common consent Which that it was observed by the Apopostles of Christ the sacred History testifies Acts 15. And this is the Opinion of the most famous Doctors of the Canon-Law saith Durandus De Sanct. Minist Lib. 1. c. 11. He saith more truly perhaps than he was aware That as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod and no otherwise Now we know that the meeting of a company of Knights Gentlemen at Westminster is not the Parliament the Representative of the Kingdom Their free Election by the Body of the People of the Nation renders them so In like manner the Convention of a company of Prelates and Priests make not a Synod by our Animadverters own Argument but their Election by the People to meet and sit in Council together as their Representees which the Synod so called at London One thousand six hundred and three nor any National Synod ever since had not the Choice of the People was never minded never was their consent required So that in the sence he takes the word Church which yet is forreign to the Scripture as we say in S. T. the Church of England was never yet concerned In what follows in this Section Mr. T. himself will acknowledge I am not further concerned Sect. 2. The present Ministers oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ whilst they own Laws contrary to the Revelation of Christ That they do thus evinced by the induction of particular instances Acts 8. 27. â— Tim. 6. 15. Jer. 51. 26. Luke 11. 2. Mat. 6. 7 8 9. Whether Christ there instituted a form of Prayer Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. Mark 14. 18 22 23. opened That Christ sate with his Disciples in the celebration of the Ordinance of breaking Bread evinced Of Kneeling The reason of its first institution It s opposition to 1 Thes 5. 22. manifested Of forbidding to Marry and commanding to abstain from Meats IN Sect. 6. Mr. T. proceeds to the examination of what is further produced in S. T. for the manifestation of the guilt of the present Ministers in their opposing the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ which we further prove because they own submit and subscribe to Laws Constitutions and Ordinances that are contrary to the Revelation of Christ This we prove by particular instances They own and acknowledge 1. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself Which is contrary to 1 Pet. 5. 3. 1 Cor. 12. 5. Ephes 4. 5. Heb. 3. 1. Luke 22. 22 25. 26. To which our Animadverter replies 1. They do not acknowledge them in opposition to these Scriptures Answ But that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. T. may be ashamed of such pitiful beggery He adds 2ly They do not acknowledge arch-Arch-Bishops over the whole Church as the Pope but in their own Province Answ This is not at all material the authority of arch-Arch-Bishops over a Province is as much against the Texts mentioned as over the whole Church 'T is not the extent of Authority Lordship that is therein condemned but the thing it self 3ly He further tells us They have no such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5. 3. Luke 22. 25 26. Answ 1. This is again to beg the thing in question 2ly We have proved the contrary He adds 4ly They are not Lords in the Church but in the Kingdom and Parliament Answ False and untrue I wish he speak not against knowledge in this matter 1. When invested into their Episcopal Sees they are stiled arch-Arch-Bishops of such a place or Province lord-Lord-Bishop of such a See 2. The Priests submit to them pray for them as their good Lords 3. They have Power Authority Precedency as such over the rest of the Clergy give forth Laws and Canons to rule and guide them to whom they promise obedience at their Ordination 4. They exercise jurisdiction authority over their respective Diocesses in their Ecclesiastical Courts and Consistories as such all evident Ensigns and Demonstrations of Lordly Dignities even in and over that which they call the Church That which he 5ly adds of the Eunuchs being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 8. 27. without contradiction to 1 Tim. 6. 15. where Christ is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frivolous 1. The Eunuch is not said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Potentate with respect to the Church of God over it he was not such but with respect to the Kingdom of Aethiopia where he was a Noble Man a Governor under Candace the Queen Our Bishops are Potentates in and over that which they call the Church of Christ 2. That any other besides Christ should exercise Lordship and Authority in the World is not interdicted as is their so doing in the Churches of Christ in the Scriptures mentioned He saith 5ly He hath not shewed that what is acknowledged is a Law Constitution or Ordinance nor the Ministers own it by subscription Answ True indeed I did not do so for I thought it needless to demonstrate that the Sun shines at noon-dayes Are not the Offices of Arch-Bishops Lord-Bishops Constitutions and Ordinances Have they not their Foundation and Establishment by Law Doth not Mr. T. know it Is he onely a stranger in our Israel Of the Truth of this there are not many in the Nation that are or can be ignorant That the Ministers own these whether by subscription or otherwise is not considerable Mr. T. deals injuriously whilst he suggests I say they own these with the rest of the particulars mentioned by subscription when I assert onely That they own submit and subscribe to i. some of them they manifest they own by Subscription others other wayes but they own submission to them all is too notorious to admit of a denyal They do so in their Ordination when they promise Canonical Obedience to them in their prayers for them subjection to their precepts from time to time transmitted to them which they dare not transgress 2ly That men may and ought to be made Ministers onely by these Lord-Bishops is we say in S. T. owned by the present Ministers which is contrary to Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1 7. 13. 20. Acts 14. 23. with 6. 3 5. What Mr. T. adjoyns hereunto touching Ordination by Suffâ—agan Bishops hath already been removed out of the way How much they own a Presbyterian Ordination of which he speaks many good men in the Nation feel and find Of these things we have already spoken That Ordination by Lord-Bishops is established by Law is known and that exclusively to any other without them Hereunto the Ministers subscribe Can. 36. The Scriptures instanc'd in prove this to be contrary to the Revelation of Christ Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1 7. 13. 20. manifestly evince That who-ever undertakes to be a Minister of the Lord in his Church must
and what is his satisfaction to the removal of the offence given to the Church 4. The Parisian Doctors say truly Ecclesiam nunquam c. The Church cannot be taken for one person nor be govern'd by one Of which the Learned Chamier gives his reason How can it be that the Bishop should be the Church according to whose Ecclesiastical Authority things should be determined Mat. 18. when a long time after the Bishop himself by humane authority had his original of which Ambrose complains And as soon as the Lord had said tell the Church he speaks in the plural number all along afterward Verily I say unto you Whatsoever Ye shall bind on Earth c. Whence it plainly appears that the Church is not taken for one person but for many congregated together Pol. Eccles Yea Sutcliffe when disputing against Bellarmine saith Christ did not constitute the chief Tribunal in the hands of Peter but of the Church for not those who refused to hear Peter but those who refused to hear the Church were to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans De Pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 5 6. Besides in matters of controversie Peter himself was subject to the Tribunal of the Church But a superiour cannot be judged by an inferiour If any controversie happened amongst the Apostles that could not be defined by particular persons but a Council of the Church was to be congregated This we see done Acts 15. Now one would think our present Bishops should not be so arrogant as to assume that power to themselves which when disputing with the Papists they will not allow to Peter 2dly In the judgment of our Brethren of the Presbyterian way Tell the Church is tell the Presbytery But they are I humbly conceive somewhat wide of the mark too My Reasons are 1. The Church is sometimes put for the Congregation as distinct from the Presbytery or Elders and Officers Acts 14. 23. 15. 22. never for these as distinct from the Congregation throughout the New-Testament 2. The Presbytery may be the party offending and then you must tell the Church that the Church offendeth i. e. go tell themselves But the Scripture is express that after private dealing with the offenders themselves upon non-amendment the Church as distinct from them is to be acquainted with it 3. What if the Presbytery themselves be offended whom shall they tell must they tell themselves If they are the Church they can go no further 4. Besides we find 1 Cor. 5. not the Presbytery alone but the whole Church concerned in the matter of Excommunication of which our Brethren confess Christ here treateth This Animadverter manifests his good will to interpret it of an Assembly of the Jews in their Synedrium or if extended as a direction to Christian Brethren whether to refer it to their Assembly under an Ecclesiastical consideration or Political i. e. the Christian Magistrate he seems to demur with an apparent inclination to the latter To the first of these Mr. Cotton answers †Treat of the Keys p. 40 An. 3. It is not credible that Christ would send his Disciples to make complaint of their offences to the Jewish Synagogues for is it likely he would send his Lambs and Sheep for right and healing unto Wolves and Tygres Both their Sanhedrim and most of their Synagogues were no better And if here and there some Elders of their Synagogues were better affected yet how may it appear that so it was where any of themselves dwelt And if that might appear too yet had not the Jews already agreed that if any man did confess Christ he should be cast out of the Synagogues Joh. 9. 