pretenders hereunto have done If the second let one iota be produced from the Scripture of the Institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto and we shall be so far from denying of it that we shall cheerfully pay whatever respect homage or duty by the Laws of God or Man may righteously be expected from us But this will not we humbly conceive in hast be performed and that because 1. The Scripture makes mention of no other Head in and over the Church but Christ Ephes. 1.22 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 2. If there be any other Head he must either be within or without the Church The latter will not be affirmed Christ had not sure so little respect unto his flock as to appoint Wolves and Lions to be their Governours and Guides in matters Ecclesiastical nor can the former for all in the Church are Brethren have no dominion over each others Faith or Conscience Luke 22.25 3. If any other be Head of the Church but Christ then is the Church the Body of some others besides Christ but this is absurd and false not to say impious and blasphemous 4. There was no Head of the Church in the Apostles dayes but Christ. 5. If any be Head of the Church beside Christ they either have their Headship from an Original Right seated in themselves or by donation from Christ. To assert the first were no less then blasphemy if the second let them shew when and where and how they came to be invested in such a right and this Controversie will be at an end 6. He that is asserted in Scripture to be the Head of the Church is said to govern feed and nourish it to eternall life is her Spouse and Husband 2 Cor. 11.2 In which sense none of the Sons of men one or other can be the Head thereof and yet of any other Head the Scripture is wholly silent But of this matter thus far It cannot by any sober person be denied but an owning of a visible Head over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship such an Headship not being of the institution of Christ must needs be a denial of his Soveraign Authority and Power Answ. This Author in this Argument seems to me to hide his meaning as they say the Fish Saepia doth by casting out some black colour whereby the water is infected and she not discerned A Headship over the Church besides Christ's he makes the present Ministers to acknowledge in some of the sons of men but who they are he means what the Headship is and how it is opposite to Christs Kingly and Prophetical Office is not plainly expressed nor in what Subscription Oath or Conformity they own and submit to it Headship is a Metaphor and sometime notes Origination vital influence direction or guidance superiority power authority or government which may be in many things No Minister I think gives such a Headship to any of the sons of men as to Christ over his whole Body either so as to derive their being members having their faith or eternal life or dominion over their Consciences or Sovereign power authority to rule or dispose of soul or body as Christ hath And that which the Bishop of Rome claims over the Universal Church is utterly disclaimed by the present Ministers The Headship which is made a denial of Christs Headship ascribed by the present Ministers to some person on Earth is expressed in various phrases A Headship in and over his Church to act in the Holy things of God a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of Christs Kingdom with respect to Worship a visible head over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship which it 's said they own by conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads and Governours of the Church thâ—y own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a a Law making and Law-giving power touching Institutions of Worship that never came into his heart Headship over the Church to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship This can be conceived to be ascribed by the present Ministers to no other than the Bishops or Convocation or the King whose Supremacy in Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical seems to be that Headship here meant by the answer to the second Objection What Headship is ascribed to the Bishops or Convocation in making Laws or Constitutions about Worship to wit the accidentals thereof undetermined in order to the orderly decent performance of it to edification by the present Ministers hath been examined all along in the answer to this Book specially to the 4. and 5. Chapters Sect. 3. and as yet no such Headship is proved by this Author to be ascribed by the present Ministers as amounts to a denial of the Prophetical and Kingly Offices of Christ that the taking of the Oath of the Kings Supremacie or submission to his Edicts about matters of Worship is not owning such a Headship is further to be cleared And first I deny his major That those who acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ by acknowledging the King as Supream Governour in Causes Ecclesiastical or Spiritual as the Oath of Supremacy is proved by me in my Book of the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy ought to be understood particularly that he or with him the Bishops or Convocation may make Laws or Constitutions in the accidentals of Worship undetermined in Scripture observing the rules of Order Decency Edification deny Christs Prophetical and Kingly Office and to the proofs of it I answer This Author doth most injuriously suppose the power and authority asserted to the King of England in the Oath of Supremacie to make Laws or Canons about the Worship of God with the Counsel of a Synod or Convocation or Parliament is making another King besides Christ over his Church For there is no such thing acknowledged thereby which is proper to Christ to wit to be the universal Monarch of the whole Church to prescribe what Faith or Worship shall be given to God to be Infallible Interpreter of Gods Will and the Supreme Judge and Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy or which is arrogated by the Popes of Rome and thus acknowledged by Hart the Jesuite in his Conference with Dr. John Rainold in the Tower of London ch 1. div 2. in these words The power which we mean to the Pope by this title of the Supream Head is that the Government of the whole Church of Christ throughout the World doth depend of him in him doth lye the power of judging and determining all causes of Faith of ruling Councils as President and ratifying their Decrees of Ordering and Confirming Bishops and Pastors of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the coasts of the Earth of reconciling any
