them 3. He should have told us whether each of these is convertible or all of them if not which they might have and not be false Prophets 4. His proof being of matter of fact should have better testimony then his own assertion or interrogations that may be denied 5. His Characters are such as perhaps the Ministers may tell him Physitian heal thy self Novimus qui te We can prove if not the same yet as bad Characters or properties of false Prophets or false Priests in those you allow to be heard even in your Instituted Churches though we rake not up out of the ashes what was charged on the Brownists of old or of late by Edwards Bailey and others on the Independents 6. That which is the chief Character of a false Prophet 2 Pet 2.1 and other passages before recited the bringing in damnable Heresies denying the Lord that bought them is wholly omitted without which what else he chargeth them with will be insufficient to prove them false Prophets or to warrant the refusal of hearing them But will occasion the Ministers to charge him with the Schism of Donatists of confining the Church and Ministry to their party and if these things be done with a factious unquiet spirit as they take them to be tending to hinder the good of souls in not embracing their Ministry and the peace of both Church and State with a fury like that of the Circumcellions or at least an humour of reviling or uncharitable censuring But whatever were the Authors motives I shall examine them as they are presented because this argument if it were made good is instar omnium and the only genuine reason why the present Ministers should not be heard For the first I grant that Jerem. 23 21. is a signal character of a false Prophet and 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 and that this exactly accords with what is asserted by the Apostle Rom. 10.15 But I deny 1. That by the sending here is meant the mediate regular outward calling 2. That the regular outward mediate calling is only from a rightly constituted Church of Christ in his sense that is after the Congregational way or by succession from the Church in the wilderness that is such as have been separated from the Church of Rome after its Apostasie 3. That either an immediate or such a mediate mission are of the essence of a lawful Minister 4. That any of these can any way be deduced from Jer. 23.21 or Rom. 10.15 5. I say it is contrary to his own grant ch 2. to make an outward mission of the essence of a lawful Minister sith he expresly allows gifted Brethren who have not such mission to Preach and to be heard As for inward immediate calling he is no judge of it and it may be as well acknowledged in the Ministers as in his Gifted Brethren As for the Texts it is clear from the text it self that their running before they were sent was in that they Preached in Gods name what he did not command or deliver to them so that their false Prophecying was not for defect of outward calling but for their taking upon them to deliver that message as from God which they received not from him Which the words plainly shew Jer. 23.21.22 I have not sent these Prophets yet they ran which is explained by the next words I have not spoken to them yet they Prophesied and in the next verse But if they had stood in my counsel and had caused my people to hear my words then they c. where their not being sent of God is expressed by Gods not speaking to them their not standing in his Counsel making his people to hear words which were not his termed after v. 25. Prophecying lies in his name v. 26. Prophets of the deceit of their own heart ver 30. stealing his words every one from his neighbour ver 32. prophecying false dreams ver 36. perverting the words of the living God All which passages and the whole Chapter shew that their running when God sent them not was not in that they had not an outward calling but in that they prophesied that as from God which they had not from him but was of their own invention lies perverting Gods word and that this is meant by not sending is manifest in that ver 32. these are put as equipollent I sent them not nor commanded them and v. 38. I have sent unto you saying ye shall not say the burden of the Lord where sending is expressed to be saying what they should not speak Which might be further proved out of Jerem. 14.14 and the plain words Jerem. 28.9 The Prophet which prophesieth of peace when the word of the Prophet shall come to pass then shall the Prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent him Whence it is plain that the mission of God is known by the word delivered which if it be according to Gods minde a person cannot be judged a false Prophet nor without mission from him Nor can the sending Rom. 10.15 be otherwise meant For the words imply a person cannot preach except he be sent But this is not true of mediate outward calling for those that were scattered went every where preaching the word Acts 8.4 and so do gifted brethren without such a calling But he is not sent who doth preach another Gospel and he is sent who doth preach the Gospel as the words following intimate How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace and bring glad tidings of good things Which I would not have understood as if an outward regular calling were not necessary for him that takes on him the publick function of preaching or that every one were to be permitted to do so that did intrude into it But that the speaking of Gods word whether in private or publick is with such a mission as acquits him that preacheth it from being a false Prophet and the hearer from
it is put in the Plural number as the Churches of Asia Galatia Judaea In the Evangelists History of the doings sufferings and sayings of our Lord Christ I find the Word Church used but in two places Mat. 16.18 and 18.17 Of the extent and meaning of both which Texts there is so much controversie not only between the Protestants and Papists but also among the Protestants themselves of different persuasions about Church Government that it would require a Treatise by it self to make a thorough discussion of those two Texts in order to the clearing of the Controversies that are started about them That Mat. 16.18 is undoubtedly meant of the Christian Church but whether Oecumenical visible or invisible or indefinite or topical is doubted It is without any proof appropriated to the Church of Rome or any particular Church as ordered under this or that peculiar form of Government but is to be taken for the number of Believers in Christ whether of Jews or Gentiles more or fewer abstractively from any political considerations and such external adjuncts and denominations as whereby usually Churches are in common speeches diversified In the other place Mat. 18.17 in as much as it is not said tell my Church but tell the Church and the term thy brother may as well be meant of a Brother as by birth or proselytism adjoyned to the Jews as St. Paul calls the Jews by birth his brethren kinsmen according to the flesh Rom. 9.3 in which sense it may seem to be taken in that place Mat. 5.23 24. which is a precept like to this for the reconciling of particular differences and righting of wrongs and the expression let him be to thee as a Heathen seems to intimate as of a Brother in Christian profession it may not without reason be doubted whether by the Church there be meant the Christian Church or an Assembly of the Jews in their Synedrium whether greater or lesser and if it be extended as a direction to Christian Brethren whether it be meant of their Assembly under an Ecclesiastical Consideration or Political that is the Christian Magistrate Institution of a Church by Preception or Command I find not neither Christ nor his Apostles that I know have given us any rule or law of bounding modelling or numbring Churches There is a precept Heb. 10.25 that Christians should not forsake the assembling of themselves together as the manner of some was But none about the defining how many should go to a Church or be accounted to belong to one Church no determination by any precept concerning Members belonging to a Church whether they should be fixed to one Meeting or ambulatory and moveable sometimes belonging to one Assembly sometimes to another of the same profession Nor do we find any Institution of Churches whether they ought to be Domestick Congregational Parochial Classiâ—al Diocesan Provincial Patriarchical or Oecumenical The ordering of such distinctions Christ and his Apostles so far as I deprehend have left to Divine Providence and Humane Prudence allowing more or fewer to a Church as the imes will permit the increase or diminution of Believers should be as Pastors may be had and their Partitions and Meetings be convenient for their edification and government It is true the Romanists would infer from Christs promise to Peter Mat. 16.18 Upon this Rock will I build my Church that St. Peter and after hâ—m the Bishop of Rome was made universal Bishop But that by Christs Church is meant the