act as Ministers of Christ when they prophesie for the edifying the Body of Christ by vertue of any Office-power so that they need not any such Election What follows is a Rhapsody of words that the ingenuous Reader knows proves nothing introduced to cast the â—dium of Irreligion-upon the men of his Contest The best is the Nation knows him to be at least in this matter a false Accuser He tells us 3dly That it may be doubted whether Christ be meant by the Door John 10. 1. Answ But why it should be doubted when Christ expresly tells us v. 9. that He is the Door I cannot tell That the Door v. 1 v. 9. is not the same Door is not probable and less probable that by the Door v. 9. should be meant the Scriptures of the Prophets who although they foretold of Christ yet can in no sense that I know of be said to be the Door through which he entred But this he is unwilling to abide by He adds 4ly That if the door be the same Joh. 10. 1 9. the entering in v. 9 cannot be entring into the Ministry by the lawful election of a particular Church for then it would follow that every one that so enters in shall be saved but that is manifestly false Answ 1. But if by saved he mean everlastingly saved this doth not at all follow he knows right well that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not alwayes to be restrained to such a signification 2ly The whole expression he shall be saved and shall go in and out and find pasture seems to intimate no more than this that he may expect the blessing of God with him the defence of God upon him in his Ministry that thus enters into it according to his mind according to Deut. 28. 6. So the Assembly Beza c. interpret the words which I think is so far from being manifestly false that nothing is more true Of immediate Calls to the Ministry and the wayes whereby men may prove themselves to be so called I shall not now turn aside to speak nor in what sense I asserted that persons receiving Commission immediatly from Christ to preach the Gospel will never be made good without the working of miracles it not being pleaded as I know of that the present Ministers have any such Commission nor do they pretend to it Of Petrus Waldo and other Reformers I think as honourably as this Animadverter They were worthy and eminent witnesses for Christ in their day no small part of their Testimony was against the Abominations pleaded for by Mr. T. in his Theodulia They admited nothing into their Church but what is written in the Bible no Decrees no Epistles Decretals nor the Legends of the Saints nor the traditions of the Church They held that the Preaching of the word of God is free to every man that hath received abilities from the Lord for that work That the Priests Vestments are little worth That no day a man may cease from his labour except the Lords day and not the feasts of of Saints Zanchy introduceth a certain Orthodox man speaking thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and afterwards adds the Churches are to be reformed according to the best form a better from of the Church cannot be invented than that which Christ and his Apostles in the beginning of the Church did constitute and appoint And afterwards all Doctrines of Worship and Discipline are to be examined not by the Lesbian rule of humane judgment but by the Touchstone of the Divine Word Zanch. de ver Eccl. reformand ration Johannes Gerson affirms That the authority of the Primitive Church was greater than now it is for it is not in the power of the Pope or Council or Church to change the Traditions taught by the Evangelists and Paul as some dream de vit Spirit animae Budaeus saith Canonum canities vel caries potius nulli jam usui est sed velut anus delira è foro explosa est de ponte enim jam diu comitiorum paracleti dejecta est disciplina Canonica ut annis sexaginta major atque etiam sexcentis de Translat Heclerismi lib. 2. And afterwards Navis nobis disciplinae à servatorâ— relicta est Ecclesiae conditore quae Cantico Ministerio instrumento miraculisque instructa fuit ab ipso aut ejus auspiciis These were some of the Witnesses of Christ in their day whom we honour as such that bear their Testimony against what Mr. T. thinks good for the present to espouse to himself 5ly This Animadv speaks of the proof of our Assertion that those that receive authority to preach the Gospel mediately from Christ have it from some particular instituted Church of Christ to whom power is solely delegated for the electing their own Officers according to Acts 6. 5. 14. 23. as weak and impertinent He tells us 1. That though this should be granted yet power may be given to others to choose send and ordain Preachers for the unconverted who are and may be heard as Ministers of the Gospel Ans 1. This we deny the Keys being given to the Church by Christ Mat. 16. 19. with 18. 17 18. we cannot conceive how any can legally choose or send forth persons to act by vertue of an Office-power in the preaching of the Gospel but the Church 2dly We never yet understood that Interrogations were sufficient Answers his may not for all this is no evidence that it may He adds Yea may not some others ordain Elders for particular Instituted Churches Answ 1. Without the Churches consent Election c. they may not 'T is true Titus was left by Paul in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Tit. 1. 5. but that he might do this without the choice election and concurrent act of the Church as a Diocesan Bishop as some fondly imagine is a fancy that as it hath over and over been confuted by many Godly Learned so Mr. T. will never be able to make it good 2ly Should it be granted which yet is most false contrary to the practice of those times and many years after that Titus ordained by himself without the knowledg counsel and approbation of the people Elders it doth not in the least follow that any persons may do so now For. 1. He had express warrant and direction from the Apostle to do what he did 2. He was an extraordinary Officer an Evangelist not limited to a certain Church the continuance of which office we have no direction for in the Scripture 3. The officers that were to be continued in the Churches are said to be Elders or Bishops which were not names of distinct officers but of the same Tit. 1. 5 7. to be confined or limited to oâ—e particular Congregation not having or exercising jurisdiction over many Phil. 1. 1. Acts. 14. 23. 20. 17 28. Tit. 1. 5 6 7. so that this instance makes little to his purpose When he proves his suggestion that there are any
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
might rationally have inferred from hence That that upon the doing whereof relating to the Worship and Service of God of which we were treating Saints have no promise of a Blessing nor ground to expect it is not lawful for them to do for when they are attending â—pon God in his own way he hath promised to meet them and bless them Isa 64. 5. 3. What he writes of Ezekiel's being told that Israel â—ould not hearken is very frivolous and impertinent 1. He had in his going forth to act for God in that Work a promise of his presence and Blessing though Israel abode obstinate Ezek. 3. 8 9 19. 2. There were a Remnant that attended upon the Word of the Lord from his Mouth to whom God made it a blessing But he is upon second thoughts willing to wave this and denies the Minor He tells us That the Saints have a promise of a Spiritual Blessing by hearing these men while they preach the Gospel which he proves from Isa 55. 3. Luke 11. 28. Answ 1. The former place relates not at all to a meer external hearing or an outward attendment upon that Ordinance nor doth the latter but an obediential giving up our selves unto the Word of God Yet 2. they both imply an hearing according to the appointment of the Lord which if we do not but go out of his way atâ—ending upon a false Ministry as we have proved the present Ministery of England to be these words import not the least promise of a blessing 3. They may be as well urged to prove an attendment upon the Ministry of Rome and that upon our so doing we had ground â—o expect it He adds 2dly The experience of former times tells us that more have been converted strengthened by Conformists yea Bishops themselves than by the best of Separatists Ans 1. Of this the Animadverter is no competent Judge Reformation to civility is not Regeneration Conversion to Christ and Holiness 2. Should it be granted all that could be inferred from hence were this that God did of meer Grace honour his own Word for the conversion of sinners not that we have any ground to expect a blessing upon our attendment on that false Ministry by whâ—m 't is dispensed We say in S. T. To prove a promise of a blessing upon our attendment on the present Ministers we conceive is no easie task for any to do for these Reasons 1. The blessing of the Lord is upon Sion Psal 87. 2. 78. 68. There he dwells Psal 9. 11. 74. 2. Jer. 8. 19. Isa 8. 18. Joel 3. 17 21. The presence of Christ is in the midst of his Golden Candlesticks Rev. 1. 12 13. 2. 1. 'T is his Garden in which he feedeth and dwells Cant. 6. 2. 8. 13. And we are not surer of any thing than we are of this that the Assemblies of England in their present constitution are not the Sion of God his Candlestick his Garden but a very wilderness and that Babel out of which the Lord commands his People to hasten their escape Rev. 18. 4. 2. God never promiseth a Blessing to a people waiting upon him in that way which is polluted and not of his appointment as we have proved the Worship of England to be 3. The Lord hath expresly said concerning such as run before they are sent that they shall not profit the people Jer. 23. 32. 4. He professeth that such as refuse to obey his calls to come out of Babylon shall partake of her plagues Rev. 18. 4. 5. Where the Lord is not in respect of his special presence and Grace there is no ground to expect any blessing But God is not so in the midst of the Parochial Assemblies of England Where are the Souls that are converted comforted strengthened stablished by their Ministry To which Mr. T. answers 1. The first reason is a fond application of what is said of Gods dwelling in Sion meant of his special presence there in that his Temple and Service was upon that Hill in the time of the Old Testament to the Congregational Churches exclusively to the Assemblies of England who in their present constitution are not the Sion of God Answ 1. Will Mr. T. stand to this that by the Lords dwelling in Sion we are to understand nothing more than his presence in the Temple with his people of old worshipping there This he seems immediately to retract whilst he cites the Assembly in their Annotations on Heb. 12. 22. making Mount Sion a Type of the Gospel-Church with approbation 2. That the People of Israel were Typical of the Saints in Gospel-dayes we have already demonstrated Sion was so 1st Their Assemblies are call'd the Assemblies of Mount Sion Isa 4. 5. 2dly The solemn investment of Christ into the exercise of Kingship and regal Authority over them is call'd The Lords setting his King upon Sion or over Sion the Mountain of his Holiness Psal 2. 6. 3dly Saints Believers are call'd Sion Psal 146. 10. 147. 12. 149. 2. 4thly The New-Testament Churches are call'd his Temple 2 Cor. 6. 16. with allusion to the Temple that was built upon Mâ—unt Moriah one of the Mountains of Sion to which the true Worship of God was affixed not only in opposition to the Heathen Worship of the Nations but the Worship of the Apostatick ten Tribes under Jeroboam the infamous head of their Apostacy as to these the true Worship of God is fixed in opposition to the Antichristian worship of the Mother-Church of Rome and her Daughters 5thly Mount Sion is call'd the Holy Hill the people that Worship there an holy People evidently expressive of the qualifications of the Church-Members in the times of the Gospel as we have proved 6thly As Sion was typical of Gospel-Churches so was Babylon of false Antichristian-Churches who are her very Picture the Church of England is so as 't were easie to demonstrate That Old Babylon was given to superstiaion and self-invented-worship Jer. 50. 38. 51. 44. Isa 46. 1. bottom'd upon no better Authority than tradition and antiquity compell'd others to Uniformity in her false worship under Penal Laws and Statutes Dan. 3. 3 6. was cruel and tyrannical against the People of God Jer. 51. 25. Isa 14. 17. 47. 6. Jer. 50. 33. and would not permit them to build the Temple at Jerusalem and worship God there according to his appointment that in anâ—wer hereunto the false Antichristian Church or New-Babel is described as given to superstition and self-invented-worship Rev. 13. 14. 17. 5. compelling others to uniformity thereunto under Penal Laws and Statutes Rev. 13. 15 16 17. 17. 2. 18. 3 9. most cruel and tyrannical against the Saints who cannot conform to her Inventions Rev. 13. 7 10 15. 16. 6. 17. 6. 18. 24. is so evident that none can deny it So that 7thly except Mr. T. can prove the Assemblies of England in their present constitution to be Gospel-Churches they are not
nor the practice of them in the Worship of God under the Old Testament do at all hinder them from depending on the meer Institution of Jesus Christ as to those especial ends of the glory of God in and by himself and the edification of his Church in the Faith which is in him whereunto he hath appointed them nor as unto the special manner of their performance which he requireth in which respects they are to be observed on the account of his Authority and Command only Mat. 17. 5. 28. 20. John 16. 23 24. Heb. 3. 4 5 6. Eph. 1. 22. 2. 20 21 22. Heb. 12. 25. In the explication whereof he speaketh after this wise The principal thing we are to aim at in the whole Worship of God is the discharge of that duty which we owe to Jesus Christ the King and Head of the Church Heb. 3. 6. 1 Tim. 3. 15. This we cannot do unless we consider his Authority as the formal reason and cause of our observance of all that we do therein If we perform any thing in the Worship of God on any other account it is no part of our obedience unto him and so we can neither expect his Grace to assist us nor have we his Promise to accept us therein for that he hath annexed unto our doing and observing what ever he hath commanded and that because he hath commanded us Matth. 28. 20. This promised Presence respects only the observance of his Commands Some men are apt to look on this Authority of Christ as that which hath the least influence into what they do If in any of his Institutions they find any thing that is suited or agreeable to the Light of Nature as Ecclesiastical Societies the Government of the Church and the like they say are they suppose and contend that that is the ground on which they are to be attended unto and so are to be regulated accordingly The interposition of his Authority they will allow only in the Sacraments which have no light in Reason or Nature so desirous are some to have as little to do with Christ as they can even in the things that concern the Worship of God But it would be somewhat strange that if what the Lord Christ hath appointed iâ— his Church to be observed in particular in an especial manner for special ends of his own hath in the general nature of it an agreement with what in like cases the Light of Nature seems to direct unto that therefore his Authority is not to be considered as the sole immediate reason of our performance of it But it is evident First that our Lord Jesus Christ being the King and Head of his Church the Lord over the House of God nothing is to be done therein but with respect unto his Authority Mat. 17. 5. Eph. 4. 15. 2. 20 21. Secondly and that therefore the suitableness of any thing to right Reason or the Light of Nature is no ground for a Church-observation of it unless it be also appointed and commanded in especial by Jesus Christ Thirdly That being so appointed and commanded it becomes an especial Institution of his and as such is to be observed so that in all things that are done or to be done with respect unto the Worship of God in the Church the Authority of Christ is alway principally to be considered and every thing to be observed is commanded by him without which consideration it hath no place in the Worship of God Thus far he with convincing brightness and evidence 'T is true Mr. T. tells us there are some particularities which God hath tied us to in the New Testament in hearing But of what nature they are he expresly tells us not Whether such as do constitute it New-Testament-Worship without which it is not or cannot be accounted to be so The Scriptures cited by him are not wholly strangers to such a thing First Mat. 17. 5. fairly intimates that what ever is to be done in the New-Testament-Worship is to be done solely upon the Authority of Christ In v. 2. we have an account of Christ's transfiguration before Peter James and John Vers 3. Moses and Elias appear talking with him Moses was the great Lawgiver to the Old-Testament-Church Deut. 33. 21. i. e. in the portion or inheritance which Moses the Lawgiver according to the Command God had given to the Gadites Elias was the great Reformer of the Church in the dayes of Jezebels Apostacy from God men of great renown in their day Peter and the rest of them being amazed cryes out It is good for us to be here let us make three Tabernacles one for thee one for Moses and one for Elias Whereby he seems to equalize them with Christ each of them a tabernacle v. 4. What saith the voice of God v. 6. While he yet spake behold a bright cloud overshadowed them and behold a voice out of the cloud which said This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him And Mark tells us chap. 9. 9. That suddenly when they looked about they saw none but Jesus Moses and Elias were vanished and gone The intendment of the whole seems to be this That though betwixt Christ Moses and Elias there was a sweet coalescency and agreement they talked together yet in the Worship of God under the Gospel not Moses nor Elias but only Christ is to be hearkned and attended unto Therefore but a reasonable postulatum that the whole of the Worship of Christ in the times of the Gospel be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New-Testament He being appointed and deputed by the Father solely to be attended unto for Laws and Directions touching it for which also he came from the bosome of the Father John 1. 18. By whom he hath spoken to us in these last dayes Heb. 1. 2. To whom fulness of Power and Authority is delegated by the Father Mat. 28. 18. From whence the Commission to the Apostles for preaching the Gospel v. 20. doth originally spring and consequently our hearing or attending upon Preachers in that work is to take its measure from the Laws and Statutes which as Lord of the Family he hath given forth thereabout for his Houshold to observe and do Nor 2dly doth Luk. 10. 16. cited in the second place by this Animadverter serve to any other purpose but to cut the throat of the cause he hath at present undertaken the management of They are the words of Christ unto the Seventy whom he sent two and two before his face v. 1. and prove thus much That hearing those that are sent out by Christ is a positive Institution of his and such an Institution that therein we hear him which proves not the lawfulness of attending upon the Ministry of such as act not by vertue of any Authority received from him but the contrary If the Argument Christ here useth be valid That he who heareth them whom he sends in his Name heareth him and he
and indeed as by shadows we are sometimes to understand the Jewish administration of affairs under the old paedagogy so by day the time of the dispersion of those Shadows and the introduction of the Gospel-Churcâ—-state Cant. 2. 17. 4. 6. The whole of what Mr. T. would infer from this place would not only be enervated but a Sword ready furbished put into the hands of his Antagonist to put an end to his expiring cause Nor wil it at all avail him to say that the Gospel-administration was already introduced and brought in for although that was afoot some while before yet many Jewish Ceremonies were yet winked at and practised by the believing Jews of whom the charge was committed unto Peter Gal. 2. 7 8 9. to whom he writes these Epistles who were much in practise of their old Ordinances some of them till the time of the ruine and devastation of their Temple by Titus Vespasian when some think 2 Pet. 3. 7 9 10. of the burning and consuming of the then Heavens and Earth viz. the Jewish Paedagogy and old Administration of affairs had its accomplishment and the new Heavens or Gospel-Church-state was fully introduced Though we need not assert any thing of this nature The Apostle as was said is treating not of the Worship but Doctrine of the Messiah in particular of his Glory Power and Coming which the Prophets he tells them had abundantly bore witness to and to their Testimony it was their duty is ours to attend That hence such a conclusion as this is or can be logically inferred that therefore the Precepts and Directions of the Old-Testament are to be heeded and learned in respect of the matter therein contained and the persons that reveal it with respect to Worship of which he must speak or he saith nothing to the matter in hand is the first-born of absurdities and needs the abilities of one transcending the degree of a B. D. to make good But this Mr. T. thought not of No wonder his late Writings as he complains find so little acceptance amongst persons inquisitive after Truth if there be such chasma's betwixt the head and heels of his Arguments that 't is impossible the Reader should find mediums enough to fill up and render them in the least conclusive But he goes on and tells us that he meets with no prohibition to hear any but false Prophets Mat. 7. 15. Deceivers Tit. 1. 10. That teach other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1. 3. 2 John 10. Another Gospel Gal. 1. 8 9. Answ 1. Christ's institution of Officers of his own for the administration of the affairs of his House had there been no express interdiction had been interdiction sufficient to hear a Ministry not of his appointment The Lord having caused Fire to come down from Heaven and giving a charge that it should be kept alive continually upon his Altar was such an interdiction of offering Sacrifice with strange Fire that Nadab and Abihu not observing it though no express command against offering strange fire die by the immediate hand of the Lord as a punishment for their transgression But 2dly we reade of other prohibitions in the Scripture though Mr. T. is not pleased now to take notice of them as Mat. 15. 14. which about twenty five years ago he seems to suppose to be an injunction of Christ not to hear the Scribes and Pharisees and indeed the word there used plainly imports as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to remove from forsaken so as never to come at them more which Beza saith is the proper signification of the word and the learned Grotias * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut remittere proprie et primigenio significatu est a se amovere atque ita sumitur Mat. 4. 20. et alibi saepe unde sumpta metaphora significat deserere dimittere permittere frequentissime autem rationem alicujus rei non habere quod Latini simili locutione dicunt missum aliquid facere ita sumi haâ—c voâ—em apparet Mat. 15. 14. Gâ—ot de saâ—is Christi saith little less and in them a prohibition to hear such as should act like them viz. teach for doctrines the traditions of men Nor is the Animadverter a stranger to that solemn Injunction of the Apostle 2 Tim. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from such turn away The word signifies devocare avocare saith Aretius whence saith he we may understand that 't is our duty to shun them that we be not made like them That there is a dispensation granted to abide with Ministers of such a complexion I never yet read 3dly Were there no more prohibitions than those instanced by Mr. T. these were enow to prove it the duty of Saints to separate from the present Ministers of England That they are false Prophets Mat. 7. 15. we have evinced ch 6. of S. Test which is vindicated from Mr. T. his Exceptions chap. 7th of this Treatise and Sect. 10. of this chapter That they are Deceivers according to Tit. 1. 10. the second place instanc'd in by him were easie to demonstrate That they teach other Doctrine according to 1 Tim. 1. 5. the third place he is pleased to introduce he that thinks it any part of his concern to examine what they do cannot be ignorant Is not Canonical obedience compulsion in matters of Religion and Faith conveniency at least of Surplice Organs Cross in Baptism Regeneration thereby with many more that might be instanced in as a National Church in the time of the Gospel Communion with persons visibly wicked and prophane Subjection to which they have a Law to compel men to the necessity of Godfaâ—hers and Godmothers another Doctrine Did they learn these things from Christ and his Apostles or from the Cabal at Rome Nor will it avail this Animadverter to say that these cannot be called anotheâ— Doctrine because some of them not expresly forbidden nor directly contrary to what is taught by them For what is more than they taught is another Doctrine though not directly contrary thereunto Hear what the Assembly in their Annotations upon the place say Teach no other doctrine the chief Pastors of the Church who were endued with Apostolical Authority as was Timothy were to forbid any to preach not only doctrine that was contrary but that which was beside that which the Faithful have received from the Apostles And indeed the word is plainly so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e. i. saith Piscator 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they teach not things divers viz. from the Doctrine of the Apostles So Beza And Hyperius is very full that they teach no other Doctrine either for matter or manner for substance or circumstance As to what he adds that Christ more especially tied his Disciples to hear his Apostles and such as were sent by them to them yet when all the Church at Jerusalem except the Apostles were scattered abroad by persecution and went every where preaching the Gospel Acts 8.