designed by his Son and his Apostles the several Officers and Offices his Wisdom thought sufficient for the management of the affairs of his House that is his Church as they are such First Christ Jesus called his twelve Disciples together and gave them power and authority over all Devils and to cure Diseases and he sent them to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick Luke 9.1 2. After he appointed other seventy also and sent them two and two before his face into every City and place whither he himself would come and these were confined to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Mat. 10.6 To whom he saith only he was sent Mat. 15.24 St. Peter having confessed him Christ tells him Mat. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church which by reason of the repeating of his Name and alluding to it and thereby minding him of it is justly to be thought to imply a promise of a special use of him in the building of his Church not barely as that particular man but as a foundation of it by his Preaching as other Apostles are called Foundations Eph. 2.20 in respect of their Doctrine wherein St. Peter had some work before the other in his Preaching Acts 2. and 3. and 10. And therefore Christ promiseth to give him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 16.19 So as by his preaching to open the Kingdom of Heaven first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles when Cornelius was admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore Act. 15.7 he speaks of it as his preheminence that God made choice among the Disciples that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel and believe he imploying that key of knowledge which the Lawyers had taken away who entered not themselves into the Kingdom of God and them that were entering in they hindered Luke 11.52 To him our Lord Christ assures Mat. 16.19 Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Which Phrase seems by the expressions Mat. 23.4 Rev 2.24 to import that what he should command to be done should be in Heaven ratified as commanded by God as it was Acts 2.38 Acts 3.19 20. Acts 10.48 and what he should untie that is free men from the obligation of that should be untied in Heaven that is God would not require the observation of it which was performed Acts 11.3 14 17 18. Acts 15.10 Which promises though personal to St. Peter and in respect of the first work peculiar to him neither imparted to any other Apostle nor derived from him to any successour yet this last promise was after made to the rest of the Apostles Mat. 18.18 and performed when St. Peter with them decreed about Circumcision Acts 15.24 and the Holy Ghost established it v. 28. Afterwards our Lord Christ being risen from the dead finds his Disciples assembled for fear of the Jews Thomas being absent and saith Peace be unto you as the Father hath sent me even so send I you And when he had said this he breathed on them and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained John 20.19 21 22 23. The words of salutation of mission the breathing on them and imparting the Holy Ghost to them do import that the remission and retaining of sins there promised was a peculiar power given to them on whom he thus breathed though also communicated after to other Apostles who were in like manner sent and received the Holy Ghost as they did Which remission of sins was accomplished when by their preaching persons repented and were Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins Acts 2.39 41. When Aeneas was cured by St Peter Acts 9.33 For healing is by remission of sins Mat. 9.6 James 5.15 John 5.14 Or by taking off the sentence of delivering to Satan by which the Apostles had power to retain sins as appears by that speech of St. Paul 1 Tim. 1.20 That he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander unto Satan that they might be instructed or corrected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as either to be afraid or disabled from blaspheming any more as they had done when Satan should chastise them with bodily punishment St. Paul also had determined by his Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. When the Christians were gathered together that they might be witnesses to deliver him that had his Fathers Wife unto Satan for the destruction of the Flesh that is the wasting of his body that the Spirit or Soul being sensible of his sin and humbled for it might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Which had been his comming to them with a Rod 1 Cor. 4.21 and the retaining his sin had not his after-sorrow caused S. Paul to forgive him in the person of Christ 2 Cor. 2.10 which was the remitting of sin confirmed in Heaven Other instances there are of the retaining of sins by Apostolical power when St. Paul smote Elymas the sorcerer with blindness Acts 13.11 and St. Peter inflicted death upon Ananias and his wife Sapphira for lying to the Holy Ghost and keeping back part of the price of the Land which they had sold Acts 5.3 5 10. After this mission commission and breathing of Christ on the disciples to reestablish St. Peter after his fall Christ injoynes him to feed his Lambs and his Sheep thrice charging him that he might shew his love to him whom he had thrice denied whereby he doth not make him universal Bishop or Monarch of the whole visible Church as Romanists impiously pervert the Text but requires of him diligence in testimony of his love to him by doing that work which is expressed in words which signifie teaching one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not ruling and that Ministry which is common to other Bishops Acts 20.28 and Elders among whom St. Peter termes himself a fellow Elder and Christ the chief Shepherd 1 Peter 5.1 2 4. But then Christ did most design the Officers and Offices he thought requisite for the management of the affairs of his house when being to ascend into Heaven not long after in a mountain of Galilee Jesus spake to them saying all power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations or rather Disciple or make Disciples all Nations or of or in all Nations not the Jewes only as formerly Mark 16.15 Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every creature or to all the creation Baptizing them thus discipled Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved into the name of the the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
must hear no meer gifted Brethren no Itenerant Preachers though approved by Tryers none but their own Officers and those rightly chosen and consequently they must before they hear them know their Election to be right and the particular Church electing them to be rightly instituted which tends to such dictraction of peoples minds and alienation of them from hearing as can end in nothing but meer Irreligion and make men Seekers or Quakers the mischiefs of which are too too conspicuous But I shall more directly answer this Argument and that so much the rather because the Text John 10. is abused by Papists to prove that they are not right Shepherds who have not authority from the Pope whom they make the One Shepherd v. 16. as Hart in his Conference with Dr. Rainold Chap. 6 from whom all Bishopâ— derive their power and all the Sheep are to hear and by Quakers and others to prove that they are not true Shepherds nor to be heard who receive any maintenance by Tithes or other stipend because they that do so are by them judged Hirelings and not Shepherds v. 12. It is granted that Christ is the door Joh. 10.9 but it may be doubted whether Christ be meant by the door Joh. 10.1 the reason of which is because then Christ should be said to enter by himself and the door to enter by the door To avoid which Maldonate in his Commentary conceives the door v. 1. not to be the same with the door v 9. but the door v. 1. to be the Scriptures of the Prophets whâ—â— foretold of the good Shepherd Ezek. 37.24 34.23 Jerem. 