universal Church and by Christs building it is meant constituting an universal Bishop is an assertion without proof In some of the Ancients the Bishops of Rome have been stiled Oecumenical but so also have other Patriarchs We believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church but so denominated from their common confession or the same Faith not from union to and subjection under one visible Church head Mr. Paul Bayne as I remember long since disputed against Diocesan Churches for Parochial and in the Assembly at Westminster the dissenters against this proposition that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial government from such distinction of Churches as the New Testament yields But the Arguments seem not to me to be cogent they declaring only what was done de facto not what was necessary to be done de jure That Text Mat. 18.17 is much urged by sundry sorts of Pleaders for their several wayes of Church-government But it is uncertain whether by Brother and Church be meant Christian Believers and the Christian Church and if Christian Believers and Church be meant whether the Church be meant of the Christian Civil Judicatory or Ecclesiastical Consistory or Congregational Assembly of Believers of all ranks or some select Arbitrators that of which the Church is to have cognizance being there no other than the sin of one Brother against another which v. 21 22. Luk. 17 3 4. shew to be meant only of private trespasses or injuries done by one to another who might remit or forgive them nor is any other act ascribed to the Church than an admonition to the injurious Brother to do right to him whom he hath wronged whereupon it is then allowed or appointed upon non-satisfaction to him or disobedience to the Church without any other juridical sentence mentioned that he that is thus disobedient should be to him that complained as a Heathen or Publican with whom the Jews would not have familiarity Nothing is said of being such to the Church or by vertue of its sentence juridical or being excluded à sacris which we are sure the Publicans were not Luk. 18.10 These things seem to me to evince that neither is here that instituted Church which the Assertors of Congregational Churches and Church-government urge as the only Churches and Church-government of the New Testament and inculcate as the pattern in the Mount and any other way to be as the setting of mans posts by Gods posts and separate from a National Church as a humane Invention Nor is here that Church-government instituted which they make the only Government appointed by Christ that the Congregation or the major part are to cast out exclude from Communion in Holy things in every Church though but of seven or eight every member that sins and will not obey the monition of the rest of the Congregation These things being premised I answer to the Questions in the first Querie fore-mentioned 1. That it is granted That since the Unchurching of the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath not yet that we know of so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his We say that Christ hath redeemed us to God by his bloud out of every Kindred and Tongue and People and Nation and hath made us unto our God Kings and Priests Revel 5.9 10. We own no Church visible now but of Believers by their own personal profession We approve the 19. Article of
the Church of England that the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly administred according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same The addition in the Confession of Faith of the Assembly Ch. 25. Art 2. that the visible Church universal under the Gospel consists of all those throughout the World that profess the true Religion and of their Children is not found in the Writings of the New Testament and those Texts that are alledged for it Ezek. 16.20 21. Rom. 11.16 Gen. 3.15 Gen. 17.7 if they were pertinent would as well prove a whole Nation to be Gods visible Church yea all mankind descended from Eve as the visible Church to consist of the children of them that profess the true Religion And the same may be said of them that assert an Ordinance of Infants visible Church-membership unrepealed that alledge Mat. 28.19 as proving Christs appointing Nations as such to be baptized that alledge the Jewish Proselytism as a pattern to us How far this Quaerist agrees with these may be discerned by other passages If he concur with those of the Congregational way about Church-members and their proof from the Covenant to Abraham Gen. 17.7 as made to his natural seed and so to all Believers natural seed I see not how he can avoid the asserting of a National Church like the Jewish which I grant is not agreeable to the Gospel according to which the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men as the definition of the Church of England Art 19. expresseth it and hath been fully proved by me in the third part of my Review Sect. 52. c. 2. In answer to the Question Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomy of the Gospel I say that though there be no National Church so as that the whole Nation and every member of the Nation be to be accounted of the visible Church of Christ by vertue of their Generation or Proselytism and such Covenant as was made to Abraham concerning his natural seed or to Israel at Mount Sinai or elsewhere yet the whole number of Believers of a Nation may by reason of their common profession be called a National Church as well as the whole Body of men throughout the World professing the faith of the Gospel and obedience to God by Christ according unto it not destroying their own profession by any errours everting the foundation or unholiness of Conversation are and may be called the visible Catholick Church of Christ as the Congregational men speak in their Declarat ch 20. Wherefore it is no more against the Gospel to term the Believers of England or Scotland the Church of England or Scotland than it is to term the Believers throughout the World the Catholick Church nor is it more unfit for us to term our selves Members of the Church of England in this respect than to term our selves Members of the Catholick Church nor is there need to shew any institution of the Lord more for the one than for the other Nor is there need to alledge Isa. 49.20 or Isa. 66.8 for such an Institution Nevertheless that the Prophesie Isa 49.23 Kings shall be your Nuâ—sing Fathers c. waits the time of its accomplishment is said with more Confidence than Evidence Many learned Interpreters think otherwise among whom Mr. Gataker in my judgment inferiour to none in his Exposition of Holy Scripture hath these words Annot. on Isa. 49.23 And Kings shall be thy Nursing Fathers and Queens thy Nursing Mothers fulfilled in those Persian Potentates Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahaâ—uerus with the Queens also of some of them that patronised and protected Gods people and promoted Gods work with them Ezra 1.1 4. and 63.12 and 7.12 26. Neh. 2.6 8. Esth. 8.3 8. and much more in other Emperours and Kings together with their Queens as Constantine Theodosius and the like who both embraced the Christian faith themselves and maintained the profession of it Of some whereof see Rev. 17.12 16 17. And Mr. Mede on Rev. 16.17 hath these words For truly out of the same ten horns or Kings they shall be who at length shall hate the Whore whom they have so long born which partly we perceive to be fulfilled shall make her desolate and naked shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire Nor is it to be denied without ingratitude to God and Men that Kings and Queens since the rise of Antichrist though many of them made drunk by the Whores intoxicating cup have been cruel Butcherers of the Saints both before the Reformation and since even in our dayes have been nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers to the Church of Christ and that a National Church in the sense fore-mentioned hath been the result of its accomplishment and we hope in more ample manner will be the result of its fuller accomplishment As for the Text Isa. 66.8 that it is a prophesie expresly relating to the Jews and their miraculous conversion is not certain Mr. Gataker in his Annot. on Isa. 66.8 hath these words The most Interpreters both Jew and Christian understand these words of the strange sudden and unexpected delivery of the remainders of Gods people out of the Babylonian bondage by Cyrus Howbeit divers Interpreters understand them of the restitution and restauration of the Church under the Ministry of the Gospel when so many thousands were so soon and so suddenly converted without any great labour or pains-taking about them of those by whom they were converted Act. 2.41 4.4 and both these Expositions conceived as subordinate the one to the other may very well be admitted And therefore if the Author hear it not pleaded in this matter yet he may find another Exposition than that which he imagines that it expresly relates to a future miraculous Conversion of the Jews However if it did sith it is said Rom. 11.25 26. When the fullness of the Gentiles is come in all Israel shall be saved he might find something for a National Church in that Prophesie Isa. 66.8 As for those words in his Parenthesis that the assertion of a National Church of the institution of Christ is wholly destructive of Gospel administrations they are said with no more truth than proof though we should say a National Church in respect of its Government or Officers is of the Institution of Christ. For suppose it were asserted that Christ had instituted Patriarchs or Arch-bishops and Bishops and the Government of the Church of England or Scotland under them yet this might be without total destruction of Gospel Administrations The preaching of the Gospel administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper with other administrations of Christian Worship and Discipline have been and may be continued even where Archbishops and Bishops have been over a National Church as instituted by Christ. But let us attend his motions thus he goes