make the Tabernacle For see saith he that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the Mount i. e. To the type and example set before him to imitate to which he was not to add the least pin of his own 1 Chr. 28. 11. The pattern of the Porch i. e. of the Temple saith Vatablus which David received either by revelation or by the hand of the Prophet 1 Chr. 28. 12 19. Exod. 8. 27. 39. 1 5 7 21 26 31 43. other places instanced in the S. T. preach forth the same thing These were types of the heavenly Ordinances in the Church of Christ Heb. 8. 5. And type out that nothing of man is to be superadded thereto but all things to be done according to Divine Commandment To the same thing doth the Spirit of the Lord bear witness Exod. 40. 23 25 29. Num. 8. 3. Exod. 35. 10 29. 36. 1 5. Isa 29. 13. To which may be further added Deut. 4. 1 2 40. Now therefore hearken O Israel unto the Statutes and Judgments which I teach you for to do them Ye shall not add to the Word which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it that you may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God Thou shalt keep therefore his Statutes and Commandments which I command thee this day All which prove not only the obligation that lay upon them to conform to what was of the Institution of the Lord but the utter unlawfulness to add thereto or introduce any thing of their own in his service The ground of the acceptance of any Worship or Service offered to him being his Command and Institution and that with such evidence and brightness that it seems Mr. T. durst not look them in the face lest they shouâ—d have so reproved him as to have hindred his further advance in that good work and cause he was resolved having undertaken its defence to prosecute He only takes notice of two of these many places instanced in viz. Lev. 8. throughout which he grants speak of the investure of the Priests into their Office according to the Rites set down but whether any other might to these have been added to the sons of men he tells us not which yet he should have proved if he would have demolished and thrown down what it was his good pleasure to set himself against And he doth wisely not to approach too near this Scripture which stands with a two-edged Sword in its hand to defend the Truth opposed by this Animadverter No less than ten times viz. v. 4 5 9 13 17 21 29 34 35 36. The Commandment of the Lord is laid as the foundation of the whole of that procedure clearly importing that matters of this nature viz. things relating to his Worship are solely to be bottom'd on Divine Precepts and condemning and interdicting whatever of the like nature is offered to him on any other bottom Which Aaron's sons afterwards attempting to do Lev. 10. 1. perish in the flames of God's jealousie and wrath R. Menachem on Lev. 8. 36. hath these words In every other place it is said as the Lord commanded Moses but here because they added unto the Commandment he saith not so for they did not as the Lord had commanded and added moreover unto them strange Fire which he had not commanded them Lev. 10. 1. And Josephus b. 3. c. 9. saith thâ—s Nadab and Abihu bringing Sacrifices unto the Altar not such as were appointed by Moses but of that sort they were accustomed to offer aforetimes were burned by the violent flame that issued from the Altar that at length they died The other place he takes notice of is Isa 29. 13. which he refers to be discussed to the first chapter All the other places as was said are passed over in silence which manner of dealing is a great abuse both to the Truth and Reader To the Truth by waving the consideration of what is offered as the substratum upon which it is built To the Reader by pretending to answer to what is asserted by his Antagonist for the confirmation of Truth without advancing one step forward towards its confutation But perhaps he means not that where God hath given direction about any part of Worship it 's lawful to add any thing thereunto but onely wherein God hath not spoken and determined as touching the management of his Worship there the will of some of the children of men takes place and they may determine But if so 1. This is a most pitiful Petitio principii or begging the thing in question viz. That God hath not determined the whole of his Worship and Service but hath left somewhat to the wills of men relating to Worship as such to be determined by them which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the thing in question and will never be granted him upon those terms 2dly Contrary to that fundamental principle placed in the nature of man and implyed and fairly intimated in each Scripture before instanced in that nothing in his Worship and Service is acceptable to him but what is of his own prescription 3dly Diametrically opposite to Deut. 4. 1 2. these additions let them be of what nature or in what case they will are additions to the Word of Jehovah Isa 29. 13. with Mark 7. 7. being evidently doctrines and institutions of men which the Spirit there tells us must have no place in the Worship of God That the Jews had their Service more fully particularized in all things pertaining to it than we have if he mean things relating to Service or Worship as such is spoken after the rate that a great many other things in this Treatise are viz. with confidence enough but without proof There being nothing relating to Gospel-Worship as such but is determined by Christ and appointed in the Scripture When he sends forth his Apostles Mat. 28. they were to teach what he had commanded them nothing more or less And he being Lord and Master of his House whose House are we Heb. 3. 6. who dares be so bold as to intermeddle with the affairs thereof without his appointment or can do so without an incroachment upon his Soveraignty He was faithful as Moses who received and revealed the Ordinances of the then House of God that he left nothing relating to the Worship thereof as such to the wills of men But of this more hereafter Sect. 8. Of the apostasie of the Jews from Divine Institutions The aim of the Author in remarking it It s application to the Church of England Whose Investions are expresly forbidden Of things in themselves out of the casâ— of Worship indifferent 'T is not in the power of the Church to make that which is left indifferent by the Lord a necessary Worship The judgement of the Protestant Writers Of the decency and order is in the Ceremonies of the Church of England Of their being imposed by Publick Authority How they draw from God
Of their rise from the customs and manner of the Nations directly contrary to many precepts The introduction of mens Inventions into the Worship of God idolatrous Will-worship Idolatry The judgment of the Ancients and others thereabout A departure from the Institutions of God to the Customs of the Nations called in Scripture a forsaking of God Several Scriptures reviewed Of the Jews worshipping other Godds How these things are applicable to the Church of England IN Sect. 9. This Animadverter examines what was asserted in S. T. touching the Apostasie of the Church of the Jews from the pure Institutions of the Lord mingling therewith the Inventions of Men and Customs of the Nations of which God sorely complaines and for it severely punisheth them the Contests of God from first to last being bottomed upon this foot of account which as it relates to the People of the Jews he acknowledgeth the truth of But to apply these things with the threatnings and punishments in the places mentioned to the imposing or using of such Ceremonies as are retained in the Church of England is a gross abuse Answ 1. But who applied them hereunto The utmost of the Athors intention in this assertion was only to manifest That a Church might be wonderfully gathered and separated by the Lord out of the World taken near to himself for his People yet soon apostatize and depart from him which the Jews did From whence I thought it had been lawful to conclude That another Church or Churches except some special Priviledge or grant to the contrary given to them of the Lord could be produced might likewise apostatize from God which when applied to the Church of England as â—e calls it only amounts to thus much that supposing it once was a true Church 't is possible if it hath not already it may apostatize and depart from God which Mr. T. will not deny And that this was the utmost of my intendment in this matter is evident from Q. 7. P. 11. Where are these words Whether any Church in the world we speak of a visible instituted Church hath greater security against Apostasie from God and that sore Judgment of having its Candlestick removed and being unchurched than the People of the Jews had If not Then whether supposing a National Church of the Institution of Christ it may not so come to pass that it may be so overspread with corruptions that it may lose the essence of a Church and justly be disrobed of that appellation Yet upon second thoughts I see not that there is such a vast discrepancy betwixt the Inventions of men charged upon the Jews for which they were threatned and punished and the Inventions are to be found in the Church of England as this Animadverter would compel us to the belief of He tells us 1. That their Inventions were expresly forbidden And are not the Ceremonies of the Church of England Inventions of Men he grants at least some of them to be Now all the Inventions of man in the Worship of God relating to it as such were then and now expresly forbidden whilest he supposeth the contrary he doth but beg the Question by the second Commandment and elsewhere as hath been shewed The learned Dr. Willet in his Coment on the 2d Com. tells us That the true Worship of God which according to his nature must be spiritual is commanded in this 2d Precept and that he will be worshipped according to his Will revealed in his Word to which it is not lawful to add to or take any thing therefrom as the Lord said to Moses Exod. 25. 9. He further acquaints us That all other kinds of superstitious Worship devised by man which the Apostle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Will-worship Col. 2. 23. for we must saith he be contented with Rites and Ceremonies prescribed of God himself and the application of things of themselves indifferent so unto the Service of God as to make them a necessary part thereof is condemned by this Precept 2dly Mr. T. asserts That the Ceremonies of the Church of England are confessed out of the Case of Worship in themselves to be things indifferent Answ 1. And were there no Ceremonies amongst the Jews confessed out of the case of Worship to be so This Animadverter knows the contrary 2. By what authority doth any of the children of men make that necessary in case of Worship that is confessedly not so out of it i. e. make it a part of Worship for if necessary in case of Worship 't is evidently made a part thereof without which it cannot acceptablly be performed I confess Dr. Foen in Comitiis Oxon. An. 1605. one of their own Poets sings In Domini cultu si quid medium esse videtur Quod populti dubio stat cadit arbitrio Hoc Sacro-sancta parens Ecclesia si modo sanxit Inque sacris cultum hunc si velit esse ratum Non erit hic cultus medius cogetur ad illum Quisque necessarius hic quoque cultus erit Wherein he tels us That if any thing be indifferent in the Worship of God and Holy-Mother-Church shall establish and confirm it it ceaseth to be indifferent and becomes necessary Worship which every one is to be compelled to In which he speaks shall I say like a true Son of the Church of England or of Rome But he forgets to tell us upon what Scripture he bottoms these two Assertions First That there is any thing relating to the Worship of God as such of an indifferent nature Secondly That 't is in the power of the Church to make that which is left indifferent by the Lord a necessary Worship nor can he produce any but the unwritten Word or Law communicated to the Pope or his Conclave I know not when and kept I know not where which will prove no better at best than the proof the Jews bring for their Fopperies since their Apostacy and scattering abroad out of their Talmudical Writers or the Turks from their Alcoran i. e. frivolous and ridiculous This is generally decried and exploded by Protestant Writers Peter Martyr In Epist ad Hoop Episcop Glocest affirms of the English Ceremonies That Quoad aliter facere non liceat i. e. in their imposition as necessary parts of Worship they were grievous and burdensom Certain Princes of Germany to please Charles the Emperor Imposed the Surplice and other Rites upon the Ministers of their several Territories and are all condemned Supplicat Teolog German A. 1561. for this That they caused to sigh the Spirit of God and the hearts of good men It is Blasphemy to think that any outward thing may be made a Sign in the Church of any thing that is spiritual as the Cross in Baptism is unless it be expresly ordained in the Word and Commanded by God himself to be used to that end saith Lambert Danaeus Cont. Bellar. de Cult Sanct. Lib. 3. Cap. 7. Contrary whereto is the Doctrine of none of the Reformed Churches
be viz. when Antichrist according to Paul whose Epistles Peter conversed with 2 Pet. 3. 15. should be revealed In respect of each of which the title is applicable to the present Ministers 1. They assume the title of Teachers falsly as is proved chap. 3. of S. T. 2dly They teach false things as we demonstrate ch 5. 10. of S. T. 3dly That they are teachers of a great part of the Lie of Antichrist their Discipline Worship and Doctrine thereabout being for the most part hammered at his forge cannot be denied Secondly Of them it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they shall bring in Heresies of destruction The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to bring in besides i. e. besides mens expectations or besides the Truth taught by Godly Teachers by themselves in part also to countenance their Errors so the Assembly They shall do it fraudulently under the vizard of Truth so Aretius They shall do it privily and subtilly pretending a shew of Piety and name of the Church so Gerh. Heresies of cestruction are no other but the Heresies or false Doctrines of Antichriâ—â— such as destroy and lay waste the Church the Truths and Institutions of Christ being alien and contrary to what is of his prescription and are supported by force and violence against them that do oppose them For which at the last swift destruction is brought upon themselves Upon which account Antichrist as is thought is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 9. 11. i. e. a Destroyer and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Thess 2. 3. the son of destruction or perdition That the Ministers and Church of England do thus is too evident to admit of a denial They assume to themselves the name of the Church cry out against all others that separate from them as Hereticks and Schismaticks preach some truth with which they slily mix their Errours that lay waste the Institutions of Christ and persecute all these imprison waste ruine destroy them or at the least attempt it to the utmost of their power that stand up against their Innovations and Church-destroying Doctrines The greatest difficulty may seem to be in those words that are spoken of them Thirdly That they shall deny the Lord that bought them the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They denied not that he bought them if it be meant of Christ but denied him as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lord cast off in part at least his Authority as sole King and Lord of his Church And this too not openly and in words which is against the express letter of the Text they shall privily or slily bring it in but in practice doing that which doth invelop or wrap up in it a denial of the Despotical or Kingly Office and Authority of Christ And this saith Grotius the word signifies De tali desertione quae non verbo sed reipsa fiat figurate usurpatur Hugo Grot. Whence Dux Gregis the Captain of this Herd is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that lawless-one that despiseth sets light by the Laws and Authority of Christ That hereof the present Ministers are guilty we prove chap. 4. 5. of S. T. So that not one of the Scriptures produced but may justly be applyed to them And the Conforming-Ministers are rightly charged as the false Prophets of the Jews are in the places produced in S. T. This Mr. T. denies but if he would have made good his denial in my conceit he should have produced the particular places mentioned and manifested that they could not properly be applyed to them But he knew an easier way Mentiris Bellarmine mentiris a few keen words against his Antagonist would cost him little 'T is true he tells us that the present Ministers teach the Fundamentals of Christian Religion but what he means by the Fundamentals of Religion he tells us not Doth he intend that they own one God c. so did the false-Prophets The great Fundamental of true Religion is That God is to be worshipped according to the Revelation he hath made of himself in the Scriptures of Truth that all we do in his Worship and Service that relates to it as such be bottom'd on divine prescript This fundamental they deny introducing the Ordinances and Inventions of man and making these a part of Worship A departure from which is the ground of all the Apostacy that ever was in the World 4thly This Animadverter's plea for the Church and Ministers of England is not much better than what was or might have been made use of by Jeroboam himself for his Ministry Church and Worship Touching which precious Ainsworth in his Arrow against Idolatry ch 3. introduceth Jeroboam speaking after this rate I see my course O men of Israel to be much suspected if not wholly misliked of many some thinking my Ceremonies to savour too rankly of Heathen Superstition some charging me plainly with flat Apostasie and forsaking of God But how far off I am from all such Impiety I hope to manifest to all indifferent persons chiefly sith that I have neither spoken nor done against any Article of the Ancient Faith not changed any Fundamental Ordinance of Religion The very plea of Mr. T. for the present Ministers given us by Moses but worship with reverence the God of my Fathers and love him as I am taught with all my heart and with all my soul cleaving unto him alone who is my life and the length of my dayes Other Godds of the Nations I utterly abhor with all their impure rites and services The alteration I have made is in matters of circumstance things whereof there is no express certain or permanent Law given us of God and which are variable as time place or person give occasion and such as good Kings have changed before me and have been blameless This the sum upon which he dilates excellently and Sect. 12. introduceth him asserting his Worship for substance to be the same that God commanded by Moses We worship saith he the same God we offer the Sacrifices of Beeves and Sheep burn Incense pay First-fruits and Tythes and observe all the Ordinances that our Fathers have kept since the World began We hold the main Article of our Messiah to come and of Redemption from our sins by him Thus plausibly with much more mentioned by that worthy person before-named in his Arrow against Idolatry a Tract to say no more worthy the perusal Might Jeroboam plead for himself and practice as Josephus tells us he did B. 8. Jews Antiq. â—ap 3. yet are his wayes and worship abominable and not to be joyned with And yet Mr. T. hath not hitherto said more for the justification of the Ministers and Worship of England Parvas habet spes Troja si tales habet If no more can be pleaded in defence of the present Ministers and Worship than Jeroboam could plead for his Innovations and horrible Apostacy from God their case is deplorable indeed Sect. 11. In the height of the
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
not at all to his purpose At the best it is but a recrimination I know not how this Animadverter could imagine that the owning and asserting of these things as lawful had the least tendency to the establishment of a National Church But some men are so distempered that they suppose every thing makes for the advancement of that design they are driving on If he deems Synods owned by men of Congregational Principles and his Ecclesiastical Convocation of National Officers are of the same nature he is mistaken 1. Those are chosen by the particular Churches to which they are severally related and what they act and do is in their name and upon the account of that power and authority they receive from them The Convocation of the Clergy act in their own name and authority being never chosen by any one Congregation to sit and make Laws 2ly Those pretend not to be the Church nor to any self-power to make Laws and impose them upon the Churches as obligatory and binding to be received and subjected to by them without the least judgement of discretion allowed them or liberty of dissenting if not perswaded in their consciences of the truth of what is decreed by them and its consonancy with the Scriptures of the Lord. As is known to be the case of the Convocation of the Church of England to dissent from whose Canons at least to oppose them is censured with no less than an Excommunication or delivering up to Satan Which how directly it leads to the Popish implicit faith of believing as the Church believes every one is able to discern For my part with reference to these I am much of the mind of the learned Whitaker de Concil p. 12. General Councils may erre and imbrace false opinions Nam Concilium Antiochenum veritatem damnavit haeresin apertam propugnavit Similiter Ariminense Ephesinum secundum ex quo patet veritatem non esse metiendam ex numero Episcoporum Of them he saith 1. That their calling together is a certain politick and humane invention pag. 35 77. 2. That they cannot frame Articles of Faith to binde the Conscience pag. 19. 3. That their end in coming together is not to feed as Pastors but to consult what is best for the Churches pag. 85. 4. That they are not simply necessary pag. 23. 5. That they do not give authority to the Scripture pag. 242 243. 6. That their Decrees are not immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost pag. 262 263. 7. That the ultimate determination and judgment of a General Council may be false pag. 231. 8. That there is no judgement of a Council properly in matters of Faith ibid. 9. That the truth of things determined in Councils may afterwards be called into question and again disputed pag. 283. 10. That the Churches of Christ have been kept sound in Faith without them for the first 300 years pag. 23. To which I add 11. That I never yet read of any Council or Synod since that Act 15. but 't were easie to demonstrate that in one thing or other it hath erred The most of the Hay and Stubble that is built upon the Foundation at this day not to mention their attempts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 owing its original to some of them So that I confess I am no admirer of them and am bold to affirm of any that have yet been it had been better for the Church of God that they had never been in the world But these things are little to Mr. T. his purpose That persons owning the lawfulness of Synods from Scripture-warrant as they conceive should therefore be necessitated to own a National Church as a true Church of Christ is a position that Mr. T. will never make good I suppose by the view I have taken of some of his Writings he is very confident of his own abilities but he is a rare man indeed that can compose a Rope of Sand. The lawfulness of a National Church or unlawfulness thereof having no dependance upon Congregational Synods but is to take its measure from somewhat else of which before Of Churches of a greater number â—han can meet at one place for the celebration of all the Ordinances of Christ I shall not need to say any thing till he acquaint us what Congregational men are of that perswasion it will be accounted a meer Calumny The assembling of the members of a particular Church in the same place for the celebration of the same Numerical Ordinances being one considerable part of the definition given by our Congregational Brethren of such a Church And yet if they did own Churches of a greater number 't is ridiculous to imagine that they could from thence be compelled to the owning of a National Church which wants both the matter and form of a true Church of Christ which yet the other may have So that we need not turn aside to consider the proofs used by those that held That many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government Printed 1645. Of which this Animadverter reminds us For though I am not of their mind nor do I conceive their Reasons to be cogent Yet were that true a National Church could not from thence be proved a true Church of Christ For 1st They suppose these Congregations to be particular Churches of Christ constituted and made up of visible Saints which cannot as yet be affirmed of any National Church in the world or any Parish Church as a part thereof 2dly They also affirm that these particular Churches have power within themselves to determine differences by their own Elders to excommunicate Offenders obstinately guilty of notorious scandals 3dly They are utterly against all Archiepiscopal National Officers the source and spring of a National Church 4thly They conceive not all in England nor all in a Parish to be lawful Church-members because born there nor will they compel them as such to receive the Sacrament with them which is the known case of the Church of England That at Jerusalem there were more Churches than one under a Presbyterial Government is a fond conceit which the numerous multitude of Believers thereunto belonging contribute not the least mite of assistance to Be they never so many they are called Acts 8. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church which was at Jerusalem The like may be said of the Church of Corinth it was one single Congregation the Church of God which was at Corinth 1 Cor. 1 1. 2 Cor. 1. 1. So was the Church at Ephesus Rev. 2. 1. But as was said The grant of more Churches than one under one Presbyterial Government is remote enough from the establishment of a National Church which by other bonds and ligaments than the Assertors thereof will own must be united to one National Head or it hath not cannot have a being in the world So that these things are little to his purpose The next attempt of this Animadverter is to remove an obstruction which he