23.5 30.9 Isa. 40.11 by vertue of which Prediction he entred And indeed the whole purport of the Parable doth tend to this that he onely was the good Shepherd that is the Messiah foretold by the Prophets and that all other that pretended to be the Messiah or good Shepherd such as Theudas and Judas of Galilee mentioned Act. 5.36 37. and if there were any other like them were but Thieves and Robbers Strangers Hirelings though they took on them to be Shepherds they were but false Christs such as Christ foretels should arise Mat. 24.24 But let it be granted that the door is the same Joh. 10.1 and 9. the entering in v. 9. cannot be meant of entring into the Ministery lawful election of a particular Instituted Church For then it would follow that every one that enters into the Ministry by by election of a particular Instituted Church shall be saved and go in and out and finde pasture which is manifestly false Therefore entring is meant of every True believer and is by faith in Christ who is the right door by whom that is by his Doctrin men come to be his Sheep and he is their Shepherd But be it that the entring be into the Ministery and that entring be by vertue of Authority derived to them from him how is it proved they are not authorized by Christ immediately who work not Miracles Have not many especially in cases of necessity been Ministers of Christ by immediate inward call who have not wrought Miracles It were hard to conclude of Petrus Waldo and many other Reformers that had no power of working Miracles that they were not Ministers of Christ that I say nothing of gifted Brethren that they were Thieves and Robbers because they had no immediate calling by a particular Instituted Church Sure this would be to offend against the generation of Gods children who in the darkest times of Papal Tyranny took upon them to Preach the Gospel without a praevious election of a particular Instituted Church But how doth he prove that those that receive authority to Preach the Gospel mediately from Christ have it from some particular Instituted Church of Christ He alledgeth no other but this that to a particular instituted Church of Christ power is solely delegated for the electing of their own Officers But what then may not for all this power be given to some others to choose send and ordain Preachers for the unconverted who yet may be Ministers of the Gospel and may be heard as such Yea may not some others ordain Elders for particulâ—â— Instituted Churches Sure when St. Paul left Titus in Crete that he might set in order things that were wanting and ordain Elders in every City as he had appointed him Tit. 1.5 giving him direction whom to ordain he left it to him to choose Preachers for Instituted Churches who were to be heard and this by power delegated by Christ to him and therefore power is not solely delegated to a particular Instituted Church of Christ for the electing of their own Officers but that they may be chosen and ordained by some other for them by vertue of an authority derived tâ— them from Christ. But how proves he the power for electing their own Officers delegated solely to a particular Instituted Church of Christ He saith it is according to the tenour of the ensuing Scriptures whereof one is Acts 6.5 and that relates onely one act of choosing the seven Deacons by the whole multitude of the Disciples at Hierusalem who cannot be well counted such a particular Instituted Church as made up one Congregation to meet every Lords day for all Ordinances they were too numerous to be such nor were they organized under fixed Officers with such constitution as is now made necessary to a particular Instituted Church Nor did they choose the Deacons upon any conceived power delegated from Christ by vertue of any rule established by Christ or his Apostles which should be perpetual in all ages to all Churches but upon advice of the Apostles for their more liberty to attend on other work of more importance and their own liking nor if it were to be a perpetual rule for all Churches in all ages can it be any rule for choosing other Officers besides Deacons there being a peculiar reason why they should choose Deacons whose honesty prudence and mercifulness was to be discerned and not other Officers whose sufficiency to Teach and Orthodoxie were to be considered of which the whole multitude of Disciples then and the major part of a particular Instituted Church are rarely now competent Judges The other text Act 14.23 hath no colour to prove such a delegated power but from one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translation renders when they had ordained Beza after others Per suffragia creâssent Had created by suffrages and because the word arose from a custom among the Greeks of choosing their Officers by Suffrages or Votes signified by the stretching out of the hand conceives that Paul and Barnabas did not create the Elders in the Churches without the Churches election signified by stretching out of their hands to shew their consent to the elected and thence is inferred that so it should be now But this is but one example though it is not to be denied that in after ages which were times of Persecution the Elders were
chosen by the Church and therefore seems not sufficient to inferr a necessary perpetual rule of such election especially other passages shewing the Constituting or Ordaining of Elders without mentioning of any such election as Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 And though the original and use of the word were from the custom mentioned and did in popular Elections signifie Election by suffrages yet as in other words so in this use hath enlarged its sense apples it to other creating than by such suffrage as is manifest by the use of it even in the same book Acts· 10.41 where the Apostle are termed Witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chosen before of God who did not choose by suffrages of others and by Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on Act. 14.23 is shewed to be used in like manner in Philo Judaeus and other Authors besides Christians as the same with Electing Ordaining or Constituting without Suffrages of others and must be so understood in this very place because none are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stretch out their hand but Paul and Barnabas and it is said they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be well translated any other than Ordaining by laying on their hands on the Elders not by bare stretching out or lifting up their hands as was wont to be in Suffrages and it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to or for them manifestly distinguishing the Disciples from the Electors or Ordainers by stretching out or laying on of hands So that this place doth not prove Power solely delegated to a particular Church instituted for the electing of their own Officers and therefore if all were true which is added by this Author These men as it s known have no such authority pretend not to it have it in derision come barely with a presentation from a Patron and Ordination Institution and Induction from a Lord-Bishop things forraign to the Scripture and impose themselves upon the people whether they will or no. Yet they may be Ministers of the Gospel and heard as such notwithstanding this Argument Yet I add that it will be hard for this Author to prove that the Parish Churches in England are not particular Instituted Churches of Christ or that the Ministers are imposed on the People whether they will or no the contrary is true of many places especially in London concerning the Incumbents and Lecturers Nor is the Ordination of a Lord-Bishop such a forraign thing to the Scripture as this Author would insinuate the Bishop not Ordaining without other Elders joyning