making good their ground herein who sees not that their Plea hitherto impleaded sinks of it self Sith I neither plead for the Constitutions of the Church of England in particular nor is it my supposition that only the Constitutions of a constituted Church of Christ bind in things of Divine Worship and Church Rule and therefore my Answer and position need not sink for want of making good this plea. And accordingly might put him off to others to answer his impertinent questions What is it then they mean by the Church whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are without disputing to subject to is it the National Church of England But where find they any National Church of the Institution of Christ in the Oeconomie of the Gospel How prove they that the Church of England is so Nevertheless I may say I know not any that hold concerning the Church of England that its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper opinions are to be subjected to without dispute though the Romanists hold it of the Church of Râ—me and for a National Church I refer him to what is before in answer to his Preface sect 15. But there are more questions behind Yet should this also be granted where are the Constitutions and Laws of this Church that we may pay the homage to them as is meet Which Question he might answer himself who in this Chapter cites so many of the Canons of the Church of England But he yet enquires When was it assembled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place together in its several members freely to debate 1 Cor. 11.20 and 14 23. and in the Margin Maccovius in loc com append de Adi p. 861. Things indifferent he tells you ought not to be introduced into the Church but by the common consent thereof according to Acts 15. determine what Laws and Constitutions were fit to be observed by them To which I answer The Church of England was assembled at London Anno 1603. in its several members by deputation freely to debate things as was the usage in the Synods of ancient and later times and even in New England at Cambridge there about the Antinomian opinions in Mr. Welds History in England in the Assembly at Westminster of the Congregational Churches by their Elders and Messengers in their Meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. which kind of Meeting must be allowed as the Meeting of the whole Church which they represent there being no other way in which orderly many particular Churches throughout a Nation can convene and debate freely either points of Doctrine or Discipline than by such Deputies and therefore as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod Nor is there any thing against this in 1 Cor. 11.20 or 1 Cor. 14.23 unless it be supposed that all those must meet to debate matters of Doctrine and Discipline who did then meet for worship which is not to be said For then in such things women also must have a voice contrary to the Apostles resolution 1 Cor. 14.34 and the practice of all the Churches As for Act. 15. the Synod was about a point of Doctrine and though it be said ver 22. that it pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send some to Antioch yet the whole Church is not likely to be meant of every particular member but as Acts 6.2 5. Acts 21.20 22. and elsewhere by the multitude or whole Church is meant a great part or indefinite number However those from Antioch mentioned Acts 15.2 were not many and therefore if that Synod be a pattern for after times yet it cannot be a rule in respect of the number of persons convening when Churches are so increased or so far distant one from another as that they cannot commodiously meet in their multitudes or debate orderly but must of necessity act by Deputies and their Constitutions are to be taken as the Constitutions of the whole Church for whom they appear But this Author excepts If it be said that this is not requisite it is enough that it be assembled in its several Officers or such as shall be chosen by their Officers whose laws every member is bound to be obedient to We answer But these Officers are the Church or they are not if they are not as there is nothing more sure I owe no subjection to their Laws or Constitutions it being pleaded that 't is the Church that hath only power in this matter if they are the Church let them by one Scripture prove they are so or where the true Officers of a true Church are so called and as Nonius saith out of Nâ—vius to them Dum vivebo fidelis ero Yet except this also be yielded them there is nothing of moment in the Objection produced Answ. The Objection as it is by me made is not the Plea as here is supposed The power in this matter is by me ascribed to Rulers and Texts requiring obedience to them have been produced and notwithstanding this Authors exceptions there is something of moment in the Objection and the speech is not made good That the present Ministers of England submit own and subscribe to Laws and Constitutions that are not in any sense of Christ revealing nor if it were doth it follow Therefore they oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. Sect. 6. It 's not proved that the Ministers of England own Constitutions contrary to the revelation of Christ. He goes on thus But this is not all 2ly The present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Laws Constitutions and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ whence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ may rationally be concluded This also by the induction of a few particular instances will be evinced beyond exception Answ. Four things are here undertaken 1. That the particular instances stand by Laws and Constitutions 2. That these Laws Constitutions and Ordinances are contrary to the revelation of Christ. 3. That the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to them 4. That from thence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ may rationally be concluded In which how he hath failed will be apparent by the view of what he alledgeth They own saith he and acknowledge 1. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself which is contrary to 1 Pet. 5.3 1 Cor. 12.5 Ephes. 4.5 Heb. 3.1 Luke 22.25 26. Answ. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England but not in the sense in which Christ is called the chief Shepherd 1 Pet. 5.4 or the same Lord 1 Cor. 12.5 or one Lord Ephes. 4.5 or the Apostle and High Priest of our prosession Heb. 3.1 or Lordship is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3 Luke 22.25 26. they are
not acknowledged Arch-Bishops over the whole Church as the Pope but in their own Province nor are they termed Arch-Bishops as if other Bishops had their authority from them as the Pope claims but they only have a Primacy or Precedency with some other Prerogatives by that title Nor are they or other Bishops made Lords as Christ over the whole Church or have such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3 Luke 22.25 26. and is usurped by Popish Bishops but are Lords only by the Kings Grant as is said before in Answer to Chap. 3. Sect. 5 6. not in the Church of Christ but in the Kingdom and Parliament and therefore this acknowledgement is not contrary to the revelation of Christ there being no contrariety or contradiction unless there were an opposition in the same respect as Logicians determine Christ is said 1 Tim. 6.15 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only Dynasta or Potentate and yet without contrariety or contradiction the Eunuch Acts 8.27 is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dynasta or Potentate as in the reading in the margin of our translation But were there contrariety yet it is not shewed that what is acknowledged is a Law Constitution or Ordinance which do usually determine not what may be but what shall and must be nor that Ministers own it by subscription 2. That men may and ought to be