be imagined upon that supposition a measure of them by it were impossible to be taken 5. The measured Court saith the learned Mede setteth forth the primitive state of the Christian Church conformable to the Rule of Gods Word The measuring is an allusion to Ezek. 43. 7 to 10. or to building viz. That what the drawing of the Platform is to Builders the same is Measuring to God in the language of the Prophets i. e. the state of the Church figured thereby is God's workmanship 6. The measuring is as was said a clear allusion to Ezek. 43. 10. but that measuring was in order to the shewing the form of the House Let them measure the pattern ver 11. Shew them the form of the House and the fashion thereof therefore the measuring here must be for the same end too Mr. Parker further argues If God when the Church of the Jews is call'd to the Faith designs the quantity longitude latitude thereof it cannot be imagined that he hath left the dimension of the Gentile Churches to humane pleasure But when the Church of the Jews is called to the Faith he designs the quantity c. thereof Therefore Mr. T. replies 1. That the Holy City is the visible Church of the Jews c. Or that the measuring it was to design the quantity of particular Churches is not probable Answ But this is more than probable that the Holy City be it what it will is exactly formed and figured by the Lord as the measuting the City the Gates the Walls thereof doth abundantly evince If you take it for the converted Jews as some learned men do or the Gentile Churches after the fall and ruine of Antichrist to which it may be Mr. T. rather enclines 't is not probable that God should then take such exact care about the forming and figuring of the Church-societies of these and in the mean while leave his present Churches to the good pleasure of the children of men and those none of the best neither 2dly He tells us Inasmuch as the Apostle Rom. 11. 25. asserts that all Israel shall be saved he might better argue for a National Church of Christ's Institution from the visible Church-state of the Jews at their future calling than for a Congregational Church Answ 1. But then he must argue that some Church-form is of divine institution which would overturn his present structure 2. He must first prove that the Jews Church-state upon their conversion will be National which the Apostle's words all Israel shall be saved do not evince for so they may be though formed up into particular societies as some learned men think they shall 3. God's designing more diligently the quantity c. of the Jewish Church at their calling hereafter and leaving the dimension of ours to humane choice may be done Mr. T. tells us out of more special love to them Answ 1. But pag. 39. he tells us That God's leaving things appertaining to the New-Testament-Churches to be set down by man more than he did to the Jewish-Church is an Argument of greater love and care to the New-Testament-Churches than to them This needs a Reconciler 2. However he neither manifests that God bears greater love to the Jews than Gentiles which to speak properly he cannot do nor that if he did so he should bear so little love to the New-Testament-Churches as to leave them wholly to the forming of the sons of men What he adds fourthly in answer to what is further argued by Mr. Parker that the Church is compared to a City but no City is so negligently administred by man that no regard is had to the bounds and lin its thereof is greatly impertinent for though it may consist with the prâ—dence and care of good Princes to leave many things to the choice of some in the City incorporated as the ordering their Meetings c. â—s shall be found most convenient for them yet to take no more care thereabout than to suffer the City to grow up into the compass of a Shire a Nation would scarce be accounted consistant with that prudence and wisdom which should be in them And thus far of Mr. T. his reply to the famous Parkers Arguments for the Divine Institution of Churches For a close of this Section we shall briefly propose twelve Arguments for the further clearing of the truth That the Form of Churches is of Divine Institution which our Animadverter may answer at his leizure Argum. 1. If the Form of the Church be not of Christ's appointment 't is not so either because it was not needful or because Christ was not careful faithful or sufficient to institute or ordain it But neither of these is true To assert the latter were blasphemous c. That 't is needful is evident 1. There are some duties which cannot well be performed but upon supposition hereof as Mat. 18. 15. 2dly The care of the Apostles to bring such as they converted into Church-order 3dly Their diligent instructing them in their duty as members of particular Bodies and Congregations 4thly Christ's owning them who walked together in such Societies affording them his Presence promising it to them and that in opposition unto Babylonish Assemblies of the formings of man abundantly evince the needfulness thereof Besides 5thly If it be not needful they are bloodily cruel who persecute men to the loss of Estates Liberties Lives and give them up to the Devil by the sentence of Excommunication For no other reason but for refusing communion with their National Church or denying its form and frame to be of the institution of Christ. Arg. 2. If the Form of the Church be not of Christ's appointment then there must be more Lords over the Church besides Christ for the forming or figuring of Churches pro libito is an act of Lordly Authority But there cannot be more Lords over the Church besides Christ Isa 33. 22. 1 Cor. 8. 5. Jam. 4. 12. Therefore Arg. 3. If the Form of Churches be not of Christ's appointment Then is it in the power of man without any precept or authority from Christ to add to or take away from the Body of Christ for so are particular Churches as we have proved But this is contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 18 27. with Rom. 12. 4 8. Therefore Arg. 4. That which the Apostles practised in pursuance of the Commission they received from Christ is undoubtedly an Order and Institution of his But the gathering of Disciples into particular Congregations the Apostles practised in pursuance of the Commission they received from Christ Mat. 28. 19 20. with Acts 2. 41 â—2 43. Therefore Arg. 5. If the Form of Churches be not of Divine Institution Then the Church of Christ is either not his Palace Kingdom or Christ hath not that care over his Palace and Kingdom as the Princes of the world have over theirs But both these are false and highly injurious to Christ Therefore Arg. 6. That Church to which Christ hath enjoyned his
lawful Ministry where there is no Church Of this we have spoken at large Chap 4. of S. T. To which multitudes of Testimonies might be added The Churches of Helvetia Harm Confes Sect. 11. de min. Eccl. affirm The Ministers of the Church must be called and chosen by Ecclesiastical and lawful election i. e. they must be religiously elected by the Church or by some from her deputed thereunto So also do they speak Artic. 16. ibid. So the Bohemian Churches Men who are firm and strong in the Faith fearing God having received necessary gifts for the work of the Ministry of an honest and unblamable conversation by People fearing God must be chosen and called to the administration of holy things Harmon Confes Sect 11. cap 9. de min. Eccl. And they expresly tell us That they permit none to discharge the Office of the Ministry without such an Election of the Church as appears ibid. by the antient Canons thereof To the same purpose the Belgick Churches declare ibid. Art 31. But Thirdly Ordinary Officers cannot be before the Church Therefore where there is no Church there can be no lawful ordinary Officers The Antecedent is evident 1. All along the Acts we read first of the Constitution of Churches before the Ordination of Officers 2. The Scripture saith expresly That all Officers are set in the Church 1 Cor. 12. 28. Which setting doth necessarily presuppose a Church in which they are set 2dly A true Ministry cannot be in a false Church false I mean either with respect to its first Constitution or by reason of such an Apostacy as hath destroyed the essence and being of it For first A false Church is no Church of Christ Therefore in it can be no true ordinary Ministry according to the mind of Christ for the reasons before mentioned Secondly Such a Church is intrusted with no Authority from Christ therefore cannot communicate any nor send forth any to act in his Name That Christ hath intrusted his Church with power to elect and choose Officers we manifest Chap. 4. Pag. 32 33 of S. T. That any Church not right in its Constitution as is the Case of National Churches is invested with any such power is the first-born of absurdities and improbabilities 'T is the Queen the Bride the Lambs Wife that hath the Keys at her girdle not the Concubines But Mr. T. hath more to say to evince the contrary Arg. 2. If there be a true Ministry though to or in a National visible Church or Catholick then the extent which is conceived to be inconsistent with a true Gospel-Church makes not the Ministry false But Peter and Pauls Ministry to the Jews or Gentile Churches was a true Ministry though the Church were National or Catholick Therefore Answ 1. 'T is a most sad thing upon more accounts than one to be engaged against Truth such sorry shifts are men put to and driven to the use of Sophisms so puâ—rile that at other times they would be asâ—amed of Thus fares it with this Animadverter who argues so jejunely that considering what I have heard of him for a Disputant I am ready to question whether the Arguments I read be his or no. Though Truth seeks no corners yet it makes its Adversaries frequently to do so The enquiry as Mr. T. saith rightly in p. 34. is of the ministry of ordinary Pastors c. His two first Arguments relate only to extraordinary Officers viz. the Ministry of the Apostles so that we are not concerned to take the least notice of them Many such impertinencies is thâ—s Animadverters Treatise stuft with 2. Besides the Argument is inconclusive of what Mr. T. pretends to prove viz. That in a National Church or a false Church there may be a true Ministry If there be a true Ministry though to or in a National visible Church saith he then the extent which is conceived to be inconsistent with a true Gospel-Church makes not the Ministry false But Sir whether there be a true Ministry in a National Church is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how it comes to be the medium of your Argument I am yet to learn Sure I am such kind of Arguings would deservedly be hissed out of the Schools being in themselves illogical I suppose he would have argued thus If that extent which is conceived to be inconsistâ—nt with a true Gospel-Church makes not the Ministry false Then there may be a true Ministry though to or in a National Church But the extent which is conceived to be inconsistant with a true Gospel-Church makes not the Ministry false for Peter's and Paul's Ministry to the Jews and Gentiles were true Ministries though the Churches were National 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ergo. To the Argument I answer 1. By denying the consequence of the first Proposition For though the extent inconsistant to a true Gospel-Church should not make the Ministry false yet somewhat else may What thinks he of an Antichristian Ordination or a Mission to officiat from the Antichristian Persecuting Beast and Whore though the Church were rightly constituted in and to which a man is a Preacher I conceive his Ministry is false But 2dly I deny his Minor Proposition if by Ministry he understands the Ministry of ordinary Pastors c. which if he doth not he speaks not a word to the question as he himself acknowledgeth pag. 34. the extent of a Church inconstent with a Gospel-Church renders the Church false and indeed no Church i. e. no Gospel-Church Therefore it renders the Ministry false as we before proved Mr. T. his proofs are weak and impertinent 1. Paul and Peter's Ministry was not the Ministry of ordinary Pastors as he grants p. 34. 2dly They were not Ministers in or to a National Church 'T is true they preached to the Jews and Gentiles but for the first their Church-state was virtually terminated at the death of Christ when the Vail of the Temple was rent as for the Gentile Nations they were no National Churches The forming of which ows its original as was said to a latter date So that hitherto Mr. T. hath onely hung out signs of Arguments to prove his Assertion being weighed in the ballances they are found wanting are plainly sophistical It may be in what follows he speaks more pertinently Thus he argues Arg. 3. If Ministry to Churches Hypocritical Schismatical and in some sort Heretical may be a true Ministry much more to a Church National c. those being greater degrees of falshood than this But the Antecedent is before proved from the Epistles to the Corinthians to the Churches of Pergamos Thyatira and Sardis Ergo. Answ No doubt but Mr. T. and his Associates in this work think they have excellently well acquitted themselves in this Argument but the emptiness and invalidity of it will soon appear 1. What if we deny the consequence of the Major Proposition upon supposition that there may be a true Ministry to Churches of such a complexion as that intimated it doth not
at all follow that there may be a true Ministry to and in a Church National Where is Mr. T. proof of his consequence Why these are greater degrees of falshood than are to be found in a National Church Well this is denied also What offers he to make it appear to be so Why you have his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it he saith so But seriouslly Mr. T. is so inconstant to his own words principles and practices that we are afraid if we should assent to what he asserts upon that foundation we should once in seven or eight years if the minds of men in authority over us should in that time be different believe and disbelieve the same positions What if the National Church be as Schismatical Heretical Hypocritical as the Churches instanc'd in this were a facile undertaking to demonstrate I hope then it being false in its constitution which the others instanc'd in were not we may with this Animadverter's leave assert that greater degrees of falshood are not to be found in and upon them than are to be found upon his National Church Besides supposing the Churches instanc'd in to be such as M. T. saith they were they were once true Churches of Christ to whom power was delegated from him foâ— the election and choosing of Officers to act in his Name and Authâ—rity amongst them which cannot be affirmed of any National Church in the World That because a true Ministry may be in a true Church under great degeneracy therefore there may be a true Ministry in a false Church is an Assertion that this Animadverter had need to consult with some body else to help him to make good than his present Adviserâ— But 2. We crave leave to deny his Minor A true Ministry câ—nnot be in Hypocritical Schismatical Heretical Churches If they are such they are no Churches of Christ if known to be so they are not to be owned as such by them that fear him But he hath proved this from the Epistles to the Corinthians to the Churches of Pergamos Thyatira and Sardis Answ What hath he proved that these Churches were Hypocritical Schismatical Heretical nothing less 'T is true 1 Cor. 1. 11 12. Paul tells the Corinthians that he heard there were Contentions amongst them c. that the Church was schismatical he saith not That there are Contentions amongst the members of the Church of England Mr. T. cannot deny that therefore it is to be accounted a Schismatical-Church he will scarce assert 'T is true also that there were some in the Church of Pergamos and Thyatira that held false and erroneous opinions and that the Churches were too much to blame to suffer them as they did for which Christ rebukes them In Sardis the generality of the members were wonderfully declined in their spirits a time of withering decayes deadness was upon them yet was not the one an Heretical nor the other an Hypocritical Church Nor can Mr. T. make good his charge against either of them As for the Church of Pergamos Christ witnesseth of them that although they dwelt where Satan's seat was i. e. where the Roman Governour lived who was Satan's chief instrument for persecuting the Saints yet they hâ—â—d fast his Name and did not deny his Faith which is not a description of an Heretical Church They owned Christ retained cleaved to the Doctâ—ine of the Gospel i. e. the Body of the Church did though some few amongst them held strange Heterodoxies therefore no Heretical-Church The like may be said of the Church of Thyatira doth Christ charge her with Heresie doth he say the whole Body or maâ—or part of the Church was infected with the doctâ—ine of Jezebel nothing less He saith indeed that the Church was too negligent in their duty to put a stop to her seducing his Servants and intimates as if some were led astray by her But withal testifies that there were a considerable number amongst them that had not received her doctrine nor known the depths of Satan they called them depths i. e. deep and wonderful things but they were the depths of Satan Of Sardis Christ also witnesseth that there were some things remaining that he would have her strengthen i. e. some graces that were not quite extinct and dead in them and of some of them expresly that they had not defiled their garments and that they should walk with him in white for they were worthy which cannot be affimed of Hypocrites Rev. 2. 13 19 20 24 25. 3. 2 4. Therefore no Heretical nor Hypocritical Churches And I cannot but wonder at the confidence of this Animadverter to affirm it of them after the testimony Christ gives touching them it being little less than giving him the lie to his face So that of this Argument we shall 't is probable hear no more Of his fourth Argument we need say no more but this that the Ministry therein mentioned is the Ministry of the Apostles which he grants not at all to relate to our present Question If he can make good this Consequence the Apostles who were extraordinary Officers immediately sent forth by Jesus Christ were true Ministers afore the regular constitution and discipline of Churches without their election or mission Therefore Pastors and Teachers who are to be chosen by a Church regularly constituted are true Ministers though not so chosen he will be able to reinforce this Argument else he must never bring it into the field more His fifth Argument in brief is The denomination of true Ministers is from the truth of their Doctrine and no other form denominating them But there may be a Ministration of true Doctrine in a false Church Ergo Answ 1. The Major is most false the denomination of true Ministers is from somewhat else beside the truth of their Doctrine viz. A regular Mission according to the mind of Christ or an entrance in by the Door else they are not true Ministers but Thieves and Robbers What places they are before-mentioned that he saith placeth the truth of Ministry in the Doctrine taught and no other thing I cannot tell and do assure him that when he brings one place to prove it I will be his convert Col. 1. 6 7. saith no such thing Epaphras preacheth the Truth of God to the Colossians and is said to be for them a faithful Minister of Christ therefore the denomination of true Ministers is from the truth of their Doctrine and nothing else is one of those consequences are frequently imposed upon us without the least shadow of proof 2dly That 't is the duty of true Ministers and in some sense their property to preach and promote Truth is most certain Paul tells us 2 Cor. 13. 8. that they could do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth But that the denomination of true Ministers is from the truth of their Doctrine and no other form denominating them is I suppose asserted by our Animadverter in haste and will upon second thoughts be retracted