22. To which we add 2dly Christ knew that within a little while the Synedrim and whole Church-Policy of the Jews would be at an end And 3dly in the mean while charges his Disciples to have nothing to do with them Mat. 15. 14. Tell them that they would persecute kill them and think in doing so they did God good service As it fell out afterwards accordingly So that it cannot with the least shew of reason be imagined that Christ should direct them to appeal to them and stand to their final determination 2dly The second desires not a reply Go tell the Church i. e. go tell the Magistrate is so wild an interpretation that the bare naming it is the giving it too much honour 1. The Magistrate is no where called the Church 2dly The Magistrate quâ talis hath nothing to do in the stating and determining Church-Controversies 3dly Sometimes and for the most part they have ever since been for above three hundred years afterward they undoubtedly were no members of the Church but enemies to it destroyers of it Mr. T. adds that he can find no Institution by preception or command of a Church i. e. there is no such thing as an instituted Church of Christ under the Gospel but 't is left to the prudence of men c. to determine whether they shall be Domestick Congregational Parochial Classical Diocesan Provincial Patriarchal or Oecumenical which how derogatory to the Honour and Sovereign Authority of Jesus Christ to his love and tenderness to his Children to his Faithfulness with respect to the obligation that lay upon him as Mediator to reveal the whole will of the Father to them others will judge For my part I am fully of his mind who some while since said That there were particular Churches instituted by the Authority of Jesus Christ ordained and approved by him that Officers for them were of his appointment and furnished with gifts from him for the execution of their employment That Rules Cautions and Instructions for the due settlement of those Churches were given by him that these Churches were made the only seat of that Worship which in particular he expressed his will to have continued until he came is of so much light in Scripture that he must wink hard that will not see it Which is as much as we need to say to this Animadverter in this matter what he saith herein being meer dictates of his own without proof which when he shall be able to evince that Christ hath not the Government of his Churches upon his shoulders that he is not sole King and Lord over them or having so hath not given them Rules to walk by of his own but left them to the liberty of their own wills or which is worse the wills of such as by Providence are permited to ascend the Throne though such as whilst they profess to know God in works deny him being abominable and disobedient and to every good work reprobate he will be supposed to say something in way of confirmation But of this more in Sect. 15. 'T is true de facto Parochial Classical Diocesan Provincial Patriarchical and Oecumenical Churches by the prudence of men c. have had and yet have their being it the World and the Animadverter deals ingenuously in acknowledging that their original
Synods yet was he not set over others nor endowed with greater power than the rest cap. conf Helvet prior Arti 15. the French Churches say We believe that all true Pastors wheresoever they are placed are endowed with equal authority under that only head high and sole universal Bishop Jesus Christ and therefore it is lawful for no one Church to claim authority and dominion over another cap conf gal Confes. Art 30. So say the Belgick Churches Bely conf Art 31. So that Mr. T. out of his great love and dutifulness to his Mother the Church of England is not sparing to cast dirt in the face of the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves and most or all the Reformed Churches at this day who own no such inequality as he pleads for and therefore were are all of them not well-ordered Churches in comparison at the least to her and the Church of Rome where the Hierarchie is established To the 16th parallel about holy Vestments he is able to object on-thing worth the considering The 17th is The Popish Priests are tyed to a book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man for their Worship and Ministration so are the Ministers of England and that to such a one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis To this Mr. T. replies 1. The Assembly of Westminster prescribed a Directory for Worship Answ 1. Quid hoc ad Rhombum I am not in the least concern'd to justifie all that was done by that Assembly and am apt to think they might in that matter have spared their pains 2dly The same Assembly abhorred the Common-Prayer-Book Service as a most detestable and filthy Idol preached printed against it procured its Abolition 3dly Every one that knows any thing knows that upon various accounts there is no likeness betwixt these two None were compell'd to the use of this or that form of words by the Directory as in the Book of Common-Prayer He adds 2dly Those prayers and portions of Scripture which are holy and good are never the worse because they were in the Popes Portuis no more than the acknowledgement of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God is the worse because the Devil used it Mar. 5. 7. Answ 1. Of the Scriptures and that glorious Truth of Christ's Eternal Deity as the Son of the most High God and the Common-Prayer-Book-Service there is not the same reason They were from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit originally Divine this of man devised upon the prevailing of Apostacy upon the Churches of Christ imposed with threatnings cruelties and slaughters upon the Children of Christ by his professed Enemy abused by a confessed Idolatrous generation of men if there be any such in the world That because the abuse of the Scriptures and the Truths contained in them doth not render them the worse therefore a devised Service that it the best is wicked and abominable in its imposition intolerable used by Idolaters is not the worse I chalenge Mr. T. to make good 2. Though the Scriptures are not the worse because portions of them are read in the Romish Idolatrous Service yet the following the Romish Synagogue in curtailing the Scriptures reading one part of a Chapter at one time another at another and manifestly misapplying them causing them also to give place to the Apochryphal Writings is abominable He goes on 3dly That which is suggested as if the Common-Prayer-Book now in use were little different from the Popes Missal he tells us is untrue Answ 1. The Animadverter is a little mistaken We affirm in S. T. that the Common-Prayer-Book-Service used in King Edward the 6th's dayes and the Popes Missal were not much different And for the proof of that we produced the Testimony of the King and Council which we thought M. T. would never have questioned That the Common-Prayer-Book now in use and that then used is not much different every body knows 2dly 'T is true all that is in the Pope 's Missal is not in the Common-Prayer-Book nor did any one ever assert this but the most that is in the Common-Prayer-Book is stolen out of the Popes Missal The Epistles and Gospels the Prayers or Collects the rites and usages therein joyned are so and this Mr. T. denyes not I had thought to have represented the truth of this to the eye of the Reader by exhibiting our English and the Popes Latine Masse at one view to him which I have by me faithfully collected and compared together But the swelling of this Treatise unexpectedly and the difficulty of printing any thing of this nature that is voluminous through the tyranny of the Prelates makes me wholly to lay aside that intendment to a fitter season if need be The summe of what we have been offering in this matter we say in S. T. is this 1. Those Ministers that in their names office admission into their offices are not to be found in the Scripture are not Ministers of Christ act not by vertue of an Authority Office-power Calling received from him 2. Those Ministers that in their names office admission into their office are at a perfect agreement with the Ministers of Antichrist such are the Popish Priests acknowledged to be are not the Ministers of Christ But such as have been abundantly demonstrated are the present Ministers of England Therefore The Minor Mr. T. saith is manifestly false he hath said nothing to prove it in the main Answ This is soon said had he proved it manifestly false be had done somewhat Whether any thing considerable hath been offered by us for the proof of the Minor others besides Mr. T. and I will now judge Sect. 4. The present Ministers of Engl. proved Antichristian They act from a Power Office and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop whose Office is Antichristian The opinion of the Learned touching them Their Office is not to be found in the Scripture Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Tim. 3. 12. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5 7. Acts 20. 28. know them not They were not known in the Church for some hundreds of years after The Office of Lord-Bishops wherein it consists Of Diotrephes his asserting Supremacy Our Bishops neither Evangelists nor Pastors nor Teachers nor Apostles proved Mat. 28. 19. explained Of the Rise of Episcopacy The Testimonies of Dr. Hammond Whitaker Reynolds Eusebius c. touching it WE further prove in S. T. The present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichrâ—stan Power Office and Calling Because 2dly That they act from a Power Office and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop whose Office is Antichristian This the summe To which Mr. T. replies That neither himself nor any sober Writer judged them Antichristian Answ 1. Whether he once so judged of them his taking the Covenant to extirpate them wherein they are condemned as Antichristian will evince 2. What he or I judge them is not material that no sober Writer or considerate man that