made Ministers only by these Lord-Bishops which is contrary to Heb. 5.4 John 10.1 7. and 13.20 and 14.6 Act. 14.23 with 6.3 5. Answ. It is true it is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England that men may be made Ministers by these Lord-Bishops but not that they may and ought to be made Ministers only by these Lord-Bishops sith Ministers are allowed who are made by Suffragan Bishops who are not Lords and for the Churches Reformed of Foreigners dwelling in England Ministers made by Presbyters only But this is not a Law Constitution or Ordinance to which Ministers subscribe nor if they did is there any contrariety therein to the revelation of Christ. Heb. 5.4 it is said And no man taketh this honour that is of being High-Priest unto himself but he that is called of God as Aaron But this is impertinently alledged being not spoken of the Gospel Ministery but of the Priesthood of the Law and the High-Priest and of his Calling by God immediately and therefore if that which the Ministers acknowledge be proved contrary to the revelation of Christ by this text the making of Mâ—nisters in Congregational Churches by their Eldership is alike contrary sith they are not called of God as Aaron Of the impertinency of John 10.1 7. enough is said before in the Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Joh. 13.20 He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me is no more contrary to Bishops Ordination than to Presbyters John 14.6 speaks not at all of making Ministers but of the way whereby Christians have access to God Of Acts 14.23 and 6.3 5. enough hath been said in Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. 3. That Prelates their Chancellors and Officers have power from Christ to cast out of the Church of God contrary to Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 Answ. That there is a Law Ordinance or Constitution of this to which Ministers subscribe I finde noâ— Of the texts Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 enough hath been said in Answer to the Preface Sect. 15. to Chap. 4. Sect. 5. whence the impertinency of the alledging these texts may appear 4. That the Office of Suffragans Deans Canons Petty-Canons Prebendaries Coiristers Organists Archdeacons Commissaries Officials Parsons Vicars and Curates are lawful and necessary to be had in the Church evidently contrary to 1 Cor. 12 18 28. Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 The Officers instituted by Christ are sufficient for the edification and perfecting of the Saints till they all come unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ ver 12 13. in what sense the forementioned being not one of them of the institution of Christ may be owned as lawful or necessary without an high contempt of the Wisdom and Soveraignty of Christ cannot by such dull persons as my self he conjectured That any others see them any way useful to the Church of Christ may be imputed to such a sharp-sightedness as was that of Caius Caligula to whom when he enquired of Vitellius whether he saw him not imbracing the Moon 't was answered Solis Domine vobis-diis licet se invicem videre Answ. Where this imagined Law Ordinance or Constitution is or when and how the present Ministers do own acknowledge submit and subscribe to it as this Author suggests is not here shewed by him nor do I know where to finde it Oâ— the Office of so many of these as are ordained Presbyters or Priests as the term is in the English Liturgy enough hath been said in answering the 3 Chapter Sect. 3 5. c. that though their names are various yet their Office is the same with some of those who are of Christ 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 and consequently lawful and necessary the rest are not reckoned among the Orders of Ministry in the Church but counted Services which are acknowledged not necessary and whether they be useful or not it matters not in respect of the present enquiry if there be no Law Constitution or Ordinance to make them lawful and necessary to be had in the Church which the Ministers subscribe to as I think there is not 5. That the Office â—f Deacons in the Church is to be imployed in publick praying administration of Baptism and preaching if licensed by the Bishop thereunto contrary to Act. 6.2 Ephes. 4.11 Answ. That at first the institution of Deacons was to serve tables Acts 6.2 not to preach the word of God yet Steven and Philip being imployed in Preaching and Philip in Baptizing it is not contrary to Christs revelation in those texts or any other that they should be imployed in those works 6. That the Ordinance of breaking Bread or the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be administred to one alone as to a sick man ready to die which is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance 1 Cor. 10.16 and 11.33 Mat. 26.26 Act. 2.42 and 20.7 Answ. The Communion is in time of infectious diseases allowed to be administred to one only besides the Minister which whether it be fit to be done is left to the Minister That it is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance is not easily proved 1 Cor. 10.16 A Communion is proved in that Sacrament but ver 17. and 1 Cor. 12.13 rather proves the Communion to be therein with all believers throughout the world though absent than only with the present partakers and if so though but two joyn the Minister and the sick man the Communion there meant is held with all Christians the meaning and
Supremacy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions and if the Church as the Church be comprised under every soul Rom. 13.1 they are Governours of the Church as the Church that is as they are a Company of mâ—n that profess Faith in Christ. Not as if we acknowledged that Kings had a lawful power to prescribe another Faith or Worship besides Christs but as Physitians are said to be subject to the King as Physitians because he can prescribe rules with penalties in the use of that Art they practise according to Hippocrates his Aphorisms so the King is Governour over the Church as such by prescribing rules about the profession and exercise of that Faith and Worship they learn only from Christ in things undetermined by him and serving for the ends which they are to aim at Nor do I perceive that in so doing any more iâ— usurped by them than is ascribed by this Author unto the Church from Mat. 18.17 18. mistaken by him and therefore owning such a power under Christ as given to the Church is as much a denial of Christs Kingly Office as when it is given to the King yea it is more absurd to ascribe such a power to the Church over the Church as such than to ascribe it to the King it being a confounding of Governours and Governed Head and Body which were monstrous 2. Though I deny not that the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is pretended to be under Christ and the Pope terms himself Vicar of Christ yet it is in the foregoing Section shewed that they usurp a power not only equal but in some respects rather superiour to Christs in their dispensing with the keeping of lawful Oaths and allowing of incestuous Marriages none of which is claimed by those whom the Ministers acknowledge as Heads besides Christ and therefore it is false that the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other than what the Ministers own 3. His proofs have been examined before and shewed defective 4. The terms Head and Body being used only metaphorically there 's no more monstrosity in making a Head under a Head than in making a Governour under a Governour used by St. Peter 1 Epist 2.13 14. or making more Fathers of the Church one under another Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel He ends this Chapter thus If it be said Object 2. That the Kings of Israel were the Heads successively of the then Church and therefore a visible Headship over the Churches of Christ in the New Testament is lawful We answer 1. That betwixt the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel there is a vast disproportion many things were lawful in that day which to do or subject to now were no less than a denial of Christ come in the flesh 2. The Kings of Israel were types of Christ. 3. That the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church is false God was its alone Head and King Hence their Historian saith their Government was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when they would needs chuse a King God said they rejected him to whom even as to their political Head a Sicle was paid yearly as a Tribute called The Sicle of the Sanctuary True indeed as they were a political Body they had visible Political Governours who when they ceased their Policy was at an end but that these had any Headship over them to make any Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship will never be proved Answ. 1. That there is any such disproportion between the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel as makes the same power which the Kings of Israel exercised lawfully to be now unlawful to the Kings of England is falsely and vainly asserted sith there is nothing therein ceremonial and temporary peculiar to the Jewish Oeconomy as appears in that all Nations have ascribed to their chief Rulers dominion about things sacred as is proved by me in the Assertion of the fifth Proposition in my Book of the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy from that which is ascribed to Cyrus Isa. 44.28 and 45.1 to the King of Niniveh Jon. 3.7 8. and others Ezra 6.7 c. and 7.13 c. Dan. 3.29 6.26 and that Christianity alters not civil relations or Estates 1 Cor 7.24 Parents and Masters have the like power Ephes. 