of wisdom nor faithfulness in Christ he did foresee what parts of Worship were and should be requisite and what parts were essential and necessary to be observed were determined in Scripture as for accidental things they were left to the prudence and authority chiefly of Rulers Who told him so This canting he surely learned of the Romish Cabal Christ was faithful in that he revealed what was his Fathers will in Spirituals but for Externals appointed but a few things and left the rest to be ordered under general Rules as it should be found convenient in after times Answ 1. These are Mr. T. his dictates of which you must expect his proofs when he hath greater leisure but in the mean while no man can reasonably be blamed if he refuse to subscribe to them 2dly If Christ hath determined what parts of worship are essential and necessary to be observed as he grants this part of the Controversie is at an end and must be by him acknowledged to be so till he have proved First That there are accidental parts of Instituted Worship Secondly That unnecessary trifles may be added to the essential and necessary parts of Worship as parts thereof Thirdly That what Christ thought not necessary to be observed is necessary to be observed because men think so But 3dly Would Mr. T. would direct us to the place where Christ hath granted that power to the Rulers or any else to add what they shall judge convenient to his Worship he being Head of his Body the Church and King of Saints we suppose he will not have the confidence to assert they may do this without his leave the doing so being a plain usurpation of his Throne and Kingly Authority I have read over the New Testament more than once and must profess I find not the least intimation of any such thing therein but the contrary 4thly We do not understand how Christ could be faithful if he revealed only what was his Fathers will in Spirituals and neglected to do so with respect to Externals as Mr. T. intimates when he was to reveal the whole will of his Father to his Church and for that end came into the world John 1. 18. Heb. 1. 2. Nor 5thly Can we conceive how it consists with the wisdom of Christ to leave it to men the greatest and wisest of them to determine what is fit and convenient to be added to his Worship because nothing is more evident than that they are incompetent Judges hereof Their folly herein being frequently remarked in the Scripture Jeroboam thinks it convenient that the People worship at Dan and Bethel and that they have golden Calves as visible representations of that God whom they worshipped Ahaz thinks it decent and convenient that a stately Altar the pattern whereof he had seen at Damascus be set up by the Altar of the Lord that was at Jerusalem which things were the provocation of the eyes of his glory The truth is the wretched additaments of the Sons of men to the Worship of Christ owe their original to this one abominable figment of Mr. T. That what is by men thought convenient in the Worship of Christ is left to be ordered by them In the Papacy Holy Water is by Pope Alexander thought to be convenient to be reserved in Temples to sanctifie the People and drive away Devils So is the Dedication of Temples by Pope Higinus That all of ripe years do every Easter receive the Sacrament by Pope Zephirinus That Priests Stand when the Gospel is read by Pope Anastatius The Letany by Pope Gregory Confirmation of the Baptized by Clemens as 't is said though many of these things are antedated and ascribed as to their Original to persons that would have abhorred them Scultetus Med. Patr. p. 1. l. 11. c. 10. saith Of all the Epistles of the first Popes no man that reads them attentively but acknowledgeth them to be forged The Epistles Decretal which pass under the Names of Clement c. are all forged and that for six Reasons saith Perkins The like saith Dr. Prideaux in his 9th Orat. de Pseudoepigraphis Sect. 3. The Celebration of the Mass upon the Altar by Xistus or Sixtus The Distinction of Parishes by Dionysius with a command to Preachers to keep within their Bounds The singing the Creed by Pope Marcus The Glory to the Father to be said after the Psalms And the Order of Queristers or Singing-Men by Pope Damasus The Dedication of Churches by Bishops by Foelix Pope Stephen the 7th thinks it convenient to Degrade all that had taken Orders from P. Formosus he himself gives them new ones John Sicco the Successor of Silvester an 1003 makes a Decree that the election of the Roman Popes should belong only to the Roman Clergy without the consent of the People because the People are to be led and not followed he establisheth the Feast of All Souls P. Urban An. 1096 ordained That no Clergy or Layman should eat Flesh from Shrovetide to Easter Innocent the third ordained Transubstantiatioâ— yea the Fathers of the Council of Constance publish a Decree in these words Although Christ after Supper hath instituted and administred to his Disciples this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of Bread and Wine yet notwithstanding the Authority of the sacred Canons the laudable and approved custom of the Church hath observed and doth observe that this Sacrament ought not to be finished after Supper nor administred under both kinds and seeing this custom hath been according to reason brought in and a long time observed by the Church and holy Fathers it is to be held for a Law Concil Const. Sess 3. And if the case be so with us as is suggested by this Animadverter 't is not to be thought that our condition is in the least better'd by the removing the carnal ordinances of the Jews 't is by many degrees worse than theirs They had a stinted number of Ceremonies of the institution of the Lord We have an innumerable company of the devising of man nor any security but we may have a thousand more for if â—â—e Rulers shall judge them convenient they may ordain them and we are bound to submit unto them if Mr. T. his Doctrine be true But blessed be the Lord things are far otherwise Christ hatâ— not broken the yoke of the Jewish observances off the necks of his Disciples to have them become such servants of men as to stoop to every Theatrical and Ludicrous Ceremony that under the notion of Conveniency shall be by them thought fit to be imposed on them If he hath let Mr. T. produce one Scripture in which he hath so done if not we expect he manifest so much Christian modesty as to retract his over-confident Assertion that Christ hath under general rules left what relating to the externals of Worship was to be added to be ordered as it should be found convenient in after-times We further add in S. T. That 't is not lawful
in S. T. reflects sadly upon its authority and perfection which is the next thing we affirm to evidence the truth of the major Proposition This M. T. saith is true with respect to all Doctrinals of Faith and Manners and Worship in respect of Essentials but not of Accidentals thereof undetermined in the Scripture Answ 1. The unscripturalness and vanity of that distinction we have already discovered 2ly We had thought that the perfection of the Scripture had consisted in this that the whole of that obedience that God required of us had therein been stated and enjoyned for which end we conceive it was at first commanded to be written and hitherto by the wonderful gracious providence of the Lord continued to us The Accidentals of Worship are either part of that Obedience we owe to God or they are not If not how come they to be such parts of Worship as without them we are interdicted to perform it or indeed whence is it that we are tendring them up to God when all our Worship is nothing else but the solemn tender of that Obedience that we owe to him if they are then there is some part of our Obedience that is not prescribed in the Scripture then is the Scripture imperfect and that with respect to the main end for which it was given forth viz. to indoctrinate and direct us in the whole of that Obedience that God requires of us and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle l. 2. de Coelo c. 4. But this is contrary to 1. The testimony and witness of the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures 2 Tim. 3. 15. Prov. 2. 1 9. Isa 8. 20. 2 Pet. 1. 19. Luke 1. 4. John 5. 39. 20. 31. 2 Cor. 4. 6. Lukâ— 10. 26. 16. 29. Deut. 12. 8 32. Prov. 30. 5. Mat. 22. 29. Gal. 1. 8. Eph. 2. 20. Heb. 4. 12. Rev. 22. 18. 2dly To the Witness of many of the Worthies of the Lord in their day The renowned Waldenses or the Church of Christ in the Wilderness some hundreds of years ago declare and attest that nothing is to be admitted in Religion but what only is commanded in the Word of God that all mens Traditions are to be rejected and therefore this singing and superfluous chanting in the Chancel to be left It is necessary and consonant to reason that every man learn that which is needful out of the Scriptures both for the fulness of Godliness and lest they be inured to humane traditions saith Basil Regul contract 95. pag. 502. God will ask no more of a Christian Believer in this life but only to obey the Precepts of that most blessed Law If any Prelate of the Church require more or else any other kind of obedience than this to be used he contemneth Christ exalting himself above God and so becâ—meth an open Antichrist saith the Lord Cobham in the Confession of his Faith offered to Hen. the 5th about the year 1413. Chrysostom calls them a most exquisite rule and exact square and ballance to try all things by Augustine expounding Gal. 1. 8. saith If we or an Angel from Heaven declare unto you either concerning Christ or his Church any other matter belonging to our Faith or Life any thing but that which you have received in the writings of the Law and the Gospel let him be accursed Cont. Lit. Petilian Don. l. 3. c. 6. de unitat Eccles cap. 11. Et honos praeter mandatum est dedecus God is dishonoured by that honour that is ascribed to him beyond his own prescription saith Hierome Yea 3dly our Protestant Divines disputing with the Papists about an universal Head of the Church Cardinals Purgatory Mass c. have ever thought this one good Argument against them that they find them not commanded in the Scripture and to assert them needful or lawful to be used in the Church of Christ they affirm to be derogatory to the perfection of the Scripture Suppose a Papist â—o say 'T is true the Scripture is perfect with respect to the essential parts of Worship not so with respect to Accidentals such as are Cross Spittle Salt in Baptism Holy Water Pope Cardinals Crosses c. What would Mr. T. answer hereunto 'T is a thousand to one but the same Answer would stop his own mouth in the reply to the Argument undertaken to be refuted by him We add in S. T. as a further confirmation of the truth of the Proposition under debate 7thly That God condemns not only that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word but also that which is done beside it Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. Mat. 15. 9. Lev. 10. 1. Prov. 30. 6. Jer. 7. 31. To which Mr. T. replies 1. That the Assertion understood of Accidentals of Instituted Worship is false Answ 1st Very good It seems then it is lawful to add what we please as accidental parts of instituted Worship for God no where condemns our doing so Altars Candles Crucifixes Baptism with Spittle Salt c. Dedication of Churches to He-Saints and She-Saints with the Inscription of Laus Deo S ta Helena of the Popes make Baptism of Bells the whole Farrago of Popish Inventions may by Mr. T. his arguing be introduced for these are but Accidentals of Worship and no where expresly interdicted Secondly The Protestant Divines have ever thought this a sufficient convincing Argument against these fooleries of the Papists That Christ hath no where commanded them therefore they may justly reject them as unlawful Christ being the alone Pastor Eccl. 12. 11. Master Mat. 23. 8 10. Prophet of his Church Acts 7. 37. Who shall dare to speak where he is silent or can do so without an open undervaluing and contempt of his Authority 'T were easie to fill many Pages with citations of Protestants to this purpose in whose Writings nothing is more frequent than this Nihil sine nihil extra nihil praeter nihil ultra Divinam Scripturam admittendum esse Peter Martyr on 2 Sam. cap. 6. pag. 212 213 saith From this History we may see that the true Worship of God he speaks of Uzzah's touching the Ark is not to be deduced from the Palestines or Ethnicks but the Word of God For God will be worshipped according to his own Praescript not our Inventions But as touching what pertains to the Worship of God nothing is to be sought without the Word of God It went ill with Uzza that he would imitate the Palestines with Nadab and Abihu that they would offer profane fire with Ozias the King that he would offer Incense in the Tabernacle when he was neither Priest nor of the Tribe of Levi. But Thirdly The Scriptures produced abundantly manifest the truth of the Assertion Let the judicious Reader seriously peruse them and they will lead him captive to the belief of it Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. Pro. 30. 6. Strictly interdict mans adding to the Word of God which if it be not a condemnation of
what is practised in his Worship without any warrant from him I must confess I know not what is Is not You shall sign with the Cross in Baptism kneel at the Sacrament wear the Surplice c. an adding to the Word of God when he is altogetheâ— in the Scriptures silent in these matters Mat. 15. 9. speaks of the Inventions of men with respect to accidental parts of Worship as Mr. T. accounts them The essentials of Worship as praying hearing c. they had from the Lord these things were not what Christ condemns in them as the Doctrines of men What was it then Mr. T. in his Fermentum Pharisaeorum on Mat. 15. 9. shall answer for me But in this place saith he that which our Saviour objects to them is That they sought to establish the Traditions of men chiefly that they taught men to observe things praeter Legem besides the Law in stead of Gods Law as the washing of hands before meals the washing of Cups and Potts with many such like Traditions inveâ—ted by men And afterwards Sect. 5. tells us That Bowings Duckings and such like Gestures Usages and Rites invented by men to express Humility Devotion and Reverence to God he contemns as Childish Apish Theatrical and ridiculous And Sect. 7. he adds That this teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of men intrencheth on Gods Prerogative who is the only Law-giver to his Church Jam. 4. 12. for his Worship and that with respect to the fashion and way of Service 'T is an injuring God whilest we conceive him to be so childish as to be affected with pomps and shews gestures and carnal Rites which he never appointed It opposeth Gods Word his Law his Gospel because it brings in another Rule of Worship than God's Law viz. Tradition of Elders Custom Example contrary to Deut. 4. 2. Pro. 30. 6. It opposeth the manifestation of the clear light of the Gospel as shadows the light of the Sun Look into the places where there is so much preaching of Ceremonies and Church-orders and such a regular observation of them as in places where the Cathedral and Canonical Preachers and officiating Priests do bear sway there is little spiritual understanding and lively feeling of the Doctrine and Grace of Christ to be found Sect. 8. with much more to the same purpose Lev. 10. â— Jer. 7. 31. expresly assert that their sin lay in doing that which God commanded them not which had he done it had been lawful Let Mr. T. shew where the offering of strange fire was expresly forbidden and he may be supposed to say somewhat that is pertinent Mr. Ainsworth whom he cites on Lev. 10. 1. is against him Strange fire he tells us is other fire than God hath sanctified on his Altar fire not commanded And the Assembly upon the place say rightly In God's Worship his Command not man's wit or will must be our rule The citation of Josh 22. 34. 2 Chron. 20. 3. 30. 23. Esth 9. 27 31. by this Animadverter is impertinent Josh 22. 34. gives us an account of their building an Altar but they expresly affirm it was not for burnt-offerings nor for Sacrifices not for an Ecclesiastical but a Civil use v. 22 23 24 26 28. Had they built it for the Worship of God it had in the judgment of the whole Congregation of Israel been Rebellion against him ver 16. So that this Scripture instead of supporting cuts the throat of his dying cause nor can Mr. T. ever satisfactorily answer this Argument 'T is great wickedness to commit a trespass against to turn away from following to rebel against the Lord But the doing or practising any thing in his Worship besides what God hath enjoyned to be done is to commit a trespass against him to turn away from following to rebel against him Therefore The Major no sober Christian will deny The Minor is evident from v. 16 18 19. Nor will Mr. T. his old shift of Essential and Accidental parts of Worship serve him in this case For 1. The erection of an Altar he supposeth to be but an accidental part of Worship 2. He produceth this Scripture to prove the lawfulness of mens orders in and about the Accidentals of Instituted Worship As for his other Scriptures 2 Chron. 30. 23. hath been already considered and answered in our Answer to Prof. Sect. 5. 2 Chron. 20. 3. Esth 9. 27 31. speak only of the Proclamation and Decree or Purpose of the King and People to observe and keep certain dayes unto the Lord upon the account of such signal providences that the Lord had brought them under wherein they judged he was calling them thereunto To what is added in S. T. touching the judgment of the Ancients Mr. T. replies but so jejunely that it deserves not to be taken notice of As for Cyprian's testimony 't is full up to the matter in hand the foundation upon which he dealt against the Aquarii being no other than what we are pleading-for that Christ alone is to be heard in matters of Instituted Worship as Mr. T. will grant the Sacrament to be I stand amazed at the confidence of the Animadverter in asserting that Beza's words on Phil. 1. 1. are to be understood of things determined in the Scripture when he expresly speaks of giving the title of Bishop for Polities sake peculiarly to him that did preside in the Assembly whereof he tels us the Devil began to lay the first foundation of Tyranny in the Church of God and then he adds Behold of how great moment it is to decline from the Word of God though but an hairs breadth if it be but in giving titles peculiarly to persons which are not so given to them in the Scripture And much more do I wonder if he did without blushing write that Luther is to be understood of Doctrines and Decrees if he oppose these to Church-Ceremonies which if he do not he yeelds his Cause when he expresly saith he means that nothing with respect to external Rites which he calls Traditions and the mixing the Worship of God with foolish Gewgaws is to be taught without the express words of God for our warrant 'T is true Dr. Whitakers words are meant of the Popish use of Oyl in their Sacraments but the ground of his opposing it is plainly the same with that we are contesting about viz. That nothing is to be added to the Instituted Worship as a part thereof without warrant from the Scripture for saith he we acknowledge no Oyl because we read nothing of Oyl in the Scriptures To these I say many may be added Take a few instances instead of many Whatsoever things men find and fain without the Authority and Testimony of the Scripture as if they were from Apostolical Tradition are smitten by the Sword of God saith Hierom Comment in Hag. c. 2. And again Men are saith he set to eat their meat without Salt when they are commanded any thing that hath no relish from the
invested with authority derived to them from Christ to elect ordain officers to and for the Churches of Christ without their knowledge and consent he will be supposed to speak pertinently which in this matter hitherto he hath not done Let us consider if there be ought more to the purpose in what follows To Acts. 6. 5. he replies 1. That was but one act Answ 1. Who saith it was many Consonant to this one act was the practice of the primitive Church for many years after some prints whereof in the election of the Overseers of the Poor do yet remain amongst us He adds 2. They were not such a particular Church as made up one Congregation that could meet together for all Offices Answ This vanity we have already refelled Sect. of our Reply to Mr. T. his Exceptions against the Preface of S. T. He proceeds and tells us 3dly They did not choose the Deacons upon any conceived power delegated from Christ by vertue of any rulâ— that was to be perpetual in all ages to all Churches Answ 1. This is a meer conjecture of his own without the least tender of proof 2dly 'T is the ready way to banish all the instituted Worship of Christ out of the world 'T is but saying 't is true this or that was done but without any Rule that was to be perpetually binding and the work is effected 3dly 'T is injuriouâ— to the Apostles and the primitive Believers to imagine and indeed ridiculous that they should devise an Office in the Church without authority derived to them from Christ and that so necessary an Office as the experience of above sixteen hundred years manifests the Church of God could not have been without which was not only continued in the Churches afterwards Phil. 1. 1. but Rules laid down for their future election and choice 1 Tim. 3. 8 to 13. with a solemn injunction to Timothy and in him to succeeding Believers to keep that Commandment amongst others without spot unrebukeable until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ chap. 6. 14. So that these are but shifts our reverend Dictator scarce knows what to answer it seems to the Evidence introduced I shall only add Malè res agitur cum tot opus est remediis it is a bad sore that must be wrapped in â—â— many clouts Yet he hath not done He adds 4thly This can be no rulâ— for chusing other Officers there was a peculiar reason why they should choose Deacons whose honesty was to be discern'd and not other Officers whose sufficiency to teach was to be considered of which thâ— multitude of Church-members then and now are rarely competent Judges Answ 1. But we had thought honesty had been as necessary a qualification of a Pastor or Teacher as of a Deacon 2dly The Apostles mention it as the Churches priviledge without the least intimation of any peculiar reason thereof Act. 6. 3. 3dly There is the same reason for the election of one Officer in the Church as another those with whom power is entrusted for the choice of one it is for the choice of all the rest 4thly That the Saints then and now are not competent Judges of the abilities and Orthodoxie of other Officers this Animadverter is desired to prove 1. 'T is derogatory to the Spirit of Christ that indwells in Believers 2. Contrary to the express Testimony of the Spirit of God touching them 3. A meer Petitio principii The question is whether they did elect and choose them the Answer is they were not fit to do so but their fitness is presupposed in that they had liberty or power to do it To the other Scripture Acts 14. 23. he replyes 1. By way of seeming concession The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by Beza They created by Suffrages i. e. when the people by lifting up their hands had testified their consent in the election of them they set them apart to that work An allusion to the custom of the Greeks in the election of their Officers by Suffrages and Votes signified by the stretching out of the hand which was unquestionably the practice of the Church for the first three hundred years Cyprian who lived an 240 often intimates as much Take one instance in the stead of many Propter quod diligenter de traditione divinâ Apostolica observatione observandum est tenendum quod apud nos quoque fere per provincias universas tenetur ut ad ordinationes rite celebrandas ad eam plebem cui Praepositus ordinatur Episcopi ejusdem Provinciae proximi quique conveniant Episcopus delegatur PLEBE PRAESENTE quae singulorum vitam plenessime novit unuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione perspexit Quod apud vos factum videmus in Sabinae collegae nostri ordinatione ut de VNIVERSAE FRATERNITATIS SUFFRAGIO de Episcoporum qui in praesentia convenerant quique de eo ad vos literas fecerant judicio Episcopatus ei deferretur Epist. â—8 2dly By way of Exception he tells us 1. This is but one example not sufficient to infer a perpetual Rule Answ 1. 'T is intended but for one example 2dly We find the thing practised afterwards Elders are ordained Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 5. 22. That they should so suddenly vary from the practice of the Apostles here no intimation thereof being given but rather the contrary 2 Tim. 1. 14. 3. 10. Tit. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that thou mayest set streight or according to the liâ—e or rule that thou hast learned of us the things that are wanting and ordain viz. according to that rule Elders in every City is not probable That they did not do so for some hundreds of years after Mr. T. grants and we have proved Which is a sufficient Answer to his Exception about constituting Elders without the mention of any such election of the People Tit. 1. 5. 3dly In the election of other Officers as an Apostle we find the people concerned 1. Out of an hundred and twenty persons they chose and presented two v. 23. out of which two one being câ—osen by lot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was counted amongst the Apostles by the common Suffrages of them all v 26. And this very Scripture amongst others is used by Cyprian to confirm the power of the people in châ—sing or refusing their Ministers Epist 4. l. 1. Deacons as was said was so chosen Act. 6. 3 5 6. Put all together and you have as full an evidence of the truth of the Assertion as can be desired But our Animadverter 2dly acquaints us from Dr. Field c. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed to other creating then by Suffrages as Acts 10. 41. Answ 'T is granted it sometimes is so applyed but the proper and most usual signification of the word is to elect by Suffrages as Mr. T. knows That because it 's once or twice it may be used in a metaphorical sense
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