Witnesses of Christ the Waldenses state the Defection of the Church Catal. Test 1509. From which time at least whatever Offices or Rites were introduced being introduced by the Antichrist that was now gradually revealing himself are justly to be accounted Antichristian 3dly Would Mr. T. had told us what Officers they are that are only continued in the Church of Rome that are of divine appointment that we might have considered the truth of his suggestion Lord-Bishops we prove are not such He further tells us 2dly That it is not true that the office of Lord-Bishops is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy 1. It is manifest in the first Nicene Council can 6. that then and before were Patriarchs Metropolitan Bishops and Lord-Bishops with their Office Answ 1. That they were before is not so easily proved Hither as to their source and spring are they usually referred The learned Hooper tells us A Bishop ought to be a Bishop only of one City it is to be lamented that the Episcopal Office is so greatly degenerated Iâ— was not so from the beginning when Paul commanded Titus to constitute Bishops through every City And certainly if the ancient love toward the people did flourish in us we should confess that there is more to be done in one City than can easily be performed by the best 'T is sufficiently known that the Primitive-Church had no such Bishops as were over more Cities or Congregations than one before the time of Sylvester the first In whose time was the first Nicene Council 2dly That because the first Nicene Council acknowledged Metropolitane and Lord-Bishops therefore they are not derived from the Papacy is not so easily demonstrated This Council was in oâ— about the year 315. Long before the Spirit by which the body Antichristian is animated visibly manifested it self not once nor twice aâ— is known What other spirit shewed it self in Victor who excommunicated the Eastern Bishops for not keeping Easter with him at the same time which brawl continued till the first Council of Nice which sides with Victor an Argument that they were acted by the same spirit 3dly What assurance will our Animadverter give us that this Canon as well as some others which confessedly are is not foisted into the Acts of that Council by persons of after-ages He is not ignorant that Protestants plead this against the Papists who for the establishment of the Tyranny of the Roman Primacy produce a fictitious Canon of the Nicene Council 4thly 'T is incumbent upon him to prove that such Metropolitane Bishops and Lord-Bishops as are now in England were in and before the first Nicene Council which he knows to be false and untrue 1. The English Episcopacy is an order above the order of Presbyters then Episcopacy and Presbytery was accounted one and the same order 2. Ruledom and Jurisdiction is the peculiar flower of the Garland of our English Episcopacy of that it was not so As the Presâ—yters were to do nothing without the Bishop so neither was the Bishop to do any thing without the Presbyters He adds 2. That in the Greek Eastern Russian Churches the same Office is continued Answ 1. Nor do we affirm the contrary that we should do so is not necessary The Greek-Churches were at the first involved in the same Apostasie with the Roman at least with respect to the matter in debate betwixt us 2. We only say that 't is only found in the Papacy with respect to the Reformed-Churches none of them have continued it He therefore adds 3. That it is also pleaded that the Lutheran Churches Reformed that have separated from the Papacy in Germany Denmark Swethland have retained the same Office under the name of Superintendents Answ 'T is indeed thus pleaded by Downham c. who 't is like took up the story of Hadrianus Saravia a known Patron of the Popish Hierarchy who asserts it in a way of reproach to the Lutheran Reformation whether it be truly pleaded or otherwise Mr. T. tells us not though he cannot be ignorant of the contrary The Superintendency of the Lutheran Churches is exceeding different from the Office of our Bishops 1. Their Superintendent is only as a President or Chairman for the preservation of order in an Assembly 2. He is only so during the Session out of it he exerciseth no authority at all more than the rest of his Co-Presbyters as do the Bishops of England 3. He is subject to the Presbytery our Bishops Lords over them 4. He differs not in order and degree from the rest of the Ministeâ—â— as do the Bishops of England 5. He is but a Pastor of one particular Church our Bishops are of scores hundreds He proceeds after the same rate of confidence and verity 4. That it is false that the true Spouse and Witnesses of Christ have in all ages utterly rejected the Office of Lord-Bishops and that it hath its entertainment only by the false Antichristian Church Answ 1. 'T is much he doth not produce one instance of this Assertion and yet so confidently avers it which could he have done he would as well have proved it false as said it was so 2dly For the confirmation of the truth of what he saith is false we have produced several Testimonies his Answer thereunto such as it is we have already taken notice of it and manifested its lightness and vanity He adds This is manifest by the many Epistles written to the English Prelates by their reception at the Synod of Dort Answ 1. What the Epistles are he intends what the Reception mentioned is not of such import as to spend our time in enquiring thereabout 2dly That they have rejected the Office of Lord-Bishops is known they have published their dislike and detestation of it in their Confession to the world What respect any of them give them either in point of civility or as Messengers or persons sent from the King or perhaps not being truly informed what the Jurisdiction and Office is they exercise in their private Letters or otherwise is not considerable in the matter in hand The Office of Lord-Bishops or a superiority of Order above Presbyters or Elders they absolutely condemn as we have proved We add in S. T. One Stone of Offence must be removed out of our way It is said that though Lord-Bishops are Antichristian yet it doth not follow that the Office and Ministry derived from them is so for they are also Presbyters and ordained as Presbyters To which Mr. T. subjoyns 1. There is nothing replied to the allegation that Bishops ordain with Presbyters Answ 1. Nor is there any such allegation in the objection proposed 2ly If there were it s not so considerable as to deserve to be taken notice of They are only assistants to the Bishop 't is he not they that sets them apart admits them into Sacred Orders as they heathenishly call them He adds 2dly Nor to this that some of the Bishops have acknowledged Episcopacy
that heareth or receiveth Mat. 10. 40. him heareth or receiveth him that sent him viz. the Father as most certain it is I do not see that this can be accused of weakness and invalidity though such an one as Mr. T. cares not it may be to hear of viz. that he who heareth the Parish-Ministers heareth the Bishops and he who heareth the Bishops heareth the Pope from whom they originally received and derive their power and authority And yet it may be this may not be so distastful to this Animadverter as I had thought whom I already find pag. 344. pleading it lawful to hear the Jesuites a fair advance towards the personal hearing of his Holiness Thus insuccesful is Mr. T. in producing Testimonies every one of them speaking otherwise than he would have them and much to the disadvantage of the cause he undertakes the management of Nor do we say that the many Precepts in the Old-Testament about Hearing are vacated we rather establish them whilst we make it part of instituted Worship God was of old to be attended in his speaking in and by his Servants and Prophets whom he instituted and inspired to whom the Word of God came to communicate it to his People They that indeed came in his Name were to be heeded and hearkned unto and that by obligation from positive Law and Institution So are those that now come in the Name of Christ the alone Lord Lâ—wgiver and King over his House to whom all Power is given and intrusted by the Father who hath appointed his Stewards in his absence over his Houshold to give them their portion of meat in due season Luke 12. 42. Nor will those of the Houshold be ever able to acquit or justifie themselves before the Lord when he cometh if a thief or stranger break-in upon them and eject the Stewards appointed by him in their attendance upon him to say the meat he feeds us with is our Lord's meat which 't is true they should be ready to receive but from the hands destined and appointed to give it them 2dly Mr. T. supposeth that what is spoken of the Law and the Prophets Luk. 16. 29. is spoken as obliging to New-Testament-Saints but without the least attempt of proof If his own Ipse dixit will not carry the cause and persons will not suffer themselves to be guided by a worse if possible than the Popish phanatique Câ—edo or implicite Faith there is not much danger of his captivating any to his at present espoused opinion This being most usually the whole of what is tendred by way of evidence of what he is pleased confidently to aver from one end of his Theodulia to the other The contrary is evident 1. 'T is spoken to the Pharisees v. 14 15. 2dly One part of the aim and intendment of our Lord in the Parable seems to be to exalt the Institutions of God above whatever may be fixt upon by the children of men one or other of them as more probable to effect what they are instituted and appointed by the Lord for The rich man supposed that if one rose from the dead and testified to his Brethren they would repent v. 28. 