6.4 5. Gen. 35.2 4. which things are more fully vindicated by Mr. Selden in his first Book De Syned Hugo Grotius in his Book De Imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra and others 2. It is true that David is made a type of Christ but that all the Kings of Judah much less that all the Kings of Israel are made types of Christ or that Christ alone was to have that power which they used or that the Kingly Power used by them ceased upon the coming of Christ in the flesh are all most palpably false sith the Scriptures of the New Testament do plentifully assert the Dominion of Civil Powers and our Lord Christ himself and his Apostles yielded subjection to them 3. That the Church of Israel was different from the Kingdom or people of Israel is one of the Placita or proper opinions of those who would establish from that example an Ecclesiastical Independent Government in the Church distinct from the Civil Government of the State But neither the arguments of Mr. Gillespy in his Aarons Rod blossoming Book 1. c. 3. nor any other I have met with convince me that it was so Sure both David and Solomon and other Kings did exercise power over Ecclesiastical persons as in deposing Abiathar and in Ecclesiastical things about keeping the Passover 2 Chron. 29.30 30.2 and many other things which were approved by God being related in the holy Story without reproof as arguments of their integrity And therefore if the Kings of Israel were as it is said of Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 heads of the tribes of Israel they were also heads of the Church of Israel being Governours of the same persons whether of the tribe of Levi or of other tribes and about the same things to wit those of the Worship of God though they were not to meddle with the peculiar Ministry of the Priests and Levites It is true that God alone was the Head and King of the Church of Israel in some sense He was their sole supreme absolute King that had power Legislative to assign what Faith Worship Judicatories and what other things were necessary for that Congregation originally and of himself de jure communi of right common to all Nations as their Creatour and de jure speciali out of right peculiar to that people as being brought forth out of the Land of Egypt Lev. 25.55 and being joyned in Covenant with him were not to set up a King over them without his appointment and de facto he was actually their sole King till the people weary of Samuels
incense to Baal And from the expression of an Altar v 23. which among the Gentiles had an Image near it and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on v. 16. saith was not their Worshâ—ps or their Altars but their Idols that is their Deities themselves for so the word is used Wisd. 14.20 And on 2 Thes. 2 4. alledgeth Theophylact as interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 17.23 by their Idols and from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 22 applyed to this worship is collected that the unknown God was as a Daemor to whom they erected an Image or Pillar which they conceived their Deity present at which is rendred a standing Image in our translation or an Image of stone to which they did bow down forbidden Levit. 26.13 of which Ainsworth in his Annot. there may be seen So that upon this account the Athenians may be charged with Idolatry in that they in bowing down to or worshipping the unknown God did direct it to the Idol or Pillar which did represent him unto which also an Altar was dedicated But it s added Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist The minor or second Proposition viz. That the present Ministers of England worship the true God in another way than he hath said he will be worshipped in and is prescribed by him is that which is denied by some but the truth thereof we doubt not will to the unprejudiced Reader be beyond exception evident from the ensuing Demonstration viz. Those that worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book worship him in another way than that he hath said he will be worshipped in and is prescribed by him But the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book Therefore c. The minor or second Proposition cannot be denied their subscription before they are admitted to the Ministry together with their daily and constant practice are sufficient evidences thereof Answ. That unwary Readers may not be deceived by the ambiguity of the phrase here used it is to be considered That the way of Worship not prescribed by God may be either when the worship is to another thing besides or with God which alone proves Idolatry and in which sense the minor was denied and should have been proved Or by another way is meant another Ceremony or Rite in which the Worship of God is placed such as was the Pharisees washing their hands which may be Will-worship if to God only but not Idolatry and so if he could prove our Ministers guilty of this yet should they not be proved Idolaters any more than the Pharisees were with which neither Christ nor his Apostles do charge them But this Author doth noâ— so much as goe about to prove the minor denied in this sense But in a third sense to wit by another way of Worship than what God hath prescribed he understands another way of expression of worship in which the worship is not placed but is used only as an outward means for conveniency yet accounted alterable In which sense the minor is not denied But the major of his Argument is denied in either of these two later senses of the phrase and the minor in the two former in neither of which doth he goe about to prove it I add 1. That he doth vainly suppose God hath appointed or prescribed the particularities of the modes or way of his Worship in every of the sorts or kinds of worship he hath prescribed as particularly in Prayer that it must not in a pre-conceived and stinted form of words imposed by Rulers be performed to him but that it must by the Minister be done in a loose undetermined unpremeditate or unprescribed form of words by any man The which supposition is before shewed to be an errour in the Answer to the Preface sect 20. ch 1. sect 3. ch 4. sect 9. ch 5. sect 3 4 5 7. 2. In this sense in which he useth the phrase his Argument may be retorted upon himself Those that worship the true God in any other way that is form of expression than he hath said he will be worshipped in and is prescribed by him are Idolaters But they who pray in a loose undetermined unpremeditated or unprescribed form of words by man worship the true God in another way that is form of expression than he hath said he will be worshipped in and is prescribed by him Therefore they among whom thâ—s Author is one are Idolaters The major is his own the minor by his own grants stands firm till he can shew where God hath said He will be worshipped in and hath prescribed such a loose form of expression in Prayer which I yet find not What this Author hath said before is answered before Till he brings better proof though I will not pronounce him an Idolater yet I shall judge him to be guilty of superstition in counting that to be sin which God hath not made such and of usurpation of Gods Legislative power in Pharisee-like requiring observance of his own tradition as Gods command together with evil censoriousness rash judging and uncharitable separation But let us goe on Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his appointment As for the major Proposition saith he That to worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment 1. Let any shew when and where such a stinted form of service was appointed by Christ and this part of the controversie is at an end Sure we are there are not the least footsteps of such a way of worship to be found in the New Testament no not in the whole Book of God whatever is pretended by some touching Liturgies in the sense we are speaking amongst the people of the Jews No nor yet was there any such a way of worship thought of much less imposed in the first and purer times of the Gospel for several centuries of years after the dayes of Christ and his Apostles In the Epistles of the Church of Smyrna about the martyrdome of Polycarpus and of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons concerning their persecution in the Epistle of Clemens or the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth in the writings of Ignatius Justin Martyr Clemens Tertullian Origen Cyprian and their Contemporaries there is not only an utter silence of such a thing but assertions wholly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and opposite thereunto Tertullian sayes expresly Illuc suspicientes Christiani manibus expansis quia innocuius capite nudo quia non erubescimus denique sine monitore quia de pectore oramus Apol. cap. 30. The Christians in those days he tells us looking towards Heaven not on their Common-Prayer-Books with their hands spread abroad c. prayed to God without a monitor because from their hearts And in several places he â—estifies that they praised God in