parts of the Argument we premise 1. That there is a twofold denial of the Offices of Christ 1. Verbal and professional of this the Jews not the Papists noâ— the Ministers of England are guilty 2. Real and actual when persons do that which enwraps in the bowels of it a denial of the Offices of Christ Thus the Papists the present Ministers are guilty To this Mr. T. replies I allow the distinction but it is false that the Papists are not guilty of the verbal professional denying of the Offices of Christ for though they acknowledge Christ to be King yet their doctrine overthrows all the Offices of Christ as he that ascribes Kingly power to a Subject doth make another King and so doth unking him Thus the Papists do while they will have unwritten traditions to be received Answ 1st To dispute about words with any man living I shall not by a verbal professional denying of Christs Offices I mean express and down-right asserting that he is not King of his Church this I say the Papists do not they own preach up all the Offices of Christ i. e. they acknowledge him in their discourses of his Offices to be King to his Church which Mr. T. knows they do Their ascription of Kingly power to any but Christ in assertions mentioned I make a real and actual denyal and oppugning the Offices of Christ It being a doing what enwraps in the bowels of it such a denial of them 2dly This Animadverter hath already asserted what will in part at least make good our charge in this matter against the Ministers of England The ascription of Kingly power to any but Christ is a denying his Kingly authority the Papists Prelats and Ministers of England do so in asserting that traditions unwritten are to be received That the Pope a Convocation or Assembly of Prelates and Priests can make Laws to bind the Conscience by vertue of his their authority can dispense with Gods Laws incestuous Marriages by granting a License for a good Spill prohibited by God therefore the Papists the Ministers of England do deny the Kingly authority of Christ We premise in S. T. 2dly That a verbal professional acknowledgement of Christ is nothing when contradicted in practice To which we subjoyn that such as really oppose or deny any of the Offices of Christ are not to be heard but separated from which we prove 1. Because such aâ— do so are the Antichrists 1 Joh. 2. 22. and 4. 2 3. 2 Joh. 7. 2dly To hear such is to strengthen and encourage them in that their denial of and opposition to the Offices of Christ and thereby to become partakers with them in their sin Of which we treat more at large in S. T. chap. 4. p. 29 30. Whereunto Mr. T. replies 1. That a verbal professional acknowledgement of the Offices of Christ when contradicted by practice is nothing to the salvation of the person so professing his plea shall not be admitted before God or mans Ecclesiastcal censure i. e. he may be suspended excommunicated for his so acting notwithstanding his profession yet all this doth not prove that his doctrine may not be heard Answ 1. It seems then its lawful to hear persons not waâ—king exorbitantly but under Church censure for so doing which pours forth most fearful contempt upon that institution of Christ Excommunication To what purpose is it that any one is cast out of the Church if it may be lawful to hear them notwithstanding i. e. own them as the mouth of God to me and my mouth to God whom the Church thought not meet to be continued as a member in the body 2dly In vain then are all the exhortations of the Apostle to the Saints with relation to their withdrawment from such as these 1 Cor. 5. 9 10 11. Ephes 5. 11. 3dly To no purpose did Paul write to the Corinthians to receive the incestuous person had they but known their liberty they might have done so before for if his doctrine did not oppugn the Offices of Christ it might have been heard to their profit according to our Dictators dictates they might not only have received him but as a Preacheâ— amongst them Nay 4thly In vain is the charge of the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. 5. for if they profess to own the Offices of Christ i. e. Have a Form of Godliness though they contradict it in their walk i. e. deny the Power thereof they may be joyned with Poor Paul understood not so much of our Christian Liberty as rich confident Mr T. who is driven to such pittiful shifts and gross absurdities in the management of this Controversie that I really pitty him He adds 'T is not true that Christ saith the false Prophets are to be descried by their vitious Life only Nor do I say in this place he doth I say he saith they are to be known by their fruits Preaching and practising what invelops in it a denial of the Offices of Christ though attended with a visible holy Conversation I am contented that he make the fruits mentioned to be His discourse of Judas and false Prophets being so called not in respect of their outward Calling or vitious Lives but of their Doctrine that upon the least occasion he runs frequently forth into we have already answered Nor say we that teaching something through ignorance and inadvertency as is appointed by Christ which is not or denying something to be instituted which was so appointed is what doth denominate a man a false Prophet The Animadverter forgets what it is he attempts to answer we are not talking of false Prophets but of such as deny the Offices of Christ nor do we say that this as thus proposed by him doth render a man guilty of real denying the Offices of Christ or is a sufficient ground of separation from him much less then an opposing in heart any of the Offices of Christ is so as he suggests afterwards we do but that those that do really oppose any of the Offices of Christ viz. by setting themselves against the most if not the whole of Gospel-Institutions by owning a power in others to constitute Laws for the Family and Houshold of Christ even contrary to his Institutions and acknowledging another Head beside him of his Church is such a real denial of the Offices of Christ that upon whomsoever it is found 't is the duty of Saints to separate from them and that for the reasons before mentioned which Mr. T. may disprove when he can The rest of this Section being spent in railing and sorry impertinencies I come to his second Section were he sets himself to consider our Minor Proposition viz. That the present Ministers of England do oppose and deny the Prophetical and Kingly Offices of Christ Which we prove thus Those that hearken not to the Revelation Christ hath made and as Supream Lord and Lawgiver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House deny the Prophetical and Kingly Office of
Christ Deut. 18. 18. Acts 3. 22. Isa 9. 6. But the present Ministers of England hearken and conform not to the Revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House Therefore To which Mr. T. replies by denying the Major or first Proposition But he wisely takes no notice of the Scriptures produced for the Proof hereof as Deut. 18. 18 19. where the Lord promiseth to raise up Christ from among his Brethren in whose mouth he would put his words by whom he would speak to them to whom whosoever will not hearken God saith he will require it of him i. e. take vengeance on him as the Greek renders it or as the Apostle Acts 3. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall be exterminated from amongst the People rejected by the Saints as a Despiser oppugner of the Offices of Christ into which he was so solemnly invested by the Father Mat. 3. 17. In Isa 9. 6. It is Prophesied of Christ That the Government should be laid upon his shoulders he should be King in Sion give forth as such Laws and Constitutions for the Government of his People which accordingly he doth and solemnly promulgates them by his Heralds and Messengers fixeth them as upon publick Pillars in the Scriptures of Truth to be seen and read of all men That after all this persons should refuse slight neglect to hearken to these Institutions of Christ violate oppose preach against them and yet not be guilty of denying his Prophetical and Kingly Offices is the first-born of absurdities Go and offer it to thy Prince deal so by the constitutions of thy Rulers and see what they will say to thee what interpretation will be by them put upon thy so dealing with them But he gives the reasons of his denial and tells us 1. Denial is more than not hearkening to Answ There is a denial its true that is more than a not hearkening to but there is a not hearkening to that is a real denial rejection of the Authority of him to whom we refuse to hearken The Scripture expresly affirms it Psal 81. 11. But my People would not hearken to my voice Israel would none of me Ezek. 20. 8. but they rebelled against me i. e. opposed rejected my Authority and would not hearken unto me Nor can I tell how those Luke 19. 14. are said to send a message after Christ saying We will not have this man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to King it over us which is sure a denial of his Kingly Authority but by refusing to hearken and conform to his Royal Appointments He adds 2dly The not hearkning may be out of ignorance incapacity to understand fearfulness c. without any enmity of heart habitual stubbornness which are requisite to a plain denial of the Offices of Christ Answ 1. It may be so indeed but whether this be the reason of the Ministers of England not hearkening thereunto he acquaints us not Certainly they are not fit to be Ministers of the Gospel or to be accounted Overseers of the flock of Christ who are ignorant of his Institutions and incapable of understanding them 2. Though it be out of fearfulness prevalency of temptation that they hearken not yet may their not so doing be a denial of the Offices of Christ It was out of fearfulness the prevalency of temptation that Peter denied his Lord without any enmity of heart yet his denial was a plain denial So false is that which Mr. T. saith That enmity of heart habitual stubbornness or wilful gainsaying are requisite hereunto He tells us 3dly There may be sundry Orders of his House controverted if acknowledged such not thought to be of that moment as to break the Peace of the Church by contending for them or not judg'd perpetual or not binding the Ministers to observe till the Magistrates reform Answ 1. But upon such Principles as these I know not but Christ may be divested of the Scepter of his Kingdom all his bonds and cords broken asunder and cast away and yet no one would be nocent It is evident that this is the lot of many most of them already 2dly There are but few of the Orders of Christs House but are controverted amongst the Children of men will this excuse any from subjection to them May not the Papists plead thus for their rejection of the Institutions of Christ Must Christ lose his obedience till the parties Litigant are at an agreement Nugae tricae sicâ—lae what more frivolous could have been invented 3dly This Animadverter will one day find that there are no Institutions of Christ but what are of moment how derogatory to the glory of Christ the Oeconomie and Administration of the Gospel such assertions as these are others will judge 4thly That any of the Institutions of Christ remarked by us were temporary I challenge Mr. T. to make good i. e. such as were not to endure till his coming Such Principles as these would soon evert all Gospel-Institutions and make way for the Introduction of unwritten Vanities and humane Traditions which the soul of our Lord abhors 5thly I desire to be informed what Appointments of Christ those are that are not binding to the Ministers till the Magistrate reform I know not any such and conceive the assertion to be foreign to Truth 1. The Primitive Believers were obliged to conform to â—hem all though the Magistrate blasphemed and opposed 2. 'T is wonderous derogatory to Christs honour to ask the Magistrate leave whether his Institutions shall be binding or not i. e. â—f he will reform they shall otherwise not such trash as this will nevâ—r pass for sound reason absurd dictates without proof though never â—o importunely imposed Mr. T. must not imagine will meet with reception amongst judicious Christians 6thly That it should be scandalous to hearken to the Institutions of Christ as he suggests is such a monstrous assertion that I aâ— amazed to think it should drop from such a person The reciting it iâ— refutation sufficient So that the Major Proposition I still take for manifest truth notwithstanding his three dictates to the contrary which are now abundantly refuted Sect. 2. The present Ministers of England do not hearken and conform to the Revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House proved by the induction of seven particulars All power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in Christ Mat. 28. 19. 1 Tim. 6. 14 15. John 3. 35. Acts 3. 22. and 5. 31. Mat. 23. 8 9 10. 1 Cor. 11. 23. and 14. 37. Gal. 1. 8. 2 John 10. Rev. 22. 18. Acts 15. 25 28. considered The present Ministers own other Lords that have a Law-making-Power over his Churches besides Christ which Mr. T. grants is a denyal of his Kingly Authority Separation from the World and Saints walking together in particular Societies an Institution of Christ proved This is opposed by the present Ministers 1 Cor. 1. 2. Phil.
1. 1 5. 2 Cor. 8. 5. John 15. 19 and 17. 6. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Acts 2. 40. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Acts 19. 9. Rev. 18. 4. considered Of the acception of the word World Characters of persons that are not of the World A third Institution of Christ remarked Of the power Christ hath intrusted his Church with Acts 1. 23. 1 Cor. 5. 5. explained Of the Officers of Christ's appointment Their Election by the Church Of the Liberty of Prophesying Nothing must be offered up to God in Worshiâ— but what is of his own prescription The present Ministers of England refuse to subject to these Ordinances of Christ An Objection answered Mr. T. his Exceptions considered and removed out of the way 2dly THat the present Ministers of England do not hearken and conform to the Revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House we prove in S. T. by the induction of seven particulars To this Mr. T. replies in Sect. 3. Chap. 4. 1st In the stead of Argument he proves all with Interrogations Answ False and untrue I wonder at the conscience and confidence of the man in asserting it He knows I prove it by the induction of the most remarkable Orders of the House of Christ which they hearken not to 2dly He askes Which of the Ordinances of Christ have they made void Answ They were under his view whilest he wrote these words so that his question is frivolous I enumerate seven of the Orders and Institutions of Christ they have so dealt with He adds 3dly He should have reckoned up seven times seven Answ 1. And why so If guilty of a rejection of these which are the principal they oppose his Kingly and Prophetical Office though they embrace some others that are of his appointment The Romanists do so yet this Animadverter grants they are guilty of the crime instanced in 2. Mr. T. cannot reckon up seven times seven Institutions of Christ that are of the peculiar Institutions of his House to be performed by Saints embodied and united together in the fellowship of the Gospel nor many more than these seven mentioned by us He instanceth in hearing the Word praying to the Father in the Name of Christ which he tells us they have not made void by their Traditions Answ 1. The first of these is in a great measure if not totally made void by them 1. They oppose and deny the management of this duty in the way of Christ's appointment whilest they debar Christians from electing their own Officers or attending upon the Ministry of such as are according to the mind of Christ elected by them 2. The Preaching of the Word must give way to their Service-Book-Worship or Forms of humane devising which I am much mistaken if it be not in a great measure a making void of that Institution of Christ he speaks of by their Traditions 2. I wish the same may not be said with respect to the most of them at least of praying to the Father in the Name of Christ which none can do but by the Spirit whom they despise reproach set up their stinted Formâ— in opposition to him and his breathings The first of the Orders of Christ's House instanced in is That all Power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Mat. 28. 19. 1 Tim. 6. 14 15. John 3. 35. Acts 3. 22. and 5. 31. Hence Christ chargeth his Disciples not to be called of men Rabbi nor to call any Father viz. not to impose their authority upon any or suffer themselves to be imposed upon by any in the matters of their God Mat. 23. 8 9 10 because one is their Master and Lord viz. Christ. Hence also the Apostles lay the weight of their exhortations upon the Commandment of Christ 1 Cor. 11. 23. and 14. 37. proclaim all to be accursed that preach any other Gospel Gal. 1. 8. Charge Chrâ—stians not to receive such as bring any other Doctrine 2 John 10. The Spirit terribly threatens such as shall add to the Revelation of God Rev. 22. 18. This Institution we say they conform hot really unto they own other Lords Heads and Governours that have a Law-making Power over his Churches beside him To this Mr. T. 1. That all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in Christ as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof he grants as a Truth Though 2dly He assents not to our Paraphrase on Mat. 23. 8. As if Christ did forbid the Apostles to impose their Authority upon any in the matters of their God which they did Acts 15. 25 28. Answ 1. By imposing their Authority is meant giving forth Commands Doctrines in their own Names as from themselves without the Authority of Christ Where did they so Do they not every where disavow it 1 Cor. 1. 15. 2 Cor. 4. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 1. Divine Revelation not the Dictates of men one or other of them is the Foundation of a Christians Faith 2. Mr. T. mistakes when he saith they did this Acts 15. 25 28. For 1st They enjoyned nothing but what was before enjoyned by the Lord only acquainted the Gentile Believers therewith as is 1. Abstinence from Fornication Exod. 20. 14. Ezek. 16. 26 29. Mat. 5. 32. 2. From things Strangled Deut. 12. 24. 3. From Blood Gen. 9. 4. 5. i. e. the Life-Blood or any member of the creature pulled from it whilest it is yet alive as the Jewish Rabbins expound it and that truly 2dly He speaks against the express Letter of the Scripture vers 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us Expressions very remote from the countenancing such an authoritative imposition as he speaks of 2. He askes How comes this to be an Order of the House of Christ he took such Orders to be Precepts of Christ to us but this seems to be Gods gift to him Answ That Christs Ruledom and Soveraignty over his House is a gift of God to him we grant but such a gift as doth necessarily imply a duty on the part of his Houshold viz. That they own obey subject to none in the matters of Worship but only him admit no Laws or Institutions amongst them but his And this is expresly asserted in S. T. which we took then and still do for an Order of Christ's House 3. He tells us further That to assert the present Ministers of England own other Lords that have a Law-making Power over his Churches besides him is to unchristen them Answ 1. And however Mr. T. his Book came to be licensed with an intimation from the reverend Licenser That he finds nothing in it contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England Some of them think though I assure him I do not he hath asserted that pag. 123 that doth indeed unchristen them 2. However if the assertion mentioned unchristens them they
into the Jewish Synagogues c. we shall speak in its proper place Though we have no command to separate from the true Worship of God and the professors of the true Faith walking suitable thereunto yet we have express precepts to have no communion in Worship that is of the devising of man the Pope Antichrist with persons as members of the same Body and that have the very Lineaments of Satan the portraiture of Hell upon them with whom Christ doth not will not walk The Scriptures but now instanced in evince as much Rev. 18. 4. commands separation from a false Church false either in constitution or by apostacy The Church of England Rome is so as we have proved and the false Worship thereof of this we have already spoken Let the Reader seriously consider the Scriptures he will find it to be so In a word the Babylon mentioned our Animadverter will grant is the Roman Church Chap. 17. 1 2 3. The scarlet coloured Beast is th Civil Power not once represented under the notion of Beasts Dan. 7. 3 17. by which she hath ever been supported from the beginning The seven Heads are the seven sorts of Governments viz. Kings Consuls Dictators Decemvirs Tribunes Caesars Christian Emperors and the seven Mountains upon which Rome was built Rev. 17. 9 10. The ten Horns are the ten Kingdoms which her abominations and filthiness of her fornications did overflow of which England was one as is known and generally granted vers 12 13. The coming out of her is a separation from the whole of her Abominations Ministry Rites Inventions which if we do not we come not out of her she hath in the ten Kingdoms by the power of the Civil Magistrate that supported her erected and by external force and violence compelled persons to bow down to with respect hereunto she is represented as drunk with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs of Jesus This is all we plead for from this Scripture We would not have the Institutions Inventions of this old Bawd and bloody Strumpet imposed upon us and subjected to as if from Christ Let the Animadverter or any one for him prove the Hierarchy of Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Chapters c. their Parish-Churches as such Organs Singing-Service bowing before Altars Candles there placed Copes holy Vestments Service-Book to be of the Institution of Christ and we are ready to stoop to them and own those that practise them but if they have no other foundation but what â—he Mother of Harlots compelled the Civil Powers to give them when she rid them at her pleasure and made them serve her Lusts to the muâ—thering of millions of the Servants of Christ in the Nations as most certain it is they have not as it would be the honour of the chief Rulers of the Nations to eradicate them they remaining as a badge of their old slavery to the worst of Strumpets So it s eminently the duty of the Children of God by virtue of express precept from this Scripture in the mean while whatever they may suffer to separate from them The Church of England i. e. the best and most enlightned amongst the chief of the Nation thought it their duty in dayes past to separate from the Doctrine of the Papacy and some of her Trinkets to cast over-board we plead but for separation from her Discipline and Ministry and the rejection of the rest of her fopperies that as we profess our selves Christians we may have not the Canons of Rome but the Laws of our dear Lord for our Rule and sole guide in this matter which one would think above many Mr. T. might permit one peaceably to do 1 Cor. 5. 12 13. Phil. 1. 5. Act. 2. 41. and 17. 4. were brought to prove it the duty of Saints as such to walk together distinct and apart from the world not to distinguish of the duties of Pastors and People nor to prove any written Church-Covenant which we were not treating of So that in what follows in this Sect. we are not at all concerned We have thrown no dirt upon the face of the Church of England as he is pleased to talk we only tell her what diâ—t and filth is there that evety body sees but her Admirers Nor are we solicitous touching his throwing dirt in the face of the separated Churches from the Writings of any railing false accusers God will plead their Cause and bring forth their Righteousness in the fit season The third Institution of Christ mentioned in S. T. is this That he hath intrusted his particular Churches with power for the carrying on the Worship of his House to choose Officers admit Members excommunicate Offenders Acts 1. 23. and 6. 3 5. and 14. 23. 2 Cor. 8. 19. Mat. 18. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 4. The Ministers of the Church of England own not conform not to this Institution of Christ we manifest in the said Treatise Mr. T. his Reply hereunto is 1. The Election Acts 1. 23. was of an Apostle and that by Lot and contains no Institution of Christ we are bound to follow Answ 1. This last is Mr. T. his dictate which 't is fit should be rejected till he proves it especially considering that the Churches for some hundreds of years afterwards chose their own Officers 2. Though it was the Election of the Apostle yet he was I hope an Officer of Christ and that to the Churches 3. His being chosen by Lots doth not evince that he was not chosen by the Church they gave forth the Lots seems to be expressive of the way they took to manifest the person whom they chose What he hath said of Acts 6. 3 5. and 14. 23. is already answered The Election 2 Cor. 8. 19. being of a person imployed in service by them manifests that none are to do services for the Church but by their appointment Of Mat. 18. 17. we have at large spoken already and vindicated it from Mr. T. his Exceptions That 1 Cor. 5. 5. is more than Excommunication practised by the Churches of the Saints he cannot prove his turning Mat. 18. 17. also to another sence is an argument of his denial of any such Institution of Christ to be practised by the Churches in the World 1st That 'T is a Church-Act is evident from the words vers 4 5. The Church is to be gathered together for this end to deliver the Incestuous person over to Satan But no Church saith Mr. T. had power over unclean Spirits to command them to cruciat the Bodies of persons Therefore say we that cannot be here intended 2dly The Church comes together to do that which Paul condemns them that they had not done before stirrs them up to set about vers 2. Now it had been absurd to have condemned them for not doing that which they had no power or Authority to do 3dly That which he calls here a delivering to Satan he calls a purging out from among them the old leaven vers 7. 4thly To the working of