with him and giving him no other authority than to Preach the word of God and to Minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto To shut up the Answer to this Argument As the Text Joh. 10.16 is abused by Hart to prove the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ as Dr. Rainold sheweth in his Conference Ch. 6 divis 1. it being meant only of the Lord Christ and the Quakers abuse Joh. 10.12 to cry down Preachers as Hirelings because they receive Wages though it be according to Christs own determination Luke 10.7 the Lords Ordinance I Cor. 9.14 St. Pauls practice sometime 2 Cor. 11.8 and his Precept Gal. 6.6 and his Approbation 1 Tim. 5.17 18. The word Hireling Joh. 10.12 being not used as making it a sin for a Minister to receive hire but to distinguish Christ from other Shepherds who was not as Hirelings whose Sheep are not their own but was a singular Pastor owner of the Sheep of whom he was Pastor and those abuse Joh. 10.5 who urge it against the hearing of any Preachers but those of their own Church or way calling them Strangers whereas the strangers there are such as were Usurpers of Christs Office and were enemies to the Sheep not feeding them but perverting them So this Author abuseâ—â— John 10.1 9. by saying the present Ministers of England are Thieves and Robbers because they come not into their Ministry by the door that is by any authority to them from Christ that is not by election of a particular Instituted Church when this is but from an expression in a parable in which is not the scope or Doctrin intended by it and therefore not argumentative and neither is it certain that the door v. 1. is the same with the door v. 9. nor if it were is the door that whereby there is entrance into the Ministery but the Church nor the entrance by right election of others but by the persons true faith nor is the not entring in by the door brought as the reason or form denominating them Thieves and Robbers but only as some description of them from a concomitant nor are any meant there to be Thieves and Robbers who do direct to Christ or receive him for defect of regular calling but such only as obtruded themselves as the Messiah on the people with intent to make a prey of them Sect. 4. The present Ministers may be heard as Gifted Brethren There is yet more of the like stuff 2. Saith he 'T is not lawful to hear them as Gifted Brethren 1. The most of them are not Gifted Brethren Nor 2. Brethren being Canonical Drunkards Swearers Gamesters c. Answ. That any of them are such it is to be bewailed and in a Christian way the persons that are guilty are to be rebuked Levit. 19.17 not to be thus charged in Print in a Book vented in the dark tending not to amend them but to make them odious even with them that are too much inclined to censuring and reviling of those that dissent from them or are of an opposite party But how it appears that the most of the present Ministers of England are such as he stigmatizeth them I know not and I hope it is not true However if it were so it proves not that others better qualified might not be heard nor that these men may not bethren yea if he follow St. Pauls rule 2 Thess. 3.15 alledged a little after he is not to account them as enemies but to admonish them as Brethren and were all this and more true yet they might be heard preach the Gospel as Brethren Gifted as Judas was to be heard though declared by Christ to be a Devil Joh. 6.70 But what saith he of the rest 3. The best of them cannot by Saints in respect of Gospel Communion be so accounted For 1. There was never any giving up of our selves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example whence such a Brotherhood doth result Answ. By Saints I doubt not he means such as are members of a particular Instituted Church Congregational distinct from Parish Churches either under Episcopal or Presbyterial Government For such only are accounted Saints by him as give up themselves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example and by Gospel Communion no doubt he means hearing of them preach praying with
the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but to be separated from but the present Ministers of England act in the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling Therefore The major is evident For 1. The Power Office and Calling of Antichrist is opposite and contrary unto the Power Office and Calling of Christ not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office-power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ. Answ. The ambiguity that is in the termes of this argument is that which makes this Argument seem to many well-meaning people to be of some force which will appear to be a meer fallacie when the terms are clearly opened Concerning which that which is chiefly to be explained is who is the Antichrist here meant and what is meant by Antichristian which hath been so strangely abused especially of late years that every thing that hath been mâ—sliked by an opposite party is branded with the name of Antichrist and mark of the Beast and made a sufficient cause of utter separation from such as own any thing so called and of almost Vatinian hatred The word Antichrist I find not in any place in the Bible but in the Epistles of St. John 1 Joh. 2.18 As ye have heard that Antichrist should come even now are there many Antichrists whereby we know that it is the last time v. 22. He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son ch 4.3 And every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and this is that Spirit of Antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the World 2 John 7. For many deceivers are entered into the World who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an Antichrist or the Deceiver and the Antichrist In which passages I observe 1. That Antichrist is described as a Deceiver as one that opposeth the grand truth of the Gospel and therefore the word in the Scripture use is not applied to persecuting Princes and Emperours as the great Turk but to false Teachers 2. That the opposition is by denying not by making himself Christ but by denying Jesus to be the Christ and therefore the term Antichrist is not one that sets up himself as if he were Christ they are expressed by another word Pseudo-Christs Mat. 24.24 but one that is against Christ by teaching contrary to him 3. That the term Antichrist is applied to many false Teachers who were in St. Johns time 4. That yet there was one Antichrist more notable than the rest to come into the World About whom hath been variety of opinions of old and of late much controversie whether he should be a single person or a state or rank of persons succeeding one after another whether the Antichrist be already come or is yet to come whether the Popes of Rome for some generations have been the Antichrist or they and some other The opinions of the Fathers were various as conceiving of Antichrist by conjectures after the Popes of Rome began to be so haughty as to usurp dominion over Emperours and Kings and to be tyrannous in cruel persecutions of them that opposed the Papal corruptions many pious and learned men stuck not to stigmatize the Popes of Rome as Antichrists and since the Reformation begun by Luther it hath been the common tenent of Protestants that the later Popes of Rome have been the man of sin foretold 2 Thess. 2.