30. No saith Abraham i. e. Christ If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded though one arose from the dead Hereby testifying the unalterable obligations that lie upon persons what ever specious pretences of edification profit or the like may be urged by the sons of men to an attendment upon Divine Institutions Not as if the Lord would have his New-Testament Saints attend upon Moses's Appointments or go to Mount Sinai for the pattern of his Gospel-Worship 3dly v. 16. he expresly tells us that the Law and the Prophets were but until John and since that time the Kingdom of God or Gospel-Church-state frequently so called in Scripture is preached But suppose Mr. T. had evinced or should ever be able to do so that the words of Christ did respect New-Testament-Believers any otherwise than hath already been intimated by us he had need do one thing more before they will stand him in any stead viz. manifest that they are spoken by Christ with relation to Worship that therein New-Testament-Believers are to be regulated by Moses and the Prophets for if they respect onely the Doctrine taught by the peculiar Types of that day and the Truths dropped by them touching Christ the Messiah they make nothing at all to his purpose which when he hath done Erit mihi magnus Apollo Nor doth 2 Pet. 1. 19. the other place cited by him contribute the least mite of assistance to his dying cause The Apostle understanding by Divine Revelation as 't is thought that he must shortly dye v. 14. As he was resolved whilst he lived not to cease to call upon them and stir them up as v. 12 13. so he was willing to leave this Epistle with them to put them in remembrance of the great things he had taught and communicated to them v. 15. which he tells them v. 16. were not cunningly devised fables so artificially interwoven as though they seemed to be true they were most false store of which had been in those dayes invented by Jews and Poets Oh no! had they been so he could have had no comfort in the review of them now he was going off the stage of the world which he had not having followed these when he made known unto them the power and coming or the powerful coming or coming in the power of our Lord Jesus Câ—rist manifested to be so in the efficacy of his Doctrine working Miracles his Resurrection from the dead they were he tells them eye-witnesses of his Majesty The honour and glory whereof he proves by a double Argument 1. The testimony and witness the Father bare of Christ the honour and glory put upon him when that Voice came from Heaven when he was on the Mount transfigured before them viz. Peter James and John 2dly From the word of Prophecy lest they should think the former Apparition was a fiction of his own he acquaints them that the Prophets have testified of his coming and glory Of which Word of Prophecy he asserts 1. That 't is of no private â—nterpretation i. e. the holy men to whom it came gave it forth as they received it from God without putting any of their own glosses meanings private interpretations to it 2dly That to this they do well to take heed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which taking heed ye do excellently worthily and as becometh Saints as unto a light that shineâ—h in a dark place Yet 3dly with this limitation as to the time of their so doing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 until the day dawn and the day-star arise in their hearts Which if we should interpret of the day of the Gospel and the more clear revelation of the administrations thereof which some learned and judicious men do as the Assembly in their Annotations on the place
Audi dicit Dominus non dicit Donatus aut Rogatus aut Vincentius aâ—t Hilarius aut Ambrosius aut Augustinus sed dicit Dominus And Epist 112. I will not have you follow mine authority to think it necessary that you believe any thing therefore because I say it And generally abhorred by the Reformed Churches The Helvetian Confession speaks roundly and fully to this matter Quapropter non patimur nos c. Wherefore we suffer not our selves in controversies of Religion or matters of Faith to be imposed upon with the bare opinions of the Fathers or determinations of Councils much less by received customs or the multitude of persons thinking the same things or by prescription of long time We admit no other Judge of Faith than God himself pronouncing by the holy Scriptures what is true what false what is to be imbraced what not We rest in the judgments of none but such as are spiritual taken from the Word of God Harmon Conf. cap. 2. Certainly Jeremiah and the rest of the Prophets grievously condemned the Councils of the Priests instituted against the Law of God and diligently admonished that we hearken not to Fathers or go in their wayes who walking in their own inventions decline from the Law of God Before the consciences of any can be satisfied in the judgment and practice of the Fathers primitive Writers two things they had need be assured of 1. That what is handed out to them be indeed their sayings and practices whose they are pretended to be For suppose my conscience ought to be satisfied in what they say or do yet I had need be assured that what I reade or hear of their sayings or practices be indeed theirs and not the interpolations or impostures of others fraudulently mixed in their Writings and imouted to them which this Animadverter knows to be no easie matter to assure any body of The most of them have unquestionably been exposed to corruption and adulteration by them into whose hands they have fallen from whom we have received them Particular instances whereof lie near at hand to be produced were it needful Of Ignatius his Epistles some talk much that they are at least wondrously corrupted if not wholly forged and counterfeit were easie to demonstrate To mention only what you have Epist. 2. Fear and reverence your Bishop as Christ for so the holy Apostles commanded you He that obeyeth the Bishop and Presbyters is within the Altar and abides pure but he who doth any thing without the Bishops and Presbyters is without the Altar defiled in his conscience and more miserable than an Infidel For what is a Bishop but one endued with the power of Christ who is God whose prescript as man he follows and obtains Authority more sublime than all Empire and Principality And what is the Presbytery but an holy Council the Counsellors and Assessors of the Bishop And Epist 7. speaking of the same persons Amongst all men I will not say none are more excellent but none can be found so like to God c. Expressions that the simplicity of that Age was wholly ignorant of and could not entertain without a blush nor think of but with great abhorrency of spirit The like may be said of other of the Ancients Ambrose is made to speak after this rate The Episcopal honour and dignity can be by no comparisons adaequated if you compare it to the fulgor of Kings and diadem of Princes this would â—e as much beneath it as if thou shouldst compare Lead to the brightness of Gold For thou mayest see the necks of Kings and Princes bowed down to the knees of Priests c. De Dignitat Sacerd. cap. 2. And cap. 3. There is nothing in this World to be found more excellent than Priests nothing more sublime than Bishops Which those who have in the least enquired into the state of affairs in that Age will be constrained to acknowledge to be counterfeit and spurious The like may be manifested of the rest and of these in other points but that design would require a Treatise by iâ— self larger than we intend this to be But 2ly suppose things with respect to them were otherwise than we have manifested them to be and we could be ascertained that thus they said and writ thus they did and practised we had need ere our consciences could be satisfied be ascertained of one thing more viz. That in their Writings they were as the Prophets and Apostles guided by an unerring Spirit that in their practice they were to be our examples for if I am not assured that what they write is infallibly true I am not to believe it for sure it will not be pleaded that there is any obligation lies upon me to imbrace what any man saith right or wrong because he saith it and yet except I believe it conscience will not cannot be satisfied in their indoctrination Now this is infallibly false Mr. T. knows who writ retractations of a great deal he had writ before and had he lived longer we might have see more Books of retractations And this they themselves acknowledg So Austine I cannot deny but there are many things in my Works as there are in the Writings of my Ancestors which justly and with good discretion may be blamed D. 9. Negat And Anselme writes that in their Books which the Church reads many times are found things corrupt and heretical Comment in 2 Cor. Let the wise Reader peruse their Books and he shall find this true that I say The same may be said of the practice of the Fathers Of what they did we have uncertain rumours wherein they acted exorbitantly and not according to rule they are not to be heeded So that not what the Father 's said and did is sufficient to satisfie my conscience in any point but only what Jehovah speaks in the Scripture All which I say not to detract from the true worth of the Worthies of old but to manifest the weakness of Mr. T. his Assertion That it will not conduce much or be of good use to satisfie mens consciences c. wherein truly it is of no use at all not being appointed by the Lord for such an end though I deny not but to other ends and purposes it may be useful as for stopping the mouths of Adversaries who glory in the Fathers and primitive Writers as if they were all for them To remove prejudices out of the minds of people against Truth upon account of its seeming novelty c. as I said in S. T. Nor shall I at any time refuse for the manifestation of the vain brag of persons that they have all Antiquity on their side though I cannot admit of what they say into my Creed because they say it the only foundation of Faith being the infallible speakings of God in the Scriptures to debate from thence the matters in controversie with Mr. T. And doubt not but it may be made manifestly to appear that things are