and I would be more phrenetical for the Interest of my dear Lord Sorne think these expressions might have been spared though for our parts Contenti sumus hoc Catonâ— 3dly What Interpreters he hath met with I know not The Assembly in their Annotations upon the place are of our mind Their setting of their thresholds by my thresholds i. e. adding their Traditions to my Precepts Isa 29. 13. So is Mr. Greenhill c. We further propose in S. T. an Objection to consideration viz. That though these Canons and Constitutions owned by the Ministers of England be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ in so many words yet by consequence they may rationally be deduced from thence As where it is commanded that all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14. 40. which 'tis the duty of the Church to make Rules and Constitutions about which when it hath done it is the duty of every Son thereof to own or subject to them without questioning its Authority To this Mr. T. Sect. 3. subjoyns 1. He asserts not that the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England may rationally be deduced from Scripture Answ Goodly Constitutions surely that cannot rationally be deduced from Scripture but have their Original singly from the bloody Canon-Law of the Papacy and worthy to be submitted to by such as profess themselves Ministers of the Gospel what greater contempt any one could pour forth upon them I know not But 2dly Whilst Mr. T. refuseth to assert this he plainly relinquisheth his concern in the Objection proposed by us and tells us He will not stand up in its defence However 2. This he asserts in the room thereof That Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Divine Worship and Church-Government may be made by Governours if not opposite to such Rules as are in Scripture about Gods Worship and the Rule of his Church and be indeed subservient and conducible to the well-ordering of such Worship and Rule which 't is the duty of the Members of such a Church to obey Answ 1. But I would be informed whether by Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Divine Worship he means only Canons touching the spreading the Table at the Communion with a linnen Cloth the Sermons beginning at the Reading of the Text at which rate he speaks in Sect. 4. Or whether he means Canons and Laws for the Institution of considerable parts of Worship together with such accidentals as he calls them that must be submitted to by such as are admitted to the publick managery of Worship without which they shall not be permitted so to do If the first he doth but trifle we have not been taking notice of things of such an inferiour allay If the latter I desire to be satisfied by what Law any Rulers or Governours do assume to themselves such an Authority which when Mr. T. shall be pleased to shew us we shall further consider it Heb. 13. 17. speaks not a tittle thereunto Of the vanity of its Application to the Governours of the Church of England we have already spoken The Reasons of his Assertion are these 1. Without such Regulations Church-Societies cannot be continued by reason of the difference of miâ—ds Answ 1. The contrary is manifest before ever such constitutions as those he speaks of were in the World Church-Societies were continued One of the first open breaches amongst them was because of them as he knows fell out betwixt Victor Bishop of Rome and the Eastern-Churches about the observation of Easter All the confusion differences breaches that have been in the Churches so called is for the most part to be charged upon their Impositions 2dly The Animadverter supposeth That without such Constitutions the Churches should be wholly destitute of Regulation but falsly 'T is derogatory to Christ the Scriptures perfection a pitiful begging the thing in question As Christ hath a Church in the world he hath Laws with respect to external politie by which he rules it needs not be beholding to Antichrist for his 'T is impious scandalous to conceive endite such dictates He further adds 2dly All sorts of Churches have had their Synods to this end Answ 1. To what end To make Laws and Constitutions for an Order of Ministry that Christ never established to impose a Lyâ—urgical Worship upon his Churches to set up an unpreaching Ministry in his House Mr. T. knows that these things are false and untrue If he mean not these I would advise him to speak pertinently in hâ—s next These are the Institutions we charge the present Ministers wâ—th submitting to 2. That all sorts of Churches have found it necessary to have Synods is more than Mr. T. can prove The Learned Whitaker tells us That they are not simply and absolutely necessary De Concil q. 1. p. 22. and I am sure they may be well enough without them Licinius interdicts them Euseb de Vit. Constant l. 1. c. 44. yet the Câ—urches continued aâ—d in a flourishing sttate 3dly That few or no Synods that ever were yet in the World have had a right Constitution were a facile undertaking to demonstrate The Synod so called of the Câ—urch of England by which the Laws we mention were out of the Popes Canon-Law collected was not so A right Synod is constituted of the Messengers of the Churches upon the account whereof they are said to be the Churches Representatives sent by them with Instructions from them touching matters to be debated in that Convention This cannot be affirmed of the aforesaid Synod nor of any Synod that ever was in the World since the Apostles fell asleep So that whilst our Animadverter is discoursing of them as necessary he is talking of the necessity of â— Non-ens a meer Chimaera 4thly The Churches of Christ had a perfect Discipline before ever the Synods he speaks of had a being in the World Nor 5thly had these ever from Jesus Christ any Authority and what they have not from him is not Obligatory to impose any thing upon the Churches to be observed by them by virtue of an Authoritative power seated in themselves 'T is a Yoke not to be endured by the free-born Subjects of Christ that any of the Children of men should impose upon them in the matters of their God The Synod of Jerusalem did not do so as we have proved His third Reason is down-right begging the thing in question Christ hath left nothing relating to the Worship and Government of his House as such undetermined against which I advise him not to talk so confidently in his next till he hath proved the contrary The Texts mentioned by him 1 Cor. 14. 40. Heb. 13. 17. prove no such thing as the lawfulness of additional Institutions in matters of Church-Polity as a part thereof to the Institutions of Christ 1 Cor. 14. 40. is afterward in S. T. Heb. 13. 17. hath already been considered That because Paul gives direction in some
cases to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 11. 34. and tells them the rest he will set in order when he comes to them therefore 't is left to Church-Governours to institute de novo Ordinances and Institutions of their own and impose them upon the Churches is such a Conseqâ—ence that would put a modest concern'd person to a blush to review we have no Apostles none acted by an infallible Spirit as they In answer to the Objection as proposed by us we say that the whole of it is built upon such false suppositions as these That Christ hath not determined in the Scripture how the affairs of his House should be managed with decency and order as well as commanded that they be so which is derogatory to the Scriptures perfection to the Wisdom and Faithfulness of Christ diametrically opposite to the Scripture 1 Cor. 14. 40. instanc'd it of which we give this brief account The Apostle having condemned them for their irregularity in the matter of Prophesying vers 26. He gives direction touching its regular performance And that 1. Generally vers 26. 40. 2. Particularly by telling them how they ought to manage this affair in a way of decency and edification vers 27 28 29 30 34 35. That from hence a power invested in the Church for the binding the Consciences of men touching Ceremonies in Worship should be regularly deduced is the first-born of improbabilities 1. Paul speaking by an infallible Spirit adviseth the Church of Corinth That all things be done decently and in order 2. Tells them wherein that decency and order lies therefore such as pretend not to such a Spirit may of their own heads bind our Consciences by Laws of their own in the Service of God is such a non-sequitur as will not in hast be made good To this Mr. T. pretends to answer Sect. 4. The sum is Christ hath left many particularities undetermined in his Worship and the Rule of his Church to be determined by Governours Answ 1. If by particularities of VVorship he mean such as relate to it as such of Church-government such as are special parts thereof as the things mentioned by us are made to be this hath been often denied and disproved by us 2. He egregiously trifles in the matters instanc'd in by him though I think it horrible wickedness not to be born for Ecclesiastical Governours by penal Laws and Statutes to impose even those things upon the Churches That it should be criminal at the Communion not to have the Table spread with a Cloth That the Service begin with the recital of the Institution or otherwise as he speaks and beseech this Animadverter if he resolves again to draw the Saw of this Controversie that we may agree in this not to multiply impertinencies and so prove what we say I know not any of the Sons of men that have power to bind my Conscience where Christ hath not But this Mr. T. proves because 1. Parents are charged to bring up their Children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord Ephes 6. 4. 2. We are to pray for Kings that we may lead a quiet and peaceable Life under them Ergo Antichristian Church-Officers or Governours Ecclesiastical have power to make and impose Constitutions for Church-Government upon the Saints Apage ineptias That the Reader should suppose such arguings as these worth the considering I cannot be so injurious to him as to imagine whilst I conceive him to be one not bereaved of his understanding Much after the same rate that some admirers of the Gentleman at Rome are wont to argue for his Supremacy above Princes because 't is said God made two great Lights the Sun to rule the Day and the Moon to rule the Night Doth Mr. T. at present argue for the power of the Rulers of the Church of England in matters of Worship and Government without authority from Christ Yea but 3dly The Bishop must take care of the Church of God 1 Tim. 3. 5. Answ 1. But this is a Christian-Gospel-Bishop a Pastor of a particular Church which our Bishops are not 2. It remains to be proved that his taking care of the Church of God is his imposing institutions of his own upon them A forced Interpretation to say no more We read Luke 10. 34. that the Samaritan took care of the wounded man and v. 35 bid his Host take care of him yet I am perswaded neither the one nor the other called Synods to establish Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical to impose upon him The whole work of a Bishop is not surely to Rule and Govern he is to instruct exhort admonish rebuke with all longsuffering and meeâ—ness to strengthen the weak comfort the comfortless and in all to have respect to the will and appointments of his Soveraign Lord and King not to act exorbitantly according to his own will and pleasure What he adds by way of Answer to what we assert that the conceit that Christ hath not determined in the Scripture how the affairs of his House should be managed is a derogation to the perfection of the Scripture and the faithfulness of Christ is already fully replied to and removed out of the way Only whereas he cites 2 Tim. 3. 15. and intimates that the sufficiency there ascribed to the Scripture consists in affording Doctrines of Faith and Rules of Life we crave leave to tell him That his Assertion is 1. Papistical exploded by our Protestant Divines 2. False and untrue the Apostle expresly asserts their sufficiency with respect to Church-Politie to instruct Timothy wherein is no small part of his design in this Epistle He goes on and tells us That we give not a true account of the Apostles dissertation 1 Cor. 14. 1. He asserts not the Liberty of Saints in Prophesying Answ Of the truth of this let the Reader inform himself from vers 31. 'T is not material as to our present purpose whether by Prophesying he meant a particular gift of fore-telling things to come or an Exposition of Scripture for the edification of the Saints whether it were the one or the other those to whom the gift was given were to improve it and this the Apostle expresly asserts to be their Liberty and duty He tells us 2dly It is not right that the Apostle vers 40. represseth his direction vers 26. Answ The serious perusal of the Chapter will evince the contrary to this dictate of his Yea but 3dly saith he If it were so there is nothing to prove that no particular wayes of decency and order are permitted to the care of after-Rulers Answ 1. We are answering an Objection not proving a Position or Doctrine 'T is enough that we manifest that the Scripture produced warrants not Governours to introduce New Orders and Institutions an endless company of ridiculous Ceremonies under the notion of Decency and Order which whether we have evinced or not let the Reader judge 2. That he waves the Controversie about Ceremonies as Cross Surplice
Kneeling at the Sacrament is wisely done and had he wav'd the whole Controversie some think it had been no argument of his indiscretion but his so doing is no Answer He that will justifie the present Ministry and Worship of the Church of England persons of such dull capacities as our selves conceive must justifie these too They being made so necessary a part of their Worship that the Worship it self must rather be omitted than these devices of their Prelates or rather the Arch-Priest of Rome a Minister though never so able must not Preach if he will not wear the Surplice nor Baptize if he will not Cross nor may any either administer the Communion or receive it without Kneeling In which things if they transgress they are liable to be presented suspended excommunicated I have no power to compel Mr. T. to plead for any thing that he hath no mind to plead for In due time for ought I know he may as fast draw off from the tents of these men as he hath of late been advancing towards them He will not plead for their Canons nor for their Ceremonies at least some of them he tells us p. 54. It may be the next step may be nor for their Ministry To what purpose Mr. T. disputes for the power of Governors to Institute Rules for Church-Polity when he will not plead for those they Institute I know not We manifested in S. T. the invalidity of this Argument The Apostle by an infallible Spirit adviseth the Church of Corinth That all things de done decently and in order and discovers to them wherein that Decency and Order lay therefore persons that pretend not to such a Spirit may of their own head bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the Service of God To this Mr. T. replies He conceives none would thus unadvisedly conclude Answ And I believe so too but if they will argue rightly from this Scripture thus must they argue as we have demonstrated But he will yet prove the power of Governours in this matter from 1 Cor. 14 40. thus That which belonging to Decency and Order is commanded in general but not in the particularities determined is in respect of Communities left to be determined by their Rulers But so is the Apostles command 1 Cor. 14. 40. Therefore Answ 1. Both Propositions are liable to exception 1. Upon supposition that what in the Worship of Christ belongs to Decency and Order is left undetermined it doth not follow that it belongs to the Rules of the Church to determine thereof which is to make the Rulers Lords over Gods Heritage to introduce insupportable Tyranny into the Churches of Christ They are the Churches Servants not Lords that are her Ministers 2dly The Minor Proposition is notoriously false and untrue the Apostle is debating the business of Prophesying touching this he lays down particular rules for Decency and Order which he requires them to conform to Let any sober Christian peruse the Chapter he will see this shining therein in brightness So Ambrose Aquinas c. inform us Decently and in Order that no unseemliness or tumult arise But this prescription of the Apostle is not to be applied to any Episcopal Traditions but the Apostles own viz. such as he had delivered to the Churches saith a learned man Thus the heat of this contest is allayed Pulveris exigui jactu We further reply in S. T. But let this be granted suppose that 't is the Priviledge and Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of men in matters of Decency and Order this Church herein is bounded by the Scripture or 't is not If it be then when it hath no prescription therein for its commands it 's not to be obeyed and so we are where we were before That Decency and Order is to be determined by the Scripture If it be not bounded thereby then whatever Ceremonies it introduceth not directly contrary thereunto they must be subjected to which how fair an inlet it is to the whole Farrago of Popish Inventions who sees not To this Mr. T. adjoyns That he doth not plead that it is the Priviledge and Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of men in matters of Decency and Order Answ Very good The Church of England Mr. T. thinks hath no such Power Priviledge or Authority granted unto them by the Lord Jesus Then have they whilst they have so done invaded his Throne and Kingly Authority The Parish Priests whilst they own abet and subscribe to what they have done in this matter are Co-partners with them in their iniquity are really guilty of opposing the King-ship of Christ which was the matter we have been all this while contesting about and is now in effect granted by our wary Antagonist We argue thus Those that assume power to make Laws and impose the reception of them upon the People of a Nation beside those and without any Priviledge or grant to them by such given in whom the Soveraign Power of Ruledom resides are guilty of Rebellion against such their Rulers and Governours Those that abet them herein are guilty of the same Rebellion But this the Church of England with respect to Jesus Christ the onely Soveraign Lord and Ruler of his Churches hath done her Ministers have abetted her herein Therefore The Major cannot be denied The Minor is evident 1. That the Church of England hath made Constitutions for the binding thâ— Consciences of men in the maters of Decency and Order their Book of Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical evince that they have no authority from Christ so to do Mr. T. grants So that in what follows we are little concerned partly because he hath already yeelded the cause and partly because the particularities he speaks of be they what they will are only he tells us of Decency and Order not determined in the Scripture Now we deny any such particularities undetermined we think it a most fearful undervaluing of the Wisdom of Christ to assert That mans ' Devices can add Beauty Order or Decency to Christ's Institutions i. e. They are not Orderly or Decent without Humane Impositions Nor see we how these can be prescribed by Canons Ecclesiastical to be obeyed because enjoyned by the Rulers of the Church to whom we are saith Mr. T. in Conscience bound to submit if it be not the Priviledge nor Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding the Consciences of men in matters of this nature and think that the latter part of his Answer is in contention with the former Besides we are yet â—o seek for a proof of this matter That we are obliged to obey Rulers Ecclesiastical commanding us any thing in the Worship of God as such under the notion of Decency and Order and believe this very assertion is contrary to the Law of Nature and right Reason which teacheth us That God
common consent Which that it was observed by the Apopostles of Christ the sacred History testifies Acts 15. And this is the Opinion of the most famous Doctors of the Canon-Law saith Durandus De Sanct. Minist Lib. 1. c. 11. He saith more truly perhaps than he was aware That as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod and no otherwise Now we know that the meeting of a company of Knights Gentlemen at Westminster is not the Parliament the Representative of the Kingdom Their free Election by the Body of the People of the Nation renders them so In like manner the Convention of a company of Prelates and Priests make not a Synod by our Animadverters own Argument but their Election by the People to meet and sit in Council together as their Representees which the Synod so called at London One thousand six hundred and three nor any National Synod ever since had not the Choice of the People was never minded never was their consent required So that in the sence he takes the word Church which yet is forreign to the Scripture as we say in S. T. the Church of England was never yet concerned In what follows in this Section Mr. T. himself will acknowledge I am not further concerned Sect. 2. The present Ministers oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ whilst they own Laws contrary to the Revelation of Christ That they do thus evinced by the induction of particular instances Acts 8. 27. â— Tim. 6. 15. Jer. 51. 26. Luke 11. 2. Mat. 6. 7 8 9. Whether Christ there instituted a form of Prayer Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. Mark 14. 18 22 23. opened That Christ sate with his Disciples in the celebration of the Ordinance of breaking Bread evinced Of Kneeling The reason of its first institution It s opposition to 1 Thes 5. 22. manifested Of forbidding to Marry and commanding to abstain from Meats IN Sect. 6. Mr. T. proceeds to the examination of what is further produced in S. T. for the manifestation of the guilt of the present Ministers in their opposing the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ which we further prove because they own submit and subscribe to Laws Constitutions and Ordinances that are contrary to the Revelation of Christ This we prove by particular instances They own and acknowledge 1. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself Which is contrary to 1 Pet. 5. 3. 1 Cor. 12. 5. Ephes 4. 5. Heb. 3. 1. Luke 22. 22 25. 26. To which our Animadverter replies 1. They do not acknowledge them in opposition to these Scriptures Answ But that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. T. may be ashamed of such pitiful beggery He adds 2ly They do not acknowledge Arch-Bishops over the whole Church as the Pope but in their own Province Answ This is not at all material the authority of Arch-Bishops over a Province is as much against the Texts mentioned as over the whole Church 'T is not the extent of Authority Lordship that is therein condemned but the thing it self 3ly He further tells us They have no such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5. 3. Luke 22. 25 26. Answ 1. This is again to beg the thing in question 2ly We have proved the contrary He adds 4ly They are not Lords in the Church but in the Kingdom and Parliament Answ False and untrue I wish he speak not against knowledge in this matter 1. When invested into their Episcopal Sees they are stiled Arch-Bishops of such a place or Province Lord-Bishop of such a See 2. The Priests submit to them pray for them as their good Lords 3. They have Power Authority Precedency as such over the rest of the Clergy give forth Laws and Canons to rule and guide them to whom they promise obedience at their Ordination 4. They exercise jurisdiction authority over their respective Diocesses in their Ecclesiastical Courts and Consistories as such all evident Ensigns and Demonstrations of Lordly Dignities even in and over that which they call the Church That which he 5ly adds of the Eunuchs being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 8. 27. without contradiction to 1 Tim. 6. 15. where Christ is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frivolous 1. The Eunuch is not said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Potentate with respect to the Church of God over it he was not such but with respect to the Kingdom of Aethiopia where he was a Noble Man a Governor under Candace the Queen Our Bishops are Potentates in and over that which they call the Church of Christ 2. That any other besides Christ should exercise Lordship and Authority in the World is not interdicted as is their so doing in the Churches of Christ in the Scriptures mentioned He saith 5ly He hath not shewed that what is acknowledged is a Law Constitution or Ordinance nor the Ministers own it by subscription Answ True indeed I did not do so for I thought it needless to demonstrate that the Sun shines at noon-dayes Are not the Offices of Arch-Bishops Lord-Bishops Constitutions and Ordinances Have they not their Foundation and Establishment by Law Doth not Mr. T. know it Is he onely a stranger in our Israel Of the Truth of this there are not many in the Nation that are or can be ignorant That the Ministers own these whether by subscription or otherwise is not considerable Mr. T. deals injuriously whilst he suggests I say they own these with the rest of the particulars mentioned by subscription when I assert onely That they own submit and subscribe to i. some of them they manifest they own by Subscription others other wayes but they own submission to them all is too notorious to admit of a denyal They do so in their Ordination when they promise Canonical Obedience to them in their prayers for them subjection to their precepts from time to time transmitted to them which they dare not transgress 2ly That men may and ought to be made Ministers onely by these Lord-Bishops is we say in S. T. owned by the present Ministers which is contrary to Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1 7. 13. 20. Acts 14. 23. with 6. 3 5. What Mr. T. adjoyns hereunto touching Ordination by Suffâ—agan Bishops hath already been removed out of the way How much they own a Presbyterian Ordination of which he speaks many good men in the Nation feel and find Of these things we have already spoken That Ordination by Lord-Bishops is established by Law is known and that exclusively to any other without them Hereunto the Ministers subscribe Can. 36. The Scriptures instanc'd in prove this to be contrary to the Revelation of Christ Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1 7. 13. 20. manifestly evince That who-ever undertakes to be a Minister of the Lord in his Church must