solitary of which many are only ejaculatory without words And this is confirmed by the words Ephes 5 19. where the effect of being filled with the Spirit is the speaking to themselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs singing and making melody to the Lord in their heart Besides as all the directions Ephâ—s 6.13 14 15 16 17. are precepts of what each Christian should do by and for himself so is v. 18. and so if not solely yet chiefly meant of solitary Prayers to which words are not necessary and therefore praying in the Spirit is by the operation of the Spirit in the heart not by the Spirits immediate forming of words in the tongue And the same is to be said of Jude 20. Of 1 Cor. 14.15 I have spoken before in answer to ch 5. sect 7. 2. The ability to express petitions in words extemporary unpremeditated is termed the Spirit of Prayer as if it were in every one that hath the sanctifying Spirit of God and they only for so the alleging Rom. 8.9.26 for it in the 4 th Argument must inferr But who knows not by experience that many that have not the Spirit of God have yet this ability to admiration as is related by Camden Saravia the Author of the relation of the conspiracy concerning Hacket in Q Elizabeths time and many others And on the other side many whose holiness of life shewed they had the Spirit yet not this ability and therefore it is ill called the Spirit of Prayer whereby many unwary souls are ensnared with the opinion as if such as can express themselves fluently in words largely and with shew of affection were immediately moved by the Spirit and they distill thereby into many inconsiderate persons errours and evil principles Whereas it is acknowledged to be but an acquired ability with help of natural endowments and many times is proved to be but a counterfeit and deceitful practice Now then in answer to each of the particulars I say 1. That the Spirit is not quenched as is forbidden 1 Thes. 5.19 by a set Form of Prayer used by another and read out of a Book any otherwise than by a pronouncing without a Book a conceived Form the ability of another to conceive and utter for matter and words is as much limited by the one as by the other It is true when prejudice is against reading or the Forms read or the Reader huddles it over or delivers it coldly it much abates the affection of the hearer and so it is in saying over a conceived Prayer if there be a prejudice against the person or his delivery be dull and heavy And it is not to be denied that lively affectionate expressions with readiness of speech and apt emphatical words have much energy on hearers and so sometimes it is when a written Sermon or Prayer is well and pathetically pronounced So that the Form doth but lessen the affection by accident not necessarily and of it self and thus either when a stinted Form is pronounced by another or by the person praying it may be very incommodious to use it usually such Forms being read or said without heed or feeling Yet universally it is not so Nor is the quenching of the Spirit meant 1 Thes. 5.19 meant of the Spirit of Prayer more than any other exercise of godliness or gifts whether ordinary or extraordinary Nor is the quenching the Spirit the act of another but of him in whom the Spirit is quenched who either by his sinful life or by cares and riches and pleasures of this life and lusts of other things châ—kes the word of God which is the sword of the Spirit Ephes. 6.17 as our Saviour speaks Luke 8 14. and they bring no fruit to perfection unto which sense the following Exhortations of not despising prophecyings and proving all things v. 20 21. do incline me and so the sense is Quench not the operation of the Spirit by the preaching of the Word whether by embracing errours or by evil lusts Or if by the Spirit be meant the comforts or extraordinary gifts of it In any of these wayes the quenching is by the persons own act in whom the Spirit is quenched It is neither by any Interpreter I meet with or any shew of reason applyed to the extinguishing or slackning the ability of another to utter and conceive Prayers by publique use of a Liturgy which doth not any otherwise quench that ability than any other way of expression doth the ability of the hearer which must be stinted and so the Spirit of Prayer as this Author terms it be quenched by the speaker in all joynt-prayer unless it be allowed all to speak together contrary to 1 Cor. 14.27 Whence I conclude that this Text is most impertinent And though it be that some mens reading and in like sort some mens speaking without book some using of a set Form in publique and in private may by accident through the fault of the speaker hearer or user abate the fervency of spirit in solitary or joynt prayers yet it is not so necessarily or of it self and therefore not unlawful nor quenching the Spirit of Prayer nor a rendring useless the donation of the Spirit as a Spirit of Prayer unto the children of God as this Author speaks in his 2 d. Offer But in some cases a stinted Form is helpful both to the understanding memory affections utterance in prayer both publique and private as many holy Saints have found by experience To the 3 d. I say That the precept to Timothy of stirring up the gift of God which was in him by the putting on of Pauls hands 2 Tim. 1.6 cannot be understood of the ability to express himself in extemporary prayer but of his ability to preach the Gospel as 1 Tim. 4.14 is meant which he is encouraged to by the next words v. 7. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power of love and of a sound mind or as some read of castigation or reducing others to sâ—briety However it is impertinent to the purpose of the Author here it being not meant of exciting the gift of expression in prayer with others and yet if it were he that reads a Liturgy may stirr up the gift of expression at another time if he cannot when he reads As for the imprâ—ving of the talents Matth. 25.15.27 Luke 19.13.23 it is the duty of every Christian and not only of Ministers and if it be meant of using abilities in joynt-prayer every Christian must as he is able utter himself in prayer contrary to 1 Cor. 14.26 27. I conceive by comparing Matth. 25.29 30. with Matth 13.11 12. Mark 4.24 25 that the talent which is given to each is the knowledge or teaching of the Word of God or the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven which each person is to improve by bringing forth the fruits of it Matth 21.43 Or if it be meant of the Ministers gift it is to be understood of his ability to
preach the Gospel and the improving it by converting others to faith and obedience not of so mean a thing as an ability of conceiving and uttering Forms of prayer without book As for the 4 th thing offered The lawfulness of the Saints praying in a Form is neither because they have not the Spirit nor that having the Spirit he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God but because in such praying neither is any thing done forbidden by God nor any thing omitted thereby which God requires for the performing the duty of prayer The Spirit I grant is sufficient to help in our approaches to God and doth help Rom 8.15.26 But that it is done by enabling by immediate inspiration to utter matter of prayer for the benefit of others is not meant in those places And indeed such a mistake hath filled some with high conceit of themselves and others with admiration of such to their mutual perditions Whereas this is but a common gift or rather an acquired ability often used with cunning to deceive others of which there are many footsteps in the affected expressions otherwise which shew their pâ—aying is not from the Spirit of God but their own spirit But of the impertinency of this Text I have spoken before in answer to ch 5. sect 7. It follows Sect 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed are not made necessary essential parts of Woâ—ship Answ. The 〈◊〉 Pâ—oposition mâ—ant of making it doctrinally necessaâ—y by vertue of Gods appointment so as that the omission of it at any time when the worship is performed should be sin or using any other Form should make it not Gods worship or not acceptable to him might be granted But being understood of making a thing the condition of an action by vertue of the authority of Governours