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. the City of Rome the Whore of Babylon and the Papacy or Popes the Beast described Rev. 17. which is taken for a Prophesie of Antichrist And though some have endeavoured to apply these Prophesies to Caligula Simon Magus Domitian Mahomet the Turkish Sultans yet generally not only the French and German Protestants but also the English the most esteemed for learning even of the Order of Prelates such as Downham Robert Abbot Usher Bedel Prideaux together with King James and his Defendant Andrews and many more have applied the Prophesies in the Revelation and 2 Thess. 2. to the Roman Popes as the Antichrist that was to come Whence every thing that is retained in the Protestant Churches not taught or exemplified in the Scriptures according to the use of the Church of Rome is usually termed Antichristian as coming from Rome and the mark and image of the Beast in which sense I conceive this Author useth the term Antichristian as being against Christ and by power Antichristian he means Authority and Rule Prelatical by Office-Antichristian the Office of Preaching reading the Common-Prayer Administration of Sacraments and Discipline according to the Church of England by Calling Antichristian he means Ordination by a Bishop Now out of this may be gathered an answer to the Argument If by Antichristian Power Office and Calling be meant the Papal Power Office and Calling and the acting in Holy things be by preaching the Doctrine of the Trent Council in the points determined therein against Protestants by administring Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and Discipline according to the Canon Law of the Popes in which Papal power is established the major is granted and the minor denied For though I deny not that a person Ordained by a Popish Bishop if he forsake Popish Doctrine and preach the Truth taught by Protestants may be heard preach the Gospel though he do not renounce his Ordination yet while he holds that Doctrine he is not to be heard as being an Antichristian Deceiver But if by an Antichristian Power Office or Calling be meant by vertue of Ministry according to the Liturgie Articles of Religion and Homilies of the Church of England from the Ordination and License of the Bishops which this Author terms Antichristian the major is denied and to the Arguments to prove it I answer that that which he calls Antichristian is not truly such but only miscalled such by him and therefore till he proves that Power-Office and Calling which he calls such and means in his major proposition is such his major is denied and it is denied that what he calls Antichristian is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and Calling of Christ or not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ until he proves such acting to be really so And this answer might suffice to invalidate all the other Arguments he brings for his major they all moving upon this unproved Supposition That what he calls Antichristian and standing by and pleading for Antichrist is in truth such But because there are some things to be examined in the other Arguments also I shall survey them also 2. Saith he It 's unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by
virtue of a power derived from him Answ. If by teachings of Antichrist be meant the teachings of the present Doctrin of the Church of Rome according to the Trent Council wherein they dissent from Protestants and the power derived from him be meant of the Englâ—sh Bishops Ordination it is denied that the Preachers of England derive their power from Antichrist Pope or Church of Rome and I say that it is meer impudency to say they do who renounce the Popes authority by solemn Oath and separate from the Church of Rome and are persecuted condemned and put to death where the Pope hath power even because they disclaim the Pope and his Doctrin Yet if any should act by virtue of Ordination from the Pope as doubtless many did before the Reformation such as Wickliffe and many others and yet not teach his Doctrin he might be heard teaching the Gospel and in such a case the consequence were not valid and therefore in this sense it may be denied that because it is unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by virtue of a power derived from him 3. Saith he Christ calls and solemnly charges his upon the penalty of most dreadful Judgments to separate from every thing of Antichrist Rev. 18.4 14.9 10 11. Answ. It is true Rev. 18.4 we read thus And I heard another voice from heaven saying Come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues Which may be understood of a local departure fâ—om Babylon or Rome when her judgment of Destruction from the Kings of the earth draws nigh but if it be extended further to a departure by forsaking communion with her in Worship and leaving the subjection which was yielded to her in her Government yet is it not understood of every Doctrin the Pope teacheth not of the Bible or Apostles Creed or any Doctrin or Service agreeable to these nor of relinquishing every Rite and Usage though undue and illegitimate which is observed by them but the Fornication that is Idolatry Heresie and other wickedness mentioned v. 3. Chap. 17.2 Revel 14.9 10. it is said If any man worship the Beast and his image and receive his mark in his forehead or in his hand the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God By the Beast and his image are meant some Empire or State which promotes Idolatry Some conceive it meant of the Pagan Emperors Others and those both more and more accurate Commentators among the Protestants understand by them the Roman Papacy and Latin Empire the worshiping of which is undoubtedly the acknowledging of its power and subjection to their Idolatrous Decrees and Edicts The receiving his mark in the forehead or the hand is allusively to the use of marking Slaves in the forehead and Souldiers in the hand to profess themselves servants to the Popes and ready to fight for them which Mr. Brightman makes to be in the Roman Clergy their indelible character in Ordination in the Emperors their Oath of Protection of the Popes in the Common people their assuming the names of Papists and Roman Catholiques Mr. Mede more exactly in his Comment on Rev. 13.18 thus To receive the mark of the name of the Beast is to subject himself to his authority and to acknowledge him to be his Lord but to receive the number is to imbrace his impiety derived unto him from the Dragon to wit the Idolatry of the Latins whence that happily will not be unworthy consideration although no man can receive the mark of the name of the Beast or be subject to his authority but together also he must receive his number that is be must needs be Partaker of his impiety yet it may be that one may admit the number or impiety of the Beast but yet refuse the mark or name That which now long since is true of the Greeks which doth evince that the worship of the Beast and his Image and receiving his mark in his forehead or in his hand is not retaining of every usage of the Papists no not though it be Corrupt and Superstitious as many zealous persons against Popery but superficially viewing the text conceive much less such customs as are not superstitious in their use but acknowledging the universal Monarchy of the Popes and adoring Images the Host Reliques Crosses invocations of Saints and such like impieties which the present Ministers of England do profess to abhorr and therefore it is without cause that they are