would have them I think saith he 't is not without example in the best ordered Churches Answ 1. I remember Pope Leo the 10th in the Lateran Council Ses 2. decreed That none should preach concerning the coming of Antichrist but if the Lord shall reveal some things to others as by Amos he promiseth to do they ought not to divulge it before the Sea Apostolick hath examined it or if that cannot commodiously be the Bishop with some others he that doth otherwise let him be excommunicated From whence the Reader may easily conjecture from what quarter the present practice of the Bishops in this matter doth arrive 2dly 'T is true the Apostle would have Timothy to abiâ—e at Ephesus that he charge some that they teach no other doctrine 1 Tim 1. 3. and Titus to reject an Heretick Tit. 3. 10. and saith 1 Cor. 14. 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by the first must hold his peace But that because Paul took all the care he could to hinder the spreading of error and the preventing disorderly prophesyings as more than one speaking at once therefore 't is lawful for the Bishops in an Antichristian way by force and violence to hinder the free passage of Gospel-truths is like the rest of this B. D. Logick for which I dare say the least Smatterer in that kind of learning will say he needed not to have taken any degree in the Schools 3dly That the practice instanced in is not without example in the best ordered Churches after an unusual rate of modesty with him our Dictator tells us he doth think but he might easily have informed himself otherwise 'T is such a piece of tyranny that â—ell ordered Churches cannot bear that persons sanctified and taught by the Spirit of the Lord sound in the Faith called also according to the appointment and way of Christ to preach the Gospel should noâ— be suffered so to do without the licence of an Antichristian Foundling a dumb Idol of the Popes make call'd a Lordain I should have said a Lord Bishop Many of the worthies of the Lord have protested against as the renowned John Hus the Churches in Bohemia the most eminent in the Council of Basil as abominable and Antichristian But Mr. T. further tells us that if the Prelates silence persons when they should not they are accountable to Christ but it is no proof that their Ministry is not from Christ who submit to the commands of men who have power over them forbiding them to preach some truths Answ 1. That the Prelates are accountable to none but Christ as this Animadverters expressions intimates I am sorry to hear from him the most flattring Canonist would not say more of the Pope himself 2ly 'T is a proof that the Ministry is not of Christ that is so bounded if Pauls words be true Gal. 1. 10. 3. That Lord Bishops have any power over the Ministers of Christ by vertue of any institution of his he cannot prove the submission of Ministers unto them in things Ecclesiastical when they are distitute of such authority is so far from being an extenuation that it is an aggravation of their crime We add in S. T. 3dly That the admission of the present Ministers into their Office by a Lord Bishop without the consent of the Congregation in which they act as Officers is also forraign to the Scripture What Mr. T. hath before said in opposition hereunto is already answered What he hath further to argue shall be now considered He tells us 1. The admission of the present Ministers hath not alwayes been by Lord-Bishops some have been made by Suffragan Bishops Answ 1. The most of the present Ministers Mr. T. denyes not nor can he have their admission from a Lord-Bishop 2dly The very truth is they all have so the Suffragan Bishops he speaks of is but the Lord Bishops Deputy who represents his Lordships person in that act of Ordination and therefore what is done by him is done by the Lord Bishop 3dly Admission by a Suffragan titular Bishop is forraign to Scripture as well as admission by a Lord-Bishop He proceeds 2dly Where the Parishioners are Patrons there is the election of the Congregation Answ There are but few Parishes that as Patrons present their own Ministers and yet those that do must not have any Minister but whom the Lord-Bishop pleaseth his admission is still from him He further tells us 3dly In others there is an implioit consent in their Ancestors yielding that power to their Patron to present and an after-consent by receiving him that is instituted as their Minister Answ This is a vanity not worth the minding 1. He cannot produce any authentick Writing testifying such a reddition by our Ancestors 2. If he could though it may be supposed they may alienate what of right belongs to us as men which yet in many cases is false 't is impossible they should do so with respect of what appertains to us as Christians 3. The after-consent signifies nothing they must consent whether they will or no if they do not but testifie their dissent by abstaining from hearing them they are presented into their Ecclesiastick Courts excommunicated imprisoned ruined He adds 4thly But whether these usages be right or wrong notwithstanding them yet may the Offices of the present Ministers of England be from Christ Answ 1. This is a dictate without proof which we reject 2. That a Minister should in their names office and admission thereunto not symbolize with the Ministers of Christ and yet be his Ministers is absur'd and irrational to imagine This we have proved of the present Ministers and add that in all these they symbolize with the Popish ordeâ— of Priests which we at large demonstratâ— in S. T. what Mr. T. excepts against it shall be considered in the next Section Sect. 3. The present Ministers of England symbolize with the Popish order of Priests Of the name Priests The abolition of names once abused to idolatry Hos 2. 15. Zâ—ch 13. 2. explained Baali what it signifies Exod. 23. 13. Psal 16. 4. opened Of Orthodox Antiquity 't is no sufficient justification of what we do in divine things The Testimony of the Ancients M. T. his arguing and Baronius the Papist alike Ignatius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The book of ordering Priests and Deacons is stolen out of the Popes Pontifical as is evident by the parallel drawn betwixt them THat the present Ministers of England symbolize witâ— the Popish order of Priests we evince in S. T. under several considerations 1. They are both called and own themselves Priests which being a term borrowed either from the Priests of the Law the assertion of such a Priesthood being a denial of Christ come in the flesh or from the Priests of the Heathen from whom the word Orders is undoâ—btedly borrowed or from the Antichristian Church of Rome such idolatrous superstitious names being commanded by the Lord to be abolished Hos 2. 15 Zech
God and before God 9. Postremo Lastly the Bishop takes and delivers to them all the Book of the Gospel saying Receive power of reading the Gospel in the Church of God 10. Pontifex The Bishop shall say the Ministers and Chaplains answering Lord have mercy upon us O God the Father of Heaven have mercy on us O God the Son Redeemer of the world have mercy on us That it may please thee to blesse sanctifie and consecrate these elect ☞ We beseech thee hear us 11. They sing one and the same Hymn only the one is in Latine the other in English Veni Creator Spiritus Mentes tuorum visita c. 12. Pontifex The Bishop shall lay his hands upon the heads of each of them kneeling upon their knees before him saying to every one Receive the Holy Ghost whose Sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose Sins thou dost retain they are retained 13. Pax The Peace of God be alwayes with you the blessing of God Almighty the Father Son and Holy Ghost descend upon you English Pontifical 1. We decree that no Deacons or Ministers be ordained but only upon the Sundays more heathenishly spoken then the Pope in his Pontifical immediatly following jejunia quatuor Temporum commonly cald Ember-weeks Constit Can. Eccl. can 31. 2. And this be done in the Cathedral or Parish Church where the Bishop resideth and in the time of Divine Service in the presence not only of the Archdeacon but of the Dean ibid. 3. And here it must be declared unto the Deacon that he must continue in that office the space of a whole year except for reasonable causes it shall otherwise seem good unto the Bishop The Book of ordering Priests and Deacons 4. The Bishop before he admit any person to holy Orders shall diligently examine him in the presence of those Ministers that shall assist him at the imposition of hands Can. 35. 