so as that at some time and place it is not to be done without it by persons that are their subjectâ— under a civil penalty the major is denied In which sense the use of the Liturgy is imposed which doth not make it any other than a circumstance of Divine worship not such an adjunct as is a necessary part thereof This Author granted before here sect 8. Circumstances in the worshâ—p of Christ atttending religious actions as actions without assignment of time and place no action to be managed by a community can be orderly performed by them Therefore if the Governours assign a time and place undetermined by God it is that which they may do lawfully and not requiring them as necessary by vertue of Gods institution nor of all but only of their own subjects they are made but circumstances not necessary parts of Divine worship So if for avoiding of inconvenience publique praying be forbidden in the night and in some places and it be commanded to be done at such hours of the day in such a place these hours and place are made no other than circumstances of the religious action no Religion is placed in them â—hey are not made parts of worship but adjuncts alterable as it may stand with conveniency There is the same reason of imposing a Liturgy for uniformity to prevent dissonancy or some other inconvenience which may be incident to some persons as of requiring Prayers without it If neither be determinatively instituted by Christ but commanded for conveniency they both remain circumstances â—ot necessary parts of Divine worship notwithstanding the imposition by Governours Sacrificing on the Altar at the Tabernacle and Temple was a part of the worship because commanded by God and so would the Liturgy be if it were commanded as that was But that the Liturgy is not so it appears from the words of the Preface to it The particular forms of Divine worship and thâ— rites appointed to be vsed therein being things in their own natuâ—e indifferent and alterable and so acknowledged it is but râ—asonable that upon weighty and important considerations according to the 〈◊〉 exigency of times and occasions such changes and alterations should be made therein as to thâ—se that are in place of Authority should from time to time seem either necessary or expedient Nor do I think it true That any considerable Minister of England would affirm the Common-Prayer Book to be an essential part of worship or make it such as this Author imputes to them nor in use of it is it alwayes so observed but that it gives place to preaching to reading Briefs for collections and some other occasions and yet if they did so strictly observe it this doth not prove they esteem it a necessary essential part of worship by vertue of Gods command but that they conceive they ought to obey their Governours Laws not judging others who use it not But whatever be the judgement or practice of the present Ministers yet the words of the Preface which are more to be regarded than any particular Ministers opinion whereof some it s confess'd have too much magnified it do shew that the imposition makes it not such as this Author chargeth on them And this is enough to acquit the use of it from Idolatry even in this Authors own sense sith they do not place the worship of God in the Form but in the Kind of worship commanded by God and so the minor of his Argument is denied For though the Form of the Common-Prayer Book be not prescribed yet the way of worship therein that is Prayer Praises the Lords Supper are worship preâ—cribed by God If the Author mean by way of wor-ship the forms and modes the way of worship by Preachers conceived or extemporary prayers this Authors form of preaching and other worship is not prescribed by God and the Separatists are Idolaters as well as the Ministers of England and so his Argument is retorted as before He goes on thus Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God by an Office-power and modes of Idolaters may be without Idolatry To which we add Argument 2. Those who act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the modes and rites of Idolaters are guilty of the sin of Idolatry But the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition oâ—câ— abusâ—d to Idolatry with the modes and rites of Idolaters Therefore The major or first Proposition carrying a brightness along with it sufficient to lead any one into the belief of the truth thereof one would think may be taken for granted Two things are asserted therein 1. That such as act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters are themselves such at least in respect of that their Office-power so received by them That Jeroboams Priests were all of them Idolaters we suppose will not be denied Supposing some or more to
Saints to do But the hearing of the present Ministers of England is that the doing whereof doth cast contempt upon the wayes and institutions some one or more of them of our Lord Jesus and hardens persons in a false way of worship and rebellion against him Therefore The major is laid down in such full clear and evident expressions bottom'd upon Scripture and right reason as carry a brightness with them that none but such as are desperately and judiciously blinded will or can gainsay The minor or second Proposition viz That the hearing of the present Ministers of England is the doing of that which doth cast contempt upon the wayes and institutions of our Lord Jesus and hardens persons in a false way of worship and rebellion against him is by our dissenting Brethren gainsaid Answ. If the major be understood of real and not only imaginary and in the opinion of men of it self per se and not by accident through the prejudice or ill disposition of some persons casting contempt and hardning the major is granted and the minor denied otherwise it is not granted But let us attend the proof of the minor Three things saith he are therein asserted 1. That our hearing these persons is that which casts contempt upon the wayes and institutions of Christ. 2ly That it hardens persons in a false way of worship 3ly That it hardens and encourages souls in their rebellion against the Lord. As for the first A brief observation of some of the institutions of Christ clearly bottom'd upon the Scripture will abundantly evince its original to be from God First then That Separation from the world and men of the world from all wayes of false worship and the inventions of men thereabout untill the Saints of the most High be apparently a people dwelling alone and not reckoned among the Nations however it be decryed and found harsh in the ears of carnal men is one grand institution a man may run and read in the following Scriptures Numb 23.9 Joh. 15.9 2 Cor. 6.14 15 17 19. Ephes. 5.8 11. 2 Tim 3.5 Hos. 4 15. Revel 18.4 Prov. 4.7 Nor is it denied by some of our conforming Brethren Answ. By the world and men of the world in opposition to the Saints of the most High are understood such professed Christians as are not visible Saints able to give such an account of their conversion and proof of their integrity as the Elders and members of a gathered Church in the Congregational way are satisfied with to be sufficient for their admission into their Church Or that enter not into Church covenant explicite or implicite And dwelling alone is meant either of joyning alone with such a Church in hearing praying and Sacraments or of dwelling alone in their habitations Not being reckoned among the Nations may be understood either of not being members of a national or parochial Chureh or not under a national Government whether Ecclesiastical or Civil or not taking upon them anâ— Offices or employments in either such Church or Common-wealth In none of these senses is the Proposition proved by any of the Texts alleged concerning the first part of the separation from the world or men of the world but the Proposition is both false and dangerous The first Text Numb 23 9. is only a prophesie of Balaam concerning the people of Israel after the flesh that they should dwell alone and not be reckoned among the Nations to inferr thence any of his sorts of separation to be the institutions of Christ concerning the Christian Churches is without any shew of reason it might yield better proof for a national Church Christian against this Author if any institution of Christ concerning the Châ—istian Church visible could be thence deduced John 15.19 Christ saith to his Disciples If ye were of the world the world would love his own but because ye are not of the world but I have chosen you out of the world therefore the world hateth you And it is true that the Saints of the most High are not of the world that is that party that are opposite to Christ that hate him and the profession of his name and accordingly hate them that are for Christ as v. 18. shews but that by the world is meant a national or parochial church or national State Common wealth Kingdom City or House as such because of the mixture of good and bad is most false It is true that Christ chose the Apostles and other Christians out of the world by his calling by the Gospel and the work of his Spirit that they might not be united to the world in their enmity against him or his word but be a peculiar people to himself zealous of good works Not by any institution to separate themselves from other Christians by profession into a Congregational Church contra-distinct from national or parochial in the Episcopal or Presbyterian way of Discipline by an explicite or implicite Church covenant or into a plantation or body Politick or Oeconomick independent on any civil Government or Governours of the Nations 2 Cor. 6.14 15 17 19. or rather 18. for 18. is the last v. of that chapter hath been and so have Ephes. 