charged with receiving the maâ—k of the Beast and people are affrighted with the penalty of the dreadful Judgments Rev. 14.10 unless they separate from them and their Ministry as a thing of Antichrist 4. Saith he There is not a command in the Scripture enioyning Saints to take heed of being deceived to try the Spirits because many Antichrists are gone abroad into the World but is an abundant demonstration of the truth of this Assertion Answ. I grant it if the Assertion were they that act in the holy things as acknowledging the Power teaching the Doctrin owning the Calling of him that is truly Antichrist are not to be heard but to be separated from But being understood of other things which the Separatists call Antichristian it is not true nor proved by the commands in Scripture which forbid only to reject Antichristian Doctrin and Worship not every thing said by any without proof to be a thing of Antichrist The Baptism given in Popery is not by all Separatists rejected as Antichristian there is less reason to call the Ministry of England a thing of Antichrist 5. Saith he The institution of Officers of his own by Christ to be continued in the way appointed by him to the end of the World Ephes. 4.11 Answ. It is true that Christ when he went up into heaven gave gifts to men some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers and that some of these are to be continued to the end of the World and in that way he hath appointed But that there is any particular way of Election Ordination and Mission of ordinary Pastors and Teachers in those words appears not nor how the major is proved those that act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian so called not proved Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but separated from I discern not unless this be the Argument Christ hath appointed these therefore no other are to be heard but to be seperated from which overthrows the hearing of and communion with gifted Brethren whom he would have heard for they are no Officers of Christs institution 6. Saith he That there is not one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry with innumerable things of the like tendency and import that might be produced if needful are such a basis upon which the truth of the major
Answ. Though I doubt not but I could retort this Argument upon this Authour whom by sundry passages in this Book I judge to be one that hearkens not to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Order and Ordinance of his house even that most express Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. one of the principles of the Doctrine of Christ and part of the foundation Heb. 6.1 2. Yet I shall wave that and answer directly by denying the major of which I give these reasons 1. Because denial is more than not hearkning to the one is by positive contradiction the other may be only by Omission 2. The not hearkning may be out of ignorance incapacity to understand dulness slothfulness fearfulness mistakes prevalency of temptation without any enmity of heart habitual stubbornness or willful gainsaying which are requisite to a plain denial of the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. 3. There may be sundry Orders of his House revealed by Christ which are controverted whether they be such or no there may be some acknowledged to be Orders of his House yet thought not of such moment as that the peace of the Church should be broken by contending for them or judged not perpetual but temporary or not binding the Ministers to observe till the Magistrate reform as in the case of putting down Images or conceiving in cases of necessity or for avoiding of Scandal they may not hearken to them as in Davids eating the Shew-bread the Apostle Pauls not hearkning to the Order of discontinuing Circumcision and a Jewish Vow and Offering in these and perhaps more cases a person may not hearken to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House and yet be so far from denying the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ that he may be sound in the Faith and a zealous and faithful maintainer of them by holding forth the truth of the Gospel unto the death And therefore I take the major proposition of this Argument to be manifestly false which he seems by not proving to take for manifest truth Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Soveraign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers But he goes on thus 'T is the minor or second Proposition that in the thoughts of some is capable of a denial but the verity thereof shines forth as the Sun in its brightness in the review of the Orders and Ordinances of the House of Christ appointed by himself and the present frame and deportment of the present Ministers of England with respect thereunto which of them have they not made void by their Traditions This is that which Christ hath said 1. 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. Joh. 3.35 Acts 3.22 and 5.31 'T is upon this foot of account that 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 yea though Angels from Heaven should they live and speak as such charge those to whom they write not to receive any into their houses that bring any other doctrine much more not to receive them as their Teachers 2 Joh. 10. Yea the Spirit of the Lord in the close of the last Revelation of his Will it pleased this great King and Law-giver in such a way to give forth testifies that if any man shall add unto these things the Lord shall add unto him the Plagues that are written in his Book Rev. 22.18 Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this great Institution in words indeed they do so But what meaneth the bleating of the Sheep and lowing of the Oxen in our ears Do they not own other Lords Heads and Governours that have a Law-making power and would enforce the Consciences of the free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches besides him what doth this less than evidently proclaim their disobedience and rebellion which is as the sin of Witchcraft against the King of Kings and the rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them But of this more hereafter Answ. It is no strange thing to find in this Author high Charges backed only with confident assertions and no proofs so that men comparing the one with the other may think he wrote his Dreams rather than Meditations For what are we to think otherwise when we read such passages as these the verity of his minor proposition shines forth as the Sun in his brightness Which is no more than is to be said of the first universal indubitable principles of the light of Nature or Reason which are indisputable and yet he saith in the thoughts of some it is capable of a denial and when he should prove it so clear in stead of an Argument proves all with Interrogations which if the Reader deny he is put to a stand But to shew the vanity of his arguings to his Question which of the Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not the present Ministers of England he means all even the best of them as his words ch 2. and arguings against them indiscriminatim do evince have they not made void by their Traditions I answer by another Question Which of them have they so made void Sure the Ordinances of searching the Scriptures hearing the Word praying to the Father in the name of Christ believing on the Son with many more which are the chief Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not been made void by the Traditions of the Ministers of England that now are at least not by all or the best of them that I know or hear of But he imagines he can prove it by an induction of particulars of which he names only seven though to make his induction full without which it is no good Argument he should have reckoned seven times seven But perhaps he thinks if he can make good the charge in these seven it will be without question his charge is true of the rest Let us then view each of these in order and see how well he hath acquitted himself therein The first of these Orders or Ordinances of Christ 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 Which I grant as a truth though I assent not to