5. None shall be admitted a Deacon except he be twenty three years of age and every man which is to be admitted a Priesâ— shal be full twenty four years old The Preface to the Form and Manner of making Priests and Deacons c. 6. The Archdeacon or his Deputy shall present unto the Bishop sitting in his Chair near to the holy Table such as desire to be ordained Deacons each of them being decently habited saying these words Reverend Father 7. The Bishop Take heed that the persons whom you present unto us be apt and meet for their learning The Arch Deacon shall answer I have enquired of them and also examined them and think them so to be 8. Then the Bishop shall say to the people Brethren if there be any of you who knoweth any impediment or notable crime in any of these persons let him come forth in the name of God and shew what it is 9. Then the Bishop shall deliver to every one of them the New Testament saying Take thee authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God 10. The Bishop with the Clergy and People shall sing or say the Litany O God the Father of Heaven have mercy upon us miserable sinners O God the Son Redeemer of the world have mercy on us That it may please thee to bless these they Servants ☞ We beseech thee to hear us good Lord. Come Holy Ghost our souls imspire And lighten with Celestial Fire c. 12. The Bishop shall lay their hands severally upon the heads of every one that receive the order of Priesthood the Receivers humbly kneeling upon their knees and the Bishop saying Receive the Holy Ghost whose Sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose Sins thou doest retain they are retained 13. The Peace of God and the Blessing of God Almighty the Father Son and holy Ghost be amongst you and remain with you always Amen To which it were easie to adde other parallel particulars but these upon a slight view of the Roman Pontifical offering themselves being sufficient to confute that assertion of Whitgift and Mr. T. that the Book of ordering Ministers and Deacons is almost in no point correspondent to the Roman Pontifical we content our selves with them From whence the ingenuous Reader will soon determine to whom ignorance and rashness may justly be imputed We add 6thly The Popish Priests must kneel down upon their knees at the feet of the Lord Bishop that ordains them and he must say to them blasphemously enough Receive the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye forgive they are forgiven whose Sins ye retain they are retained which exactly accords with the fashion of ordaining the Priests of England To which Mr. T. replies in a long harangue not at all to the purpose giving us an account what Whitgift and Hooker say to this prâ—ctice confesses at last they offer some force to the Scripture to which they allude tells us those words may be used prayer-wise Answ 1. The Question is Whether in the particular instanc'd in there be an exact symmetry betwixt the Ordination of the present Ministers of England and the Priests of Rome This Mr. T. denies not but leads the Reader to the consideration of somewhat else 2. The use of the words John 20. 22 23. he grants to be an offering force to the Scripture and if so it is wicked and abominable to wrest the Scripture to our private interpretation is undoubtedly so 3. That they should be used prayer-wise is a most ridiculous evasion the manner of expression evinceth the contrary 4. Mr. Richard Hooker Eccles Polit. lib. 5. sect 77. as câ—ted by our Animadverter interprets it of the collation of the gifts of the holy Ghost which if we should interpret of the Office of Ministry it belongs as we have said to the Church not to such a thing as a Lord-Bishop to collate We proceed in the Parallel 7thly The Popish Priests are not ordained in and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests but in some Metropolitan Cathedâ—al City So the Priests of England To which Mr. T. replies 1. This is not alwayes so Answ I challenge him to give one instance of the contrary for these six or seven years last past 2dly It may be before the Congregation to whom the person is to be Priest Answ What may be is one thing what is another We say not only that it may be but that it ought to be yet we know it is not 'T is added in S. T. 8thly The Popish Priests take the care of Souls though nâ—t elected by them from the presentation of a Patron by the Institution and Induction of a Lord Bishop so the Ministers of England To which our Animadverter This is not always so nor when so Popish Answ 1. The first is most notoriously false and we challenge Mr. T. to make it good if he can 2. the latter remains to be proved by him to assert it is not Popish is a piece of beggary this Animadverter is much used to What he hath before said is
which yet they do but rarely if at all is not the Succession pleaded for by our Prelates They care not for Preaching hinder oppose it many of them dreading it as the Engine in the hand of the Spirit that would shake their Kingdom and utterly overturn and demolish it so they may have their Lordships Pleasures and Pallaces 'T is not indeed Antichristian for me to confess the Apostles Creed because it is conveyed to our hands through the Papacy for however it cannot be so called because the Apostles were the Formers of it which they were not yet the matter thereof being except in one Article bottom'd upon the Scriptures I ought to confess it But this is remote from what he is pleading for viz. A personal succession of Bishops through the Papacy receiving their Power and Authority from the man of Sin which I say still whilst the Bishops pretend to they do therein proclaim their shame and yeeld the matter in controversie though their Advocate shamefully prevaricates that he may with a multitude of words cover their nakedness omitting the consideration of what was incumbent upon him especially to have removed out of the way viz. The Arguments produced to evince That the Apostles as Apostles had no successor in that their Office Which if it remain good the present Bishops most assuredly cannot be their Successorâ— as Apostles He adds 5thly That Bishops as a Superior order or degree above Presbyters were not dreamt of in the world for several hundreds of years after Christ he thinks can hardly be made good but he wisely reâ—reats with a Protestation that he will not enter the lists with respect to that point The truth is he knows it hath been proved and that with that strength of evidence that he cannot bear up against That Clemens his not takeing notice of them as distinct from Presbyters is ballanced by the passages in Ignatius his Epistles which I am perswaded he rejects as spurious and counterfeit I am sure it were easie to manifest them to be so it is already done by others is such a pitiful covert that a man would never fly to but in case of extreme necessity when he knows not what to say Lombards words import he grants that the order of Bishops above Presbyters was not known till after the Apostles dayes and if so they are no order of divine institution in which he once more perfectly yeelds the cause they are not of the institution of Christ in the Scripture Though he cannot prove that by the primitive Church Lombard means the Churches in the dayes of the Apostles his words seem to import somewhat more And Bellarmins himself acknowledgeth that the name of Elders was given in common to Bishops and Elders And Eusebius lib. 5. c. 24. calls Victor Anicetus Pius Telesphorus Xistus who was almost three hundred years after Christ Bishops of Rome Elders And the learned Whitaker ingenuously confesseth That betwixt an Elder and a Bishop there was of old no difference That such Bishops as are now in the Roman Church in the English Church we may as truly say were from the beginning is most false and can never be proved There were then more Bishops i. e. Pastors of one Church Act. 20. 17. contr 2. q. 5. c. 6. p. 284. But Mr. T. tells us 'T is enough for his purpose if the office be found in Scripture though not their Superiority Answ And is this your pleading for your Clients Seriously Sir you would discourage any person in the world from entertaining you as his Advocate when you are exposing your Client thus to ruin by your own pleadings at every turn The question is whether the office of Lord-Bishops which as such consists in there Superiority jurisdiction over the Priests and Ministers of England be of the institution of Christ Saith Mr. T. their Superiority is not Very good what needed so many words to no purpose 't is well however he will be so ingenuous as to confess at last that the juridicial office of Lord-Bishop is not of Christs institution The words of Dr. Hammond he grants to be as we recite them but thinks we misapply them But certainly if as the Dr. saith a Primary Metropolitical seat was constituted over Episcopal Seats and Churches viz. such as are Diocesan that their state and frame may be accommodated to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations in the Empire he that hath but half an eye will see that hence it follows that the Primacy and Supremacy of the Bishops over these Churches was the result of the designs of men to accommodate the state and frame of the Church to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations But the truth of this Assertion depends not upon the Doctors concession it s notoriously known and acknowledged by several others The distribution of Churches ordinarily followed the destribution of the Common-wealth so that when some Regions were subjected to the Civil jurisdiction in any City the same were ordinarily subjected also to the Ecclesiastical and as they were reckoned to be of the same Province in respect of the Civil so were they of the same Church or Diocess in respect of the Spiritual Government saith Rainoldes Confer with Hart. And the Council of Constantinople decreed That if any new City by the Authority of the Emperor was erected that the order of Ecclesiastical things should follow the Civil and Publick form Hence by the same Council Constantinople receives the Primacy because it was New Rome Can. 5. which before Old Rome enjoyed for that very reason But that you may understand how the Pope incroached on Bishops by degrees untill of an Equal he became a Soveraign first over a few next over many at last over all I must fetch the matter of Bishops Metropolitans and Arch-Bishops somewhat higher and shew how Christian Cities Provinces and Diocesses were alotted to them First therefore when Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church Act. 14. 23. through every City Tit. 1. 5. to feed the flock of Christ whereof the Holy Ghost had made them overseers Act. 20. 28. They to the intent they might the better do it by common councel and consent did use to assemble themselves and meet together In which meetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they chose one amongst them to be the President of their Company and Moderator of their actions And this is he whom afterward in the Primitive Church the â—athers called Bishop i. e. the President of the Presbyters who was thâ— Bishop of the chiefest City whom they called the Metropolitane For a Province as they termed it was the same with them that a Shire is with us And the Shire-town as you would say of the Province was called Metropolis i. e. the Mother-City In which as the Judges and Justices with us do hear at certain times the causes of the whole Shire So the Ruler of the