5.8 11. Rev. 18.4 in the last Section of the Answer to the 8th chapter shewed to be impertinently alleged for proof of such a Separation as is here meant Nor is it proved 2 Tim. 3.5 but it is a precept for Timothy to turn away either in respect of arbitrary society or in respect of associating with such as are there described in the work of the ministry or other employment as wherein they would be either treacherous to him or a hinderance or a blot to him Hos 4.15 is only a precept unto Judah of not being Idolatrous as Israel Prov. 14.7 is a precept advising men in prudence That they go from the presence of a foolish man when they perceive not in him the lips of knowledge To allege Texts so farr from the proving of what they are brought for shews rather a mind willing to cheat honest and weak people than any regard to truth or honesty And as I said the position is false For it supposeth Christ to have instituted such a Separation as he hath told us in sundry parables shall not be till the end of the world Matth. 13.30 40 49. such as neither Christ in the seven Epistles to the seven churches of Asia nor St. Paul in that to the Corinthians or any other ever urged such as never was attempted but it was judged schismatical and proved unhappy in the conclusion And it is dangerous sith it puts persons upon withdrawing their subjection not only from Ecclesiastical rulers but also from civil and houshold Rulers that are counted the world or men of the world that they may be a people dwelling alone and not reckoned among the Nations which would overthrow also all States bodies politick and houshold government and is contrary to Rom. 13.1 1 Cor. 7.20 24. It is added
rejoyced in no way was the acting of Pilate or Herod or the Jewes to be abetted but to be abhorred though the Counsel of God was to be justified and extolled as was done Acts 4.24 c. Should the Pope send Jesuites to preach the Gospel and they should continue to preach it and no doctrine antievangelical I know no reason why the Saints might not attend on their Ministry To the 2 d. 3 d. and 4 th Answers I reply That the preaching of Christ in opposition to Paul makes it probable that they were not real Saints nor true Ministers in his sence such motives being contrary to that brotherly love which is in every real Saint 1 John 3.14 and that order of the Church by which is a lawfull mission which me thinks he should not conceive to have been in them that acted in a way of contention against St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles And for the Ministers of England I like better the words of Mr. Iohn Robinson in his Justification of the Separation p. 307. then these Authors words In the general I confess there is a proportion and so in that general and large sence wherein Mr. Bernard pag. 313. expounds the word sent or Apostle I do acknowledge many Ministers in England sent of God that is that it comes not to pass without the special providence and Ordination of God that such and such men should rise up and preach such and such truths for the furtherance of the Salvation of Gods elect in the places where they come They which preached Christ of envy and strife to add more afflictions to the Apostles bonds were in this respect sent of God and therefore it was that the Apostle joyed at their preaching How much more they that preach of a sincere mind though through ignorance or infirmity both their place and enterance into it be most unwarrantable And sure if they may in this sense be said to be sent of God it follows Saints may hear them which was to be proved It is added Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach warrants the hearing of them Object 4. The Ministers of England preach truth and is it not lawfull to hear truth preached We answer 1. That 't is lawfull to hear truth preached is readily granted but this must be done lawfully and in the way of Christs appointment 2. All that preach truth are not to be heard nor will our discenting brethren say they are For 1. There was never yet any Heretical preacher in the world but he preached some truth is it lawfull to hear such This will not be said 2. The Devil himself preached truth yet Christ forbids him and commands that he hold his peace 3. The Popish Priests preach truth yet who will say 't is lawfull to attend upon their Ministry But 3. As the present Ministers of England preach truth so 1. They preach it but by halves and dare not for fear of the L. Bishops inhibition preach any doctrine though never so clearly revealed in the Scriptures and owned by them as the truth of Christ he commands them not to meddle with 2. The main truths they preach at least many of them are contradicted in their practice They 'l tell you that the Lord Jesus is the great Prophet and King of his Church but how palpably this is contradicted by them in their practice conforming to institutions and laws that are not of his prescription who sees not This we have abundantly demonstrated 3. With the truth they preach they mingle errours directly contrary to the Scripture and the revelation of his will therein Instances of this kind have been already exhibited to which may be added many more we shall mention but a few 1. That the Ministry Worship and Government which Christ hath appointed to his Church is not to be received or joyned unto unless the Magistrates where they are reputed Christian do allow it 2. That the Apocryphal books which have in them errors 2 Mac. 12.44 45. 14.41 42. Eccles. 46.20 Wisd. 19.11 untruths 2 Esd. 14.21 22 23. 2 Mac. 2.4.8 Tob. 5.11 12 13. with 12.15 Judith 8.33 10.9 with v. 12. 11.6.12 13 14 15. 1 Mac. 9.3.18 with 2 Mac. 1.13 to 17. and 9.1.5.7.9.28.29 blasphemy Tobit 12.12.15 with Rom. 8.34 1 Tim. 2.5 Rev. 8.3.4 magick Tob. 6.6 7 8. 9.2.3 with 3.7 8. 11.10 11 13. with 2.9 10. and contradiction to the Canonical Scriptures Judith 9.2 3 4. compared with Gen. 49.5 6 7. Esther in the Apocrypha chap. 12.5 15.9 10. with Ester Canonical chap. 6.3 5.2 Eccles. 46.20 with Isa. 57. 2. may be used in the publick worship of God 3. That the most wicked and their seed may be compelled and received to be members of the Church 4. That Marriage may be forbidden at certain seasons as in Lent Advent Rogation-week c. 5. That Baptism is to be administred with a cross in the forehead and that as a symbolical sign 6. That though the most notorious obstinate offenders be partakers of the Lords Supper yet the people that joyn with them are not defiled thereby 7. That there may be Holy days appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist to the Apostles all Saints and Angels together also with Fasts on their Eves on Ember-days Fridays Saturdays so called heathenishly enough and Lent 8. That the Cope Surplice Tippit Rocket c. are meet and decent ornaments for the worship of God and Ministry of the Gospel 6. That the Book of Common-prayer is the true worship of God 10. That Christ descended into hell as if Christ descended into the place of the damned as the Papists hold 11. That Lord Bishops can give the holy Ghost and power to forgive and retain sins 12. That Altars Candles Organs c. are necessary and useful in the Church of God 13. That all children when baptized are regenerate and received by the Lord for his own children by adoption Common-prayer-book of publick Baptism Yea 14. That children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation and shall undoubtedly be saved So they profess in the Order of Conformation in the Common-prayer-book with much more that might be offered in this matter I reply 1. The grant That it is lawfull to hear truth preached is sufficient to prove it lawful to hear the present Ministers preach truth which he denies not they do unless he could prove it were contrary to the way of Christ's appointment to hear the truth from them 2. All that preach some truth are not to be heard yet all that preach the great truths of the Gospel notwithstanding some errours non-fundamental may be heard especially if the errours be seldom or never pressed on the hearers but left to them to examine and to be approved or disproved Heretical Preachers are not to be heard because they preach not the great truths of the Gospel but errours which overthrow the foundation so do the Popish Priests yet it were no sin to hear