his Paraphrase on Mat. 23.8 9 10. as if Christ did forbid the Apostles to impose their Authority upon any in the matters of their God which they did Act 15.25 28. But how comes this to be an Order Ordinance Institution of the house of Christ appointed by himself Such Orders I took to be Precepts of Christ to us but this seems to be Gods gift to him Mat. 28.18 Joh. 3.35 and 5.22 26 27. and 17.2 Acts 3.22 and 5.31 Ephes. 1.22 c. no Precept to us But let it imply a Precept to us Do not the present Ministers of England conform to it He grants they do so in words but not in deeds Why so They own other Lords that have a Lawâ—making power and would enforce the Consciences of the Free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches besides him and thereby proclaim their disobedience and rebellion which is as the sin of Witchcraft against the King of Kings and their rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them This is a high charge and if true would unchristen them but I see no proof of it so that I take this to be only a piece of Oratory such as Tertullus used against St. Paul Acts 24. which is so much the more venomous in that it is in generalibus without instancing in particulars which is the sign of a Diabolical Calumniatour Yet I shall not let it pass The Lords he means are either the King or the Bishops The King is owned by the Ministers in the Oath of Supremacie the Bishops in the promise at their Ordination wherein they promise the Lord being their helper to obey reverently their Ordinary and other Ministers unto whom is committed the charge and government over them following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions and submitting themselves to their godly judgements The Law-making power of the King is with the Parliament of the Bishops in the Convocation the enforcing of the Conscience though it be an uncouth phrase as supposing the Conscience can be enforced by man which is impossible is meant of Causative Compulsion by enjoyning men to act or speak according to such Statutes or Canons as are imposed on them under certain penalties How many and which of these Acts or Speeches are rebellion and rejection of Christs Authority is to be demonstrated and not persons of place and Authority to be thus criminated after the manner of Railers and Scolds And sure it is not easie to prove that though such Acts and Speeches were imagined to be such Rebellion yet that they are so in them unless it could be proved they did them presumptuously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a proud heart and an high hand which if this Author hath not learned the Maxime Calumniare audacter aliquid haerebit methinks he should tremble to attempt But sith he tells us of this more hereafter I intend to observe his motion He goes on Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the Will of Christ by not joyning in the Separation pleaded for 2. Saith he This great Prophet and King hath also revealed and proclaimed That 't is his Will that those whom he hath called by his Word should separate from the World walk together in particular Societies and Churches having given up themselves to the Lord and one another according to the Will of God for their mutual edification and comfort in the Lord. The truth of this soveraign Institution of Christ he that runs may read in the Scriptures hereunto annexed 1 Cor. 1.2 and 5.12 2 Cor. 6.17 Rev. 18.4 Joh. 15.19 and 17.6 Acts 2.40 and 19.9 Phil. 1.5 Acts 2.41 and 17.4 2 Cor. 8.5 with many more In the proof of this we might be copious but that we study brevity The diligent Reader knows where to find this Theam at large treated of by learned Ainsworth Bartlet Cotton Rogers c. How do the Ministers of England acquit themselves in respect of this solemn appointment of the Lord alass who sees not that they are in their practice at open defiance herewith have it in derision and contempt making no difference betwixt the Holy and Prophane admitting persons led captive by the Devil at his will that openly blaspheme the spirit of the Lord and deride its effectual operation in the Consciences of men into their society Are any too vile except such as truly fear God and desire to press after holiness to be admitted by them into their Communion Is not their Church-state so unlike is it to the Institution of Christ a very Babel a Den of Dragons and Hold of unclean Beasts Answ. This Crimination proceeds on these suppositions 1. That Christians should separate from the Parish Assemblies and joyn together in the Congregational way by Church-Covenant which they call separating from the World 2. That Ministers are bound to reject and not to admit to the Communion those that are profane and to admit only real Saints in the judgment of Charity and that by opposing the way of separation and promiscuous admission to the Communion they infringe the solemn appointment of the Lord. For my part having read somewhat in Mr. Ainsworths and Mr. Cottons Writings both concerning the way of the Separatists in the Low-Countries and the Independents in New-England I do not either in the Scriptures here alledged find such a solemn appointment of Christ either that private persons or Ministers are to make such a Separation as these Authors do press upon the Consciences of others nor hath experience either in the Low-Countries or Old or New-England given such encouragement to sober minded Christians as to engage them in that way but rather many divisions declinings into errour and other evils have given too much cause for men to doubt whether it were ever a Plant of Gods planting It is granted that it is the will of Christ that those whom he hath called by his Word should separate from the World And this they are to do in respect of their Worship so as not to have Communion with them therein and this I doubt not may be proved from 2 Cor. 6.17 and some other of the Texts alledged But then by the World are meant professed Infidels such as denied the Lord Jesus and worshipped Idols or at least such as were professed Unbelievers as John 15.19 and 17.6 Acts 2.40 and 19.9 the Jews were and yet the Apostles did not refuse to go to the Temple to pray nor to go into their Synagogues or to take a Vow and purifie themselves at the Temple notwithstanding the corruptions of their Priests Service and People and their open opposition to the Christian Faith But that ever it was the Will of Christ that Christians should separate from the true Worship of God and the Professors of true Faith in Christ because of either known evil in the Coversation of those present or only suspected or reported is without all colour of Precept or Example in the Holy Scripture It is true the people of God are invited Rev.
Canon of his standing for fear of shedding ought But I deny that kneeling in the very time of receiving was ever in the Church of Rome any Rite of or for adoration of the Sacrament it self or any creature and therefore not Idolatrous I deny not the errour of their minds concerning that they received into their mouths But I deny that they ever intended adoration of the species at that moment of time when they took it in their mouths But then turned themselves to God rather to give him thanks which was not uncomely Of which he gives three reasons 1. Because it was never yet enjoyned by any Pope that they should then kneel 2. In the Mass there is no direction for adoration of the Sacrament when it is received 3. For that it is an incongruous thing in their superstition to adore a thing which is not higher than their polls when they adore it because they cannot be said to humble themselves to that which is lower than they can cast themselves To this last reason nothing is returned by Dr. Ames in his Triplic ch 4. p. 429. and Dallaeus adv lat cult l. 9. c. 13. Id quod adoratur eo à quo adoratur celsius ac sublimius aliquid esse debere insito à natura ipsa sensu omnes mortales confitentur atque consentiunt To which is to be added that kneeling is used according to the Common Prayer Book with Prayer to God and at the receiving of the Wine as well as at the Bread which are not so with the Papists and therefore kneeling is not to be taken as adoration of the Bread as the Papists do And for that which is said that the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling is directly opposite to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after Christ to the time of the invention and introduction of the Popish Breaden-god it is denyed by the same Dr. Burges in that and other following Chapters by the Bishop of Rochester Paybody and others about which and the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches at this day it is not necessary that I should make inquiry sith if it were so yet it proves nor that the present Ministers of England do oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ by their submitting to kneeling at the Lords Supper Sect. 10. Forbidding to marry or eat flesh at certain times are not characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant It is added What should I mention the Constitutions and Canons before pointed to wherein 't is forbidden to any to Preach not licensed by the Bishops thereunto to marry or eat flesh at certain times with many more of the like nature all directly contrary to the soveraign edicts of Christ and some of them evident characters of the last dayes Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 from whom Saints are warned by the Lord to turn aside ver 5. These we have produced carry an undeniable evidence with them that the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ and therefore deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office Answ. To that of forbidding to Preach answer is made in the examining this Chapter Sect. 2. Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from flesh at certain times upon politick considerations or for the better observing a religious Fast are not characters of the Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 But may be justified by such passages of Scripture as Jonah 3.7 Joel 2.16 1 Cor. 7.5 Dan. 10.3 Nor do I think the most zealous Separatists but would restrain from Marriage and Flesh the members of their Churches in the times of solemn Fasts or would count it evil that the Magistrate forbids for civil ends abstinence from some kind of food which being the case of the prohibitions of the Civil Laws of England rather than the Canons of the Church which make it not a sin against God to marry or eat flesh then is unjustly made the character of Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 which is more justly charged on the Monks and Popish Votaries who account it sinful to marry as if it were unchastness and more lawful to use Concubines than Wives for Priests as if they joyned with Pope Siricius terming such persons in the flesh and such as could not please God and place more holiness in eating Fish than Flesh which sort of people are very accurately proved to be there characterized by Mr. Joseph Mede in his Book of the Doctrine of Daemons intituled The Apostasie of the later times That the present Ministers of England are such or that precept which is not 1 Tim. 4.5 2 Tim. 3.5 From such turn aside belongs to them is not proved by this Author nor that they do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ or deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office French Protestants in the Synod of Charenton 1644. chap. 13. art 24. The Church shall not solemnise marriage in the dayes on the which the Lords Supper is administred nor on the dayes of a publick Fast. See this crimination retorted on the Separatists by Paget in his Arrow ch 6. sect 3. p. 155. n. 5. Yet he hath not done with this Argument Sect. 11. No such Headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices To all that hitherto hath been offered in this matter we shall yet add as a further demonstration of the truth we are in the disquisition of Arg. 3. Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office but the present Ministers of England do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ Therefore If the assertion of another King in England 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 or first Proposition 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 who sees not the assertion of such an 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 where it was instituted whether such a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom with respect to Worship be granted by them to any of the sons of men absolutely or conditionally if the first then must the Church it seems be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ trampling upon his royal Commands and Edicts for so it 's possible it may fall out those that aâ—tain this Headship may do as it 's evident many Popes of Rome the great
that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations Finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either Preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ. Which his practice sheweth to be such as to dispense with the Laws of God as by legitimating incestuous Marriages releasing of lawful Oaths granting Indulgences releasing out of Purgatory Canonizing of Saints Consecrating of things for the expulsion of Devils with many more and iâ— it be true which is related in a Book lately printed to have been asserted by the party of Jesuites in the Colledge of Clermont in France that the Pope is not only infallible in matters of Faith but also in matters of Fact he is elevated to that height as to accomplish the prophesie which is 2 Thess. 2.4 But the present Ministers of England do abhorr the giving such power to the King Bishops or Convocation yea it is disclaimed by the King Bishops and Convocation as blasphemous and that power they ascribe to the Church is set down in the 34. Article of Religion Every particular or National Church hath authority to Ordain Change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying And that which they acknowledge belonging to the King as the only Supreme Governour of the Realm of England and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as temporal is thus explained Artic. 37. We give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers Which is so far from being no other than the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome as this Author saith p. 47. that to shew the calumny of it I need use no other words than those of Dr. John Owen in his answer to a Popish Book entituled Fiat Lux ch 13. p. 271. The Declaration made in the dayes of King Henry the 8. that he was Head of the Church of England intended no more but that there was no other person in the World from whom any Jurisdiction to be exercised in this Church over his Subjects might be derived the Supream Authority for all exteriour Government being vested in him alone that this should be so the Word of God the Nature of the Kingly Office and the ancient Laws of this Realm do require And I challenge our Author to produce any one testimony of Scripture or any one word out of any general Council or any one Catholick Father or Writer to give the least Countenance to his assertion of two Heads of the Church in his sense an Head of Influence which is Jesus himself and an Head of Government which is the Pope in whom all the sacred Hierarchy ends This taking of one half of Christs Rule and Headship out of his hand and giving it to the Pope will not be salved by that expression thrust in by the way under him For the Headship of Influence is distinctly ascribed unto Christ and that of Government to the Pope which evidently asserts that he is not in the same manner Head unto his Church in both senses but he in the one and the Pope in the other I add that Mr. Philip Nye in his Book of the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy and power of the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical affairs and subordination of Churches thereunto Printed 1662. though not published hath these words p. 46. For Persons and Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical that are properly and indeed such as first Table-duties which contain matters of Faith and Holiness and what conduceth to the eternal welfare of mens souls an interest and duty there is in the Civil Magistrate more suâ— to give Commands and exercise Lawful Jurisdiction about things of that nature And for Persons there is no man for his graces so spiritual or in respect of his gâ—fts and Office so eminent but he is under the Government of the Civil Powers in the place where he lives as much in all respects as any other subject Yea in the Apology of the Brownists