afterwards and here and in his Roman discussed asserts that 't is not tyrannical Dominion but the Dominion of one Apostle over another that is interdicted So that the same thing is doubtful and not doubtful with Mr. T. in the writing a few lines And this he proves by no fewer than ten reasons in his Rom. discussed 2dly Here he tels us that 't is an affectation of the Rule which a person may have and lawfully exercise that is forbidden there that the Dominion or Rule it self is interdicted which he would do well to reconcile and answer his Arguments he there produceth for its confirmation The sum whereof is Christ would have none amongst them superiour but all equal he forbids not only tyrannical Dominion but also any Dominion at all over one another which is saith he apparent 1. From the occasion of the words Christ forbids what they sought for but they sought for chief Dignity Seniority and priority of Order as do the Bishops of England 2dly From the Subjects whose Dominion is forbidden viz. Kings that had lawfull Authority and therefore such Rule is forbidden as the best Rulers used amongst the Nations 3dly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although sometimes meant of meer lordly forcible Rule against the will and good of the person ruled yet here it cannot be so meant sith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use Dominion at all and to have power at all over one another is forbidden Luke 22. 25. 4thly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used still of Rule without abuse is forbidden 5thly It is forbidden to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to affect that title which implies one to be under another and to be beholden one to another as persons that could gratifie one another which doth imply superiority in some sort 6thly The additional speech of Christ commanding in the stead of Dominion Mat. 20. 26 27. rather Ministry and Service shews he would have none among them superiour but all equal 7ly Christ's propounding himself as their example only in service 8â—y He requires such a mutual debasement as takes away the taking to themselves priority of order or place or rule over one anotheâ— Mat. 20. 26 27. Mark 10. 43 44. Luke 22. 26. 9ly This is confirmed by other places upon a like occasion Mat. 18. 1 2 3 4. Mark 9. 33. Luke 9. 46. In which Christ resolves them that they should be as a little child that assumes not Empire but is humble and accounts others as equal to him 10ly From Luke 22. 28. that Christ having forbidden superiority in any of them among themselves promises them a Kingdom afterward in recompence of their abiding with him in his temptations All which manifest 1. a Superiority interdicted 2. That the Superiority interdicted is not interdicted to all Christians as he would in his Theodulia bear us in hand for then Christians should be forbidden to exercise Civil Dominion and Power as Mr. T. his ten Arguments manifest But 3. a Superiority of order over one another as the Bishops of England exercise over their fellow-Ministers That the Apostles exercised any such Superiority over the Church of God or Ministers of a lower order as the Bishops of England exeâ—cise over them this Animadverter will never prove And if he were able so to do this would not justifie the Bishops in their exercise of such Superiority who are invested with no Apostolical Power that I know of 'T is true a rule over the Faith of Saints is disclaimed by the Apostle 2 Cor. 1. 24. but that this is not the whole of what is interdicted in the places before-cited he hath himself proved by ten Arguments but now repeated by us As for 1 Pet. 5. 3. he tells us what the Assembly in their Annotations say on the place viz. that is not imperiously commanding your own inventions in the stead of the Doctrine of the Gospel not carrying hemselves insolently and magisteriously towards Gods People 3 Joh. 9. Answ 1. All this is known to be practised by the present Bishops They command imperiously their own inventions to which the preaching of the Gospel must give place when there is not time for both as in the case of Liturgy-worship is known to be true How insolently and magisterially they carry it towards the people of the Lord the whole Nation is witness 2. The Elders being interdicted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to exercise Lordly Rule over the Heritage of God is certainly an interdiction of the introduction of any such Officer into the Churcâ— of God as against the will of the Lord's People should by vertue of an Office-power exercise a Lordly jurisdiction over them and their Ministers as a superiour order of Priesthood and certainly more forbidden than the office of an Elder Jurisdiction is not an abuse of our Prelates Office as is known though they too often abuse it by exercising it exorbitantly even contrary to their own Canons but a great a chief part of it wherein they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise dominion over the People of God and that against their will by fore and violence to their utter undoing and that in execution of that office they have received and exercise according to their Canon Laws in their Courts Ecclesiastical We further prove in S. T. That the office of Lord-Bishops is Antichristian because derived from and only to be found in the Papacy none of the Reformed Churches have retained it the Woman in her flight into the Wilderness carried it not along with her it 's rejected by the true Spouse and Witnesses of Christ in all ages We instance in several as Hierom the Churches of Helvetia c. To this Mr. T. replies 1. Though the latter Popes viz. from the time of Boniface the third about the year 606. be the head of Antichrist yet it doth not follow that the office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian there having been bad Officers perhaps derived from good Popes and continued only in the Church of Rome Answ 1. That the Popes of Rome were not the head of Antichrist till the time of Boniface the third this Animadverter will never prove 2dly Should it be granted him what good Popes he will find from the time of Sylvester about the year 320 I know not nor what Officers were derived from them Lord-Bishops there were none till afterwards When Constantine coming to the Throne the Man of Sin began by little and little according to the prophesie of Paul touching him 2 Thess 2. 7. to shew himself in the following Popes The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Letter viz. the Roman Pagan Emperours being removed out of the way about which time many report a Voice was heard Hodie Venenum c. This day Poyson is poured forth into the Church of Christ And from this time the noble and renowned
not to be an order above Presbytery Answ 1. Who they are that have thus acknowledged I know not 2. Mr. T. saith not that any of the present Bishops do so 3. If they did in words their practice contradicts it exercising jurisdictions over the Presbyters or Elders 3dly Nor to this saith he that though the Bishop imposing hands do act as of superior order yet being a Presbyter his act is valid as he that convey's a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor if he be not Heir yet if he be only Executor by that hath power to convey iâ— the Grant is good Answ 1. But this is Mr. T. his mistake I say expresly though it should be granted that they act as Presbyters yet their act is not valid because they act not as Presbyters of the institution of Christâ— of which he afterwards takes notice Though 2dly Mr. T. will never be able to prove that the Bishop imposing hands as a Bishop and acting under that capacity yet being a Presbyter his act is valid For. 1. when a Bishop he is no longer a Presbyter but one of an higher order and degree as a Presbyter is no longer a Deacon when once made a Presbyter 2. As a Bishop he hath no authority from Christ at all to act in the business of imposition of hands therefore acting as such his act is invalid which his once being a Presbyter cannot make otherwise because he is not now so nor acts as such but avowedly the contrary 3. His instance of a persons conveying a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor is not pertinent For. 1. He hath originally and legally the same right if he be one as if both and pretends to a right to both in his conveyance 2ly Should he refuse his Executorship and make a Conveyance as Heir and he prove not to be so his Conveyance is naught Nay 3. if he make a Conveyance of what neither as Heir or Executor he hath any right to the Grant is undoubtedly not good This is evidently the case of our Lord-Bishops To the objection as proposed by us we answer 1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of ordination is false 2. Contrary to their avowed principles Mr. T. replies This is uncertain Answ And he may as well say it is uncertain that the Sun shines at noon-day The least smatterer in the usages of the Church of England and principles of these Doctors thereof see and know it to be certainly true 2. Contrary to the known Law of the Land by which they receive power to act therein in which they are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord-Bishop Mr. T. replies This is not true for the ordination of Suffragan-Bishops who are not Lords is valid by Law Answ A weak proof of such a crimination A Suffragan-Bishop is a Titular-Bishop when he acts in the matter of ordination he represents the Lord-Bishop whose Suffragan he is And the Law accounts his act not his own but the act of the Lord-Bishop whose Representee hee is And this Mr. T. could not be ignorant of We say 3dly 'T is contrary to their late practice whereby they have sufficiently declared the nullity of a Ministerial Office received from the hands of a Presbytery in thrusting out of doors several hundreds of Ministers so ordained Strange that it should be pleaded they act as Presbyters in the matter of ordination and yet they themselves judge a Presbyterian