said to be the Bodies of their Governours Whether the Apostles were the Heads of the Church Ojections answered Mr. T. his Exceptions thereunto considered 1 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13. expounded Whether the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church Isa 44. 28. explained The Government of the Church and State proved distinct WE further manifest in S. T. That the present Ministers deny the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ thus 3dly Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office But the present Ministers of Engl. do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ Therefore To which Mr. T. Sect. 11. The Author of S. T. speaks darkly and thence falls to conjecturing what I mean by the Head of the Church Answ To satisfie this Animadverter once for all By the Head of the Church I mean the King and Bishops that as Heads and Law-givers thereunto assume unto themselves a power to institute Laws and Ordinances of their own and create Officers in the Church which were never of the appointment of Christ which Danaeus and others make to be some of the essential parts of Church-Government and they are indeed so And if the owning such an Head-ship be not a denial of his Kingly Authority I must profess I know not what is This Mr. T. denies But 1. without giving us the least reason of his so doing 2. In contradiction to what is affirmed by himself p. 119. chap. 4. of his Theodulia 3. 'T is avowedly condemned by many sober judicious Protestant Writers and Churches as Rivet Calvin c. He tells us 2dly That no such Headship is owned by the present Ministers as the Pope claims Answ 1. The question is not whether such an Headship be owned by them as the Pope assumes but whether such an one as is not a denial of the Soveraignty of Christ 2. With respect to the extent thereof it is acknowledged there is no such Headship owned by them The King is not Universal Monarch of the Church Yet 3. For the kind of it it is the same i. e. Henry the 8th having cast off the Popes supremacy rests himself with it in his own Dominions Hence the learned Fuller in his History of the Church of England tells us That the King became the Popes heir at Law And it was indeed evidently so 1. Did the Pope claim a right to that Title Summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo The Supream Head of the Church under Christ 2. Did he account himself the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Power 3. Did he undertake to make and dispense Laws pro libitu according as he saw meet So did H. 8. and his Successors the Kings of England with respect to the Church of England The Title of Supream Head or Governour under Christ is given to them They are the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction it being by Statute Law annexed to the Crown The Bishops Courts ought to be held all Processes to go out in their Name With a Synod of Priests or without sometimes they can make and dispense with Laws for the binding or loosing of the Members of the Church thereof Hear what the learned Rivet saith Explic. Decal Edit 2. p. 203. touching this matter taxing Bishop Gardener for extolling the Kings Primacy For he that did as yet nourish the Doctrine of the Papacy as after it appeared did erect a new Papacy in the person of the King And reverend Mr. Calvin And at this day saith he how many are there in the Papacy that heap upon Kings whatsoever right and power they can possible so that there may not be any Dispute of Religion but this power should be in one King to Decree according to his own pleasure whatsoever he list and that should remain fixed without controversie They that at first so much extolled H. King of England certainly they were inconsiderate men gave unto him Supream power of all things and this grievously wounded me alwayes for they were Blasphemers and yet the present Ministers avow the same when they called him The Supream Head of the Church under Christ Thus he in Amos 7. 13. What this Animadverter saith Hart the Jesuite acknowledgeth of the Pope with respect to the whole Church is for the most part acknowledged by the present Ministers of the King with respect to the Church of England The Power which we mean to the Pope the King and Arch-Bishop by this Title of the Supream Head is that the Government of the whole Church of Christ throughout the World of the Church of England doth depend of him In him doth lie the power of judging and determining causes of Faith of ruling Councils or National Synods as President and ratifying their Decrees of Ordering and Confirming Bishops and Pastors of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the Coasts of the Earth all the parts of the Nation Of reconciling any that are Excommunicate of Excommunicaâ—ing Suspending or inflicting other Censures and Penalties on any that offend Finally all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ of England which whilst the Animadverter goes about to insinuate as not appertaining to the King he advanceth himself against the Royal Prerogatives of his Crown and Dignity Nor doth the Explanation mentioned Artic. 34. and 37. contradict what we have asserted Jurisdiction and Power of exteriour Government is acknowledged to belong to him which comprehends the substance of what we are contending for In what follows we are not in the least concerned we abhor the Primacy of the Papal Antichrist we deny not the Kings Headship and Supremacy over the Church of England by the fundamental Laws of the Nation it appertains to him We only infer from hence 1st That the Church of England is no true Church because Headed by some one else besides Christ 2dly That whilst the present Ministers account it Christ's Church and own another Head over it besides himself they deny his Soveraignty and Kingship they make another King over it and thereâ—y really unking him We add in S. T. as a proof of the Major Proposition If the assertion of another King in Engl. that as the Head thereof hath power of making and giving forth Laws to the free born Subjects therein be a denial of his Kingly authority as no doubt it is the Major cannot be denied If Christ be the alone King of his Church as such he is its alone Head and Lawgiver If he hath not by any Statute-Law established any other Headship in and over his Church to act in the holy things of God from and under him besides himself the assertion of such a Headship carries with it a contempt and denial of his Authority If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ let us know when and were it was Instituted Whether such a Dominion and
Soveraignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom with respect to Worship be granted by him to any of the sons of men absolutely or conditionally If the first tâ—en must the Church be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ trampling upon his Royal Commands and Edicts for so its possible it may fall out those that attain this Headship may do as its evident many Popes of Rome the great pretenders hereunto have done If the second let one iota be produced from the Scripture of the Institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto and we shall be so far from denying it that we shall chearfully pay whatever respect homage or duty by the Laws of God or man may righteously be expected from us But this we conceive will not in hast be performed and that for these Reasons 1. The Scripture makes mention of no other Head in and over the Church but Christ Ephes 1. 22. 5. 23 29. 2 Cor. 11. 2. To this Mr. T. answers 1. We use not the title of Head but of Supream Governour yet that title being given to Saul 1 Sam. 15. 17. and others 1 Cor. 11. 3. Ephes 5. 23. Exod. 6. 14. and may be used Answ 1. What We Mr. T. means when he saith We use not the title of Head I know not 't is the usual form of the present Ministers to stile the King in their prayers Under Thee and Thy Christ Supream Head and Governor But 2dly Head of the Church is a title nor to be given to any in that sence in which it is given to Christ this Animadverter grants I ask Hath Christ onely an Headship of influence to his Church communicating vital Spirits unto the true Members thereof Hath he not also an Headship of Government over it If he assert the first he knows he is departed into the Tents of the Antichristian Papal Shepherds who allow indeed such an Headship to Christ alone The second they divide betwixt him and the Pope as Mr. T. seems to do betwixt him and the King If the second be owned by him than none of the Children of men have an Headship of Government over the Churches of Christ they are not so the Supream Governors thereof as to give forth Laws and Institutions of their own for the Saints to conform to For this title of Head is not to be appropriated to any in that sense in which it is given to Christ as saith our Animadverter Besides 2dly If the Kings of the Earth are the Supream Governors of the Churches of Christ they have this Supremacy over them by grant from Christ and that either absolutely or conditionally if the first then whoever ascends the Throne of worldly Ruledom hath a right of supremacy over them though they themselves be such as have cast off the Yoak of Christ are trampling upon his Royal Laws and Edicts If the second let us see the proof thereof from Scripture with the conditions annexed to this their supremacy and we are satisfied This we told Mr. T. before but he was not pleased to take notice of it That because the Scriptures mentioned by him attribute â—he title of Head of the Tribes to Saul and the Man is called the Head of the Woman Therefore the Governors of the World may be called the Head of the Churches of Christ when that title of Head of the Church is given to none but Christ in the Scripture is such a piâ—iful non-sequitur as Mr. T. will not surely without blushing review Sir Saul was constituted by the Lord King over Israel a Man to have superiority over the Woman with allusion hereunto they are called their Head by the Spirit of the Lord But where is the Scripture constitution of the Superiority Kingship of any over the Church beside Christ Amongst whom he saith He will have no such thing Where is it that any have this title of Head of the Church ascribed to them by the Holy Ghost This must be proved or you must acknowledge the impertinency and invalidity of their present arguing the best of it is whether you will be so ingenuous or no 't is but a Fig-leaf covering that every eye can discern your nakedness through it We say in S. T. 2dly If there be any other Head of the Church besides Christ he must be either within or without the Church The latter will not be affirmed Christ had not sure so little respect to his Flock as to appoint Wolves and Lyons to their Governors and Guides in matters Ecclesiastical nor can the former for all in the Church are Brethren have no Dominion or Authority over each others Faith or Conscience Luke 22. 25. Mr. T. replies Though all in the Church are Brethren yet all are not equal nor doth Luke 22. 25. prove it Answ 'T is enough for our present purpose that all in the Church are thus far equal that being all brethren none may exercise any Ruledom or Authority over the rest without their consent nor any such Ruledom as to command in case of Worship where Christ is silent which is at least asserted Luke 22. 25. and Mr. T. may confute it when he is able Of this Scripture we have spoken at large Chap. 4. and of Rom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 17. frequently and have fully removed out of the way what is here repeated touching the Laws of Rulers and their obligation upon Conscience nor need we add more We say further in S. T. 3dly If any other be Head of the Church but Christ then is the Church the body of some others beside Christ but this is absurd and false not to say impious and blasphemous To which Mr. T. Particular Churches in respect of that ministration and government which their Governors afford them may be said to be the bodies of their Governors Answ Boldly ventured however 1. The Church is frequently said to be the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 12. 12 27. Ephes 5. 30 32. Col. 1. 18. 2dly Is no where said to be the body of any other not of Peter Paul much less of Nero Domitian the Supream Governours of the Empire at that day By what Authority Mr. T. takes the body of Christ and joyns it to another Head besides himself I am yet to learn 3dly The Church is call'd his Body upon the account of that glorious nearness and union is betwixt Christ and them the reception of Spirits life from him their absolute indisputable subjection to him Is the Church the body of any other with respect hereunto beside Christ Where is it so called Is it united or in subjection to any other besides Christ as the Woman is to the Man upon the account whereof she is call'd his body Ephes 5. 28. his I say not anothers That Mr. T. should assert That upon the same account the Church may be called the body of some other beside Christ We add 4thly There was no Head of the Church in the Apostles dayes but Christ That upon any
account the Apostles or Elders were Heads of the Church that in respect of ministration and government they were so as our Dictator speaks is notoriously false 1. There is not the least intimation of any such thing in the N. T. Nor 2. any Language or Speech of any Headship over the Church but Christs till the rise of that man of sin who prophaned the Crown of our Lord by casting it to the ground 3. We find not the Apostles talking of themselves at this lofty rate they confess themselves to be the Brethren of the Saints their Servants for Christs sake 4. Why talks he of Heads of the Church Doth the Scripture mention any more than one Is this the Language of Christ or Antichrist Will he make the Church a two-headed Monster but Quô passim sequerer corvum I am sorry and ashamed that so learned a Person as Mr. T. should suffer such trifles to drop from his Pen. We proceed in S. T. and say 5thly If any be Head of the Church beside Christ they either have their Headship from an original right seated in themselves or by donation from Christ To assert the first were no less than blasphemy if the second let them shew when and where and how they came to be invested in such a right and this controversie will be at an end To which our Animadverter answers Their Headship is by donation from Christ in the places often alleadged He means Rom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 17. That they refuse to afford shelter to this dying Cause we have already manifested We add 6thly He that is asserted in Scripture to be Head of the Church is said to govern feed and nourish it to eternal Life is he◠Husband 2 Cor. 11. 2. In which sense none of the Sons of men can be the Head thereof and yet of any other Head the Scripture is wholly silent But of this matter thus far It cannot by any sober person be denied but an owning a visible Head over the Church having power of making Laws with respect to Worship such an Headship not being of the institution of Christ must needs be a denyal of his Sovereign Authority and Power To which Mr. T. replies None can be said to be the Husband of the Church as Christ is or to govern feed and nourish as he by the influence of his Spirit yet the Apostles and such as convert and build up Souls may in a qualified sense be said so to do as 1 Thes 2. 7 11. the Apostle saith of himself Answ 1. This is a meer Dictate without proof and so fit to be rejected the Apostle saith not any such thing 1 Thes 2. 7 11. 2. He tells us not in what qualified sense they may be said so to do Nor 3. doth he shew us where any one is said to be the Husband of the Church beside Christ nor indeed can he so that the Argument abides firm He that is in the Scripture said to be the Head of the Church is also said to be her Husband to govern feed and nourish her to eternal Life but Christ alone is and doth so Therefore We add That the present Ministers do own such an Headship is undeniable witness their Subscription Oath Conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads-of the Church which are not onely forreign to but lift up themselves against the Royal Institutions of Christ This being matter of fact the individuals charged herewith must prove themselves not guilty or manifest that what they do is lawful The former being notoriously known to be true the latter must be insisted on Mr. T. answers Sect. 12. 1. He cannot justifie all the present Ministers do in their subscription and conformity Answ 'T is good to be ingenuous we know he cannot Longa dies citior brumali tempore noxque Tardior Hyberna solstitialis erit Nor is there any one will compel him to more than he hath a will to He adds 2. The Ministers may own Laws given forth by men as the Governors and Heads of the Church that lift up themselves in opposition against the Institutions of Christ and yet not deny his Kingly Office Because 1. this may be done out of weakness or error Answ This is already removed out of the way 2dly A man may subscribe yeeld subjection to the commands of a Usurper as some did to Richard the Third who acknowledged him not to be King of right and some do to the Decrees of the Trent Council or the Popes Edicts and yet not own his power Answ 1. This is such a legerdemain so like to those Jesuitical equivocations condemned by our Protestant Writers that I understand not nor desire to be acquainted with 2. By my subscription to the Laws mentioned and promising obedience to some of the formers of them as my Reverend Fathers in God I avowedly own their power except I have learned Fallere mille modis nec non intexere fraudes to use such hard dissimulation and treachery as an Heathen would abhor 3. Will Mr. T. stand by this plea will he undertake the Ministers of England shall do so If not Why doth he multiply words to deceive the Reader if he will he egregiously scandalizeth the King and Bishops supposing them to be Usurpers Though he hath taken the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy he hath not thereby manifested his loyalty in acknowledging him to be King of right but onely hath submitted for peace-sake to what though he owns not to be just or right he cannot remedy If the Laws of Trent Council or the Popes Edicts should be established amongst us which God forbid Mr. T. can it seems subscribe to them without owning them as just or the power imposing them he seems well acquainted with the cursed carnal Machiavellian principle of self-interest and preservation Cum fueris Romae Romano vivito more No need of taking up the Cross daily to follow Christ to subscribe to what is uppermost which we may do without owning it or the Authority by which it is established is better and safer We proceed in S. T. to the answering of some Objections that lay in our way as 1. That the Headship owned by them is an Headship under Christ To which we Answer 1. But this Headship is either of Christs appointment or 't is not if it be let it be shewen where it was instituted by him If it be not the assertion and owning of such an Headship is a denyal of Christ's Authority To this Mr. T. replies Sect. 13. The tearm Head of the Church is not used in the Oath of Supremacy this we have already answered in this Sect. and need not say more but Supream Governour And this is agreeable to Rom. 13. 1. 2 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Answ By Supream Governour over the Church of Christ is meant one that hath power seated in him for the prescribing Rules in things undetermined as Mr. T. grants the establishing