ordination invalid What saith Mr. T. Why 1. They do not nullify ordination by a Presbytery in forrain Churches Answ But this is not at all to the purpose have they not done so at home To attempt to do so in forraign Churches where they have no power were but to expose themselves to greater contempt as busy Bishops indeed 2dly In England they do it because the Laws saith he require Episcopal Ordination Answ But Sir the question is not upon what accounts they have so done in England but whether their so doing be not a manifestation that they act not in the capacity of Presbyters in the business of Ordination for if they did they fore-condemn their own act in condemning Presbyterian ordination their ordination being upon this supposition onely such 2dly He grants The Law requires Episcopal ordination if so it doth sure tie them that act in it to think themselves Bishops to act with such an intention and under that notion which not many lines before he denyed We further answer in S. T. What if this should be granted it would avail nothing except it can be proved that they are and act as Presbyters of the institution of Christ which these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ will never be to the worlds end To which our Animadverter replies If this be held then all the Presbyters of the French Dutch and other Churches under Presbyterial goverment are not of Christs institution and so a separation avowed from all Protestant Churches except their own Answ 1. But this is no proof that the Bishops of England act in the matter of ordination as Presbyters of the institution of Christ which is the one and onely thing he should have heeded in his reply but of that he is wholly silent 2dly No doubt he thinks he hath sufficiently bespatter'd uâ— but if he account it a discredit to speak palpable untruths it will be his own 1. 'T is false that we avow separation from all Churches but those of our own way that our Assertion tends to such an end I challenge our Dictator to make good 2. The Presbyterians own particular Churches of the institution of Christ have their Presbyters fixed officers in and amongst them and that both in England and beyond the Seas What satisfaction he will think meet to make us for so foul an aspersion whereby he labours to render us odious to the Godly at home abroad we shall know by the next In the mean while we are ready to attend his motions in the next Chapter CHAP. V. Sect. 1. The fourth Argument in S. T. against hearing the present Ministers vindicated A twofold denial of the Offices of Christ Whether the Papists are guilty of a verbal professional denial of Christs Offices 'T is not lawful to hear such as are guilty of a verbal or real denial of Christs Offices The present Ministers oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ They do so who hearken not to that revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders of his House Deut. 18. 18 19. Act. 3. 23. Mat. 3. 17. Isa 9. 6. explained The vanity of Mr. T. his dictates to the contrary evinced IN Chap. 4th of S. T. we advance a fourth Argument against hearing the present Ministers which is this Those that deny any of the Offices of Christ are not to be heard but separated from But the present Ministers deny some of the Offices of Christ Therefore Before we come to clear the several
of the hearers do not judge it their duty but matter of liberty 3. He begs the question whilst he supposeth hearing the present Ministers to be the service of the living God were it so it were unquestionably our duty to hear them but that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. For the rest the Learned Paraeus shall answer for me who in 1 Cor. 10. 20. saith God doth forbid the Jews Levit. 17. 7. to sacrifice after the manner of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hairy Devils Numb 25. 3. He complains that they had joyned themselves to the Devil of the Moabites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Lord of opening i. e. Fornication THIS IS THE JUDGMENT OF GOD OF EVERY WORSHIP WHICH IS NOT PERFORMED ACCORDING TO HIS WORD 'T IS NOT PERFORMED TO GOD BUT TO THE DEVILS But Idolaters neither in the Pagan State of old nor now in the Papacy do intend to offer to Devils but to God What then The Apostle pronounceth the contrary whatever they intend For God is worshipped not by humane inventions but by his own precepts The second mistake Mr. T. mentions is his own not mine I say the scandal lay in grieving the offended Brother and occasioning him by the evil example of the offender to act with a doubting Conscience i. e. Some Brethren were grieved at the liberty the Offender took others stumbled to act doubtingly by his example and so to sin The latter he grants the former Paul asserts Rom. 14. 15. He adds 3dly That I do not set down that the Corinthians might have reason to be scandalized at the eating the Idolothyte because against the Mosaical Law and the Apostles Decree Acts 15. 25. Answ Was I obliged so to do the Saints have greater reason to be offeâ—dâ—d at persons hearing the present Ministers because against the Oeconomie of the Gospel He tells us 4thly This Author doth not mention that the scandal in the Corinthians case was foreseen as future 1 Cor. 10. 27 28. Answ Nor need he do so when the scandal in hearing the present Ministers is also foreseen as future He adds 5thly This Author takes no notice that scandal given in the use of our liberty is not to be made perpetual Answ 1. This hath been already answered 2. It follows not that we must never hear the present Ministers of England if we must not hear them for the reasons given I would hope that God may convince and convert some of them from the evil and error of their way make them to acknowledge their sins bring them out of their Antichristian standing and office and then the reason of the present scandal ceasing the scandal it self will be removed also He tells us 5thly That the case of the offended among the Corinthians by eating Idolothytes and the Brethren now in England cannot be paralleld rightly because the Corinthians offence was at the time when the Doctrine of Gospel-liberty was not fully cleared Professors in England have been fully instructed therein Answ Mr. T. supposeâ—â— that we shall not yeeld him 1. That the hearing or not hearing the present Ministers is our liberty we prove the first our sin the last our duty 2. That the case of scandal ceaseth when persons have been doctrinally instructed in their Christian Liberty Now this is most evidently false contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostle in the fore-cited places Rom. 14. 1 2 6 14 17. What could be more plainly doctrinally delivered touching the Christians liberty of eating or not eating yet there remaining scruples upon the Consciences of the weak touching this matter Paul commands the strong not to eat to their offence and scandal v. 20 21. So 1 Cor. 8. 4 8. the Christians liberty is fully asserted yet v. 9 10 11 12 13. the use of it is interdicted for fear of offending the weak So that evidently in this matter the case betwixt the Corinthians and Professors of England who suppose it to be their liberty to hear the present Ministers runs parallel I confess there are some things that may be argued on the behalf of the offended Brethren now that the offended Corinthian could not plead God had spewed out this Generation of men with loathing and contempt with the whole fardel of their Liturgical Rites and Ceremonies wounded them in the head removed their Lords the Bishops from whom they derive their Authority the present scandalizers many of them rejoyced in what was done swore before it was done to do their uttermost to effect it that after all this they should strike in with them attend on their Ministry is an aggravation of their scandal The Offenders have no Apostolical word to warrant the lawfulness of hearing them as the Corinthian Offenders had to warrantize the eating the Idolothyte out of the case of scandal So that they that hear them are justly charged with scandal given notwithstanding the empty flourish and wordie dispute of Mr. T. to the contrary We add in S. T. Should it be granted for Arguments sake though in truth it is not so that 't is the liberty of Saints to hear the present Ministers yet many sincere Lambs of Christ being groundedly stumbled and scandalized hereat for that very reason if no more could be said it becomes our sin to be guilty whereof who can chuse but be fill'd with trembling that hath ever with seriousness read that terrible commination of Christ Mat. 18. 6. Mr. T. replies 1. This were to make every honest hearted Christian a Pope a Lord over my Conscience Answ No in no wise 'T is touching supposed matters of Liberty that we are treating in my acting wherein to the scandalizing of the weak Christian I sin and this Paul affirms 1 Cor. 8. 9 10 11 12 13. and so do all that write about scandal Yet 't is not to be thought they hereby make the weak Christian a Pope infallible Judge Lord or Law-giveâ— to them This is so far from divesting Christ of his Kingly Authority as he speaks that it rather establisheth it he is exalted as King whilst in obedience to his command I am forbearing the exercise of my Liberty because offensive to my Brother though upon every other account it were lawful for me to be found in the practice of it He tells us 2dly That his Treatise of scandal shâ—ws Maâ— 18. 6. to be meant of other scandalizing than such as this Author means Answ But if it be a scandalizing to make them to halt or turn away from God Luke 17. 2. i. e. from his Wayes and Divine Appointments if it be with despising them promoting their persecution causing their perdition that is meant Mat. 18. as Mr. T. saith it is 't is such a scandalizing as we mean The professing People of God that are in the practice of hearing are stumbling-blocks in the way of the weak occasioning them to turn off from God to the institutions and inventions of men whereby they are made worse and more