c. that never entred into the heart of Christ the judicious Reader will easily from what we have already offered discern the impertinency of Ezra 6. 7. and 7. 13. Dan. 3. 29. and 6. 26. to the present design 'T is true as he saith Christianity alters not civil Relations or Estates 1 Cor. 7. 24. And 't is as true that if in the time of my infidelity I have been the servant of men that are my Political Masters with respect to Worship though I am whilst I continue their servant to perform faithful service to them with respect to things Civil yet am I not to own them or subject to them as my Lords Governours with respect to the Service of God therein one only being my Lord and Master viz. Christ 2. I say not that all the Kings of Israel were Types of Christ but that the Kings of Israel were so i. e. some of them nor do I restrain the word Israel to the ten Tribes but to the twelve headed by David Solomon a pair of eminent Types of the Messiah That Christ and the Apostles yeelded subjection to Civil Powers with respect to things sacred of which this Animadverter must speak or he speaks impertinently is a gross mistake unworthy so learned a person We say in S. T. 3dly That the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church is false God was its alone Head and King Hence their Historian saith Their Government was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when they would needs choose a King God said They rejected him to whom even as to their Political Head a Shekel was paid yearly as a Tribute called the Shekel of the Sanctuary True indeed as they were a Political Body they had visible Political Governours but that these had any Headship over them to make any Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matter relating to Worship will never be proved To which Mr. T. replies 1. That the Church of Israel was different from the Kingdom of Israel is one of the proper opinions of those who would establish from that example an Ecclesiastical Independent Government in the Church distinct from the Civil Government of the State Answ 1. 'T is no matter whose opinion 't is if Truth it ought to be imbraced 2. That there is a real and formal distinction betwixt the two Societies Church and Common-wealth is at large proved by several As Mr. Gillespy in his Aarons Rod Blossoming b. 1. c. 3. The Assembly in their Jus Divinum Hear their Reasons p. 88 89. 1st The Society of the Church is only Christ's and not the Civil Magistrates it s his House and he hath no Vicar under him as is abundantly proved by Mr. Rutherford in his Divine Right of Church-Government Chap. 27. Q. 23. Pag. 595 to 647. 2dly The Officers Ecclesiastical are Christ's Officers not the Magistrates 1 Cor. 4. 1. Ephes 4. 8 10 11. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 3dly These Officers are elected and ordained by the Church without Commission from the Civil Magistrate by virtue of Christs Ordinance and in his Name Acts 6. 3 4. with 14. 23. 1 Tim. 4. 14. with Acts 13. 1 2 3 4. 4thly The Church meets not as Civil Judicatories for Civil Acts of Government but as Spiritual Assembles for such as are spiritual viz. Preaching 5thly Should not these two Societies be acknowledged to be really and essentially distinct from one another several gross absâ—rdities would follow As 1. Then there can be no Common-wealth where there is not a Church but this is contrary to all experience Heathens have Common-wealths yet no Church 2. Then there may be Church-Officers elected where there is no Church seeing there are Magistrates where there is no Church 3. Then those Magistrates where there is no Church are no Magistrates And if so then the Church is the formal constituting Cause of Magistrates 4. Then the Common-wealth as the Common-wealth is the Church and the Church as the Church is the Common-wealth 5. Then all that are Members of the Common-wealth are because so Members of the Church 6. Then the Common-wealth being formally the same with the Church is as Common-wealth the Mystical Body of Christ 7. Then the Officers of the Church are the Officers of the Common-wealth the power of the Keys gives them right to the Civil Sword and consequently the Ministers of the Gospel as such are Justices of the peace All which how absurd let the world judge He adds 2dly That Solomon and other Kings did exercise power over Ecclesiastical persons is evident because he deposed Abiathar Answ 1. Who denies it How this proves the power of the Kings of Israel as Heads of the Church to innovate in Worship which is the thing to be proved I know not Hic labor hoc opus est And Mr. T. hath more wit than seriously to attempt it 2. Solomon deposed Abiathar not as High Pontifee or Head of the Church for male administration in Church-affairs but as King of Israel for treason against the Common-wealth in the business of Adonijah Ergo Solomon was the Head of the Church of Israel risum teneatis amici Of 2 Chr. 29. 30 and 30. 2. which he produceth to prove That the Kings of Israel had power in Ecclesiastical things we have already spoken What follows in this 14th Sect. is not worthy our spotting paper with the repetition of 1. He grants That God was the alone Head and King of the Church of Israel with respect to power Legislative to assign what Faith Worship Judicatories and what other things were necessary for that Congregation all which solely appertained to him which is all we need contend for The Kings of Israel had not any Legislative power with respect to these he grants from the power of these Kings then it cannot be argued that any have power now to innovate in matters of Faith and Worship they are not Heads of the Church invested with authority to introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship as such nor had the Kings of Israel any such Authority Jam sumus ergo pares nec ab uno dissidet alter 2. What he talks of Kingly Government we are not at all concerned in All that we assert in S. T. is that Josephus saith Their Government was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Theocracie that when they choose a King they rejected God 1 Kings 8. 17. which when he attempts the confutation of we may attend him 3. That a Shekel was yearly paid to the Lord Ex. 30. 13. which continued to the destruction of Jerusalem Josep l. 7. c. 28. of the Jewish Wars he grants that it was paid to him as their Political Head he denies Now though this be not of any moment as to our present concern therein yet the truth thereof is easily demonstrated 1. It was paid to the Lord in token of their thankfulness for his delivering them from the Egyptian yoke which he did as their Political Head 2. None were
every one that teacheth somewhat of the Word of God but onely such as teach it according to Christs appointment nor will Mr. T. say it is the Devil did so Women may do so yet he saith they are not to be heard much less that it is the duty of one that is of God to hear the present Ministers of England who preach Christs Word from Authority humane Antichristian and that mixed with a multitude of humane Inventions We may better argue that is unlawful which is not a duty and characteristical property of one that is of God or Christs Sheep but to hear the present Ministers of England is not a duty and characteristical property of Christs Sheep as we have proved And have yet to add 1. They preach not the Word of God lawfully from Authority in his Name of which the Scriptures mentioned are to be understood 2. They preach the Commandments traditions of men in the stead of Gods Word 3. They hinder oppose persecute such as have authority to preach it 4. They are the stangers mentioned John 10. from whom 't is the property of Christs Sheep to flee 5. Many of them preach not the Word at all nor can they so do Therefore He adds Arg. 5. That may be unlawful which may be a sign of one thaâ— is not of God nor of Christs Sheep But not to hear the present Ministers when they teach the Word of God may be a sign of one that is not of God John 8. 47. 10. 26. A. This is answered in what was replied to the former Argument i. The minor is denied for the same reasons of our denial of the miâ—or in the precedent Argument 2. This Patron of charity at once rejects the many thousands of England precious in the sight of the Lord and beloved of him as persons not of God not of Christs Sheep because they hear not the present Ministers 3. We may more righteously argue To hear those that pretend to teach the Word of God as Ministers intermixed with the traditions of men but are not commissionated by him so to do is unlawful for 't is a rejection and contempt of Christs Authority who alone hath power to appoint his own Officers by whom he will communicate his mind and will But to hear the present Ministers is to hear such as pretend to â—each the Word of God intermixed with the traditions of men buâ— are not commissionated by him so to do as we have before demonstrated Therefore Arg. 6. His sixth Argument is thus formed To refuse to hear the Word of God though delivered by the present Ministers is such prâ—phaneness as is condemned in Esau Heb. 12. 16. for it is the rejecting or neglecting of an holy thing Matth. 7. 6. therefore it may be unlawful to shun hearing them and consequently lawful to hear them Answ 1. Very good It seems then that all that refuse to hear the present Ministers are prophane Esaus this he will have so much ingenuity as to retract in his next 2. He supposeth that the non-hearing of the Ministers is a refusing to hear the Word of God which is a most nefarious and diabolical accusation We refuse not to hear the Word of God in the way of his own appointment but to comply with and abet a false Antichristian-Ministry 3. The People of God conceive it to be one part of their birth-right as Men and Christians not to be compelled to hear those who come in their own names in the name of Antichrist which they refuse to sell for advantage in the World with prophane Esau and therefore judge it irrational a contradiction to be accused as if prophane like him for not dâ—ing that upon the account of his doing whereof he was branded by the Spirit of the Lord as such 4. They judge they may more rationally argue To hear the Word of God as delivered by the present Ministers is an Esau-like prophaneness because 1. 't is a rejection of their birth-right as Men and Christians 2. 'T is a compliance with encouragement of those who trample upon the Sovereignty Authority of Christ 3. 'T is a departing from the appointments of Christ to the Ordinances of Antichrist which is no small undervaluing of the Grace of Christ of the Gospel whereof Esau's prophaneness was a Type Therefore 't is unlawful to hear them Arg. 7. The seventh Argument advanced by him for this good service is The Word of God is a Pearl of great price Mat. 7. 6. 13. 44 46. Therefore to be heard and received by whomsoever held forth and consequently it's folly and sin to refuse hearing it because of personal exceptions against the bringer Answ 1. We deny the consequence nor will Mr. T. affirm it out of the heat of dispute to be true he hath asserted the contrary in his Theod. 2. 'T is wisdom not folly to refuse to meddle with the Pearl of the Prince when brought us by the hands of those from whom he hath charged us not to receive it who were never authorized by him to bring it to us especially when it is to be had from persons of his own authorisement 3. We have found the present Ministers such merchandizers for their own profit in the World that they put off dross for Gold and stones for Pearls at the best mix it with the dirt and gravel of the Antichristian City the traditions of the great Whore which they also impose upon us 4. We think we may more justly argue The Word of God is a precious Pearl Mat. 7. 6. 13. 44 46. therefore they ought not to hear the present Ministers who spoil corrupt it with their traditions and thereby offer violence to it who contemn despise tread underfoot much of the Contents thereof who huckster and make merchandize of it who prefer the Canon-Law of Antichrist before it so debaseing it to their lusts and wills of their Lords and Masters lest they should partake of the guilt of those injuries they offer thereunto whom they see many of them more zealous and nice in the punctual observance of an Edict or Institution given forth by their Masters the Bishops as bowing the knee uncovering the head or the like than the Institutions of their Lord Christ So that we may too truly say of them as Theodoricus Niemensis once said As the Priests of the Jews were at last possessed with that madness that they cried out We have no King but Caesar So I have a long time feared and do fear that our Priests may say We have no other King but the Prelate He adds Arg. 8. If the Word of God preached by the present Ministers may be effectual for that good which is the end wherefore it is preached then it ought to be heard from them according to James 1. 21. 1 Pet. 2. 1. But the Word of God preached by the present Ministers may be thus effectual Therefore Answ 1. If he understand the Major of a may be of possibility with
to preach the Gospel ought to improve those abilities in their so doing and are therein to be attended Mat. 25. 15. Luke 19. 13. 1 Cor. 12. 7 8 28 29. Ephes 4. 11. But the present Ministers have received abilities to preach the Gospel and ought to improve their abilities in that work Therefore Answ 1. The Major is not absolutely true 'T is the duty of those who have received gifts from God to improve them and to be attended in their so doing but both the one and the other is to be done lawfully Because a Friar hath received gifts from God a Drunkard Idolater it doth not therefore follow that he is bound to exercise these gifts in a false Ministry or that I am bound to attend upon persons of such a Character in the exercise thereof 2. Nor do the Scriptures produced in this Argument or 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. in the following Argument which is comprehended in this and requires no other answer speak any such thing They relate to persons in and of the Kingdom of Heaven in a regular Gospel-Church-State and the improvement of gifts in a regular orderly way according to the appointment of Christ 3. This Principle lies at the bottom of this Argument That gifts received make a lawful Minister and we are bound to attend upon such as such who have received gifts from God be they never so wicked and scandalous in their Conversation which Mr. T. upon second thoughts will not assert 4. As to the most of the present Ministry the Minor may be righteously denyed They preach not the Gospel nor have they received gifts so to do His 18th Argument is for substance the same with this and hath received its Answer We proceed to his 19th Arg. 19. Every Christian hath an interest in every Preacher of the Gospel so that no Minister is to be accounted as peculiar to any party of Christians so as to be impropriated by them that the ability of every one may be used by any though not their proper Minister nor persons regularly ordained as is evident from 1 Cor. 3. 22. Acts 18. 24 25 26. Therefore â—he present Ministers may be heard by any Saints while they teach the Gospel though such irregularities as are objected against them were granted to be in them or their Ministry Answ 1. Every Christian hath an Interest in every Gospel Minister and may lawfully hear him is true But Mr. T. must prove the present Ministers to be such else he himself will acknowledge the Argument is invalid 2. Grant Apollos was not sent forth to peacâ— the Gospel by virtue of Office he might be heard as a gifted Brother which we have proved the present Ministers cannot 3. It doth not follow that because the Saints at Corinth had an Interest in every Minister Therefore 't is lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers Arg. 20. The sum of his 20th Argument is Preferring one Minister of the Gospel before another because of our party and way is glorying in men forbidden by the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 21. 4. 6. But to forbid hearing the present Ministers of England though Ministers of the Gospel and â—ying men to hear those only who are their elected Ministers is a preferring one Minister of the Gospel before another Therefore Answ We deny his Minor Because 1. The Ministers of England are not Ministers of the Gospel 2. We tie not persons to hear only those of our own way as he calls it Such as fear God act not as Ministers of the Gospel from an Antichristian Call walk orderly let Saints hear None as I know of will interdict them so to do I am sorry Mr. T. should discover his nakedness so much that every Argument almost should be a meer petitio principii a sorry begging the thing in question or build upon some monstrous notorious mistaâ—e in the review whereof he will surely be ashamed Thus fares it with him in his 21th Argument Arg. 21. Those Ministers who are the Ministers of Christ who labour among the Saints and are over them in the Lord and admonish them that are Elders that rule well especially those who labour in the Word and Doctrine who are their Rulers or Guides who speak to them the Word of God are to be esteemed honoured remembred for their works sake 1 Cor. 4. 1. 1 Thes 5. 12 13. 1 Tim. 5. 13. Heb. 13. 7. and therefore much more are to be heard But the present Ministers of England are the Ministers of Christ Therefore Answ The Minor is denied wherein the Animadverter pittifully beggs uâ— to grant what he should have proved That the Ministers of England are the Ministers of Christ which no one in their right wits will suppose he proves by this Argument The Ministers of Christ are Stewards 〈◊〉 â—he mysteries of God who labour in the Word and Doctrine who â—peak unto us the Word of God But the Ministers of England are Stewards of the mysteries of God for besides the begging of what we shall not grant him viz. That the Ministers of England are Stewards of the mysteries of God which none can be but those who are put into the Office of Stewardship by the Lord of the Family which we challenge Mr. T. or any one for him to make good with relation to the Ministers of England It invelops and wraps up in it this absurdity That whoever labours in the Word and Doctrine is a Minister of Christ Of which we have frequently spoken and beg Mr. T. for the future not to impose thus crudely upon us without proof 2. That they are over the People of God in the Lord i. e. by virtue of Divine appointment which we have disproved 3. That they are Elders who being only in and over a particular Church of Christ as we have proved they cannot be 4. That they are Elders who rule well whereas they have no authority to rule at all that is a flower that grows only in their Lord-Bishops Garden intrusted mostly in the hands of an Antichristian Officer call'd a Chancellour 5. That they labour in the Word and Doctrine which as touching the generallity of them is false who labour only in their Ceremonies and Service-book 6. That they are their Rulers and Guides which they cannot be but by their free consent as hath been shewed which they never had nor sought after Arg. 21. Retorted It may more justly be Argued Those Ministers who are not the Ministers of Christ nor Stewards of the Mysteries of God who labour not among the Saints nor are over them in the Lord nor admonish them who are not Elders that Rule well nor labour in the Word and Doctrine who are not legally their Rulers and Guides who speak not to them the pure Word of God but the Traditions of men 't is unlawful for Saints to hear But this is all true concerning some of the present Ministers and some what of it concerning all of them Therefore What he saith of denying the
trial for satisfaction He further argues Arg. 29. This Author Chap. 2. allows the hearing gifted Brethren He would not think it unlawful to hear Parents or Masters catechize or Readers in the University when they read Divinity Lectures Therefore by a like reason must allow hearing the present Ministers Answ This consequence we deny there is no parity or likeness of Reason in it why we cannot hear them as gifted Brethren we have manifested Chap. 2. There are more reasons against hearing them than against hearing Parents catechize as their acting from an Antichristian Call or Readers in the University to which I go not as to a part of instituted Worship but School-Exercise That they are ordain'd according to the Discipline of the Church in which they live is nothing at all for their commendation except that Church were a true Church or the Discipline thereof more different from the Discipline of Rome than it is His thirtieth Argument is not worth the mentioning That our Arguments may be retorted upon our selves is not improbable any mans Arguments may be so The difficulty lies in proving the justness of their retortion which when he shall be able to effect Erit mihi Magnus Apollo To dictâ—te that Ordination by other Ministers besides the Elders of their own Congregation is necessary for the constitution of a Gospel-Ministry that the Church of England is a true Church or that separation from a company of wicked and ungodly persons is not warrantable by Scripture when we have proved the contrary is to expose himself to the pitie or contempt of the judicious Arg. 31. The grounds upon which the Author of S. T. and other Separatists deny the unlawfulness of hearing the present Ministers are neither false nor doubtful That nothing is to be done in the Worship of God and Church-Discipline relating to it as the Worship of God without a particular Institution we have abundantly before proved Arg. 32. That the Ministers of England have proved the truth of their Ministry against Papists and Separatists That the Prelates have so opposed Popery that were not men resolved never to lay down a calumny they have once taken up they would not cry them down as Antichristian Popish is but what he at present thinks They have opposed the person of the Pope and retained his Laws and Canons They oppose the Pope of Rome and his Conclave and set up and maintain the Pope of Canterbury and his Hierarchy against whom the very Arguments they use against the Pope â—f Rome directly point Arg. 33. The absurdities will follow upon denying to hear the present Ministers because not rightly elected or because they use the Common-Prayer-Book or are faulty in their lives are either not such or really follow not thereupon Answ 1. Every Christian Reader is able to judge of at leâ—st some of the Reasons in the S. T. whether they can warrant his not-hearing 2. He must be able to judge every Minister he hears whether he be rightly elected but this his judgment may proceed from the information of the Church to which the Minister is related or if his Minister he tries and judgeth with the Church as a Member thereof which gives not Authority to individual Hearers but to the Church or rather Christ Jesus who hath entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven with them over their Ministers Much less 3. must every individual hearer have power to silence or withdraw from his Minâ—ster This he hath power to do and this he ought to do with respect to the Pastor of that Church to which he is related if he knows any sin or evil upon him to admonish him and in case of perseverance therein to take two or three with him and again admonish him and if he remain obstinate to bring it before the Church who have power if he will not hear them to depose him If he be a Pastor of some other Church to which he is not as a particular Member related to bring iâ— to the Elders of that Church or some Brother of known integrity appertaining thereunto who is to observe the same Rules already minded which would not introduce oppression upon Ministers nor will they if truly Christian account the execution of the Righteous Laws of Christ to be so The Scepter of his Kingdom is a right Scepter To compare the corrupt bloody Popish Canons herewith is little less than blasphemy 4. That hereby there should be any danger of Gospel-Mâ—nisters being exposed to penury deserted of their Members is not likely 5. That there can be no setled Government in Church or State if the stated Ministers according to the present Laws should be deserted or disobeyed is a false and bloody assertion Arg. 34. That such a Plea as this is made by the Papists for their Recusancy we have already answered Arg. 35. To this we say 1. Christ hath debar'd us from hearing the present Ministers as we have at large proved 2. Whilst we press men to an obedience to the Voice of Christ we make not men Rabbies it hath not the least tendency thereunto but Christ Nor are we against hearing any whom Christ in his Royal Law forbids us not to hear Arg. 36. To this we say Not to hear the present Ministers is no Negative Superstition 't is built upon Divine Precept as we have proved it occasions not the neglect of Gods Command he beggs the Question whilst he supposeth it or any duty of love incumbent upon the Saints It begets not unnecessary perplexities in mens Spirits nor puffs them up with conceit of more holiness than others nor causeth them to be censorious of others Nor hath Mr. T. proved these things to be so or the consequent of the Opinion contended for The whole of his 37th Argument That the denying the hearing the present Ministers is a usurpation of Christs Regal Office in putting a Law on the Consciences of men arrogating that power which is proper to Christ James 4. 12. Mat. 23. 4. is a meer calumnie Nor is the Animadverter able to prove what he saith nor hath he so much as attempted so to do We have demonstrated that the non-hearing the present Ministers is no imposition of our own but a Yoke of Christ We forbid not any to hear Preachers of the Gospel but such as pretend to be so and are not To his 38th Argument we answer By this means the knowledge of the Word of God is not at all hindred nor the furthering his Kingdom neglected but the contrary 'T is not true that those who hold the Opinion of not hearing the present Ministers in publick think it enough if they can teach those of their own Society they are willing to instruct others also which they do as they have opportunity That 't is seldom by conference that we insâ—ill any truths into others without somewhat that alienates them from others and engageth them to our own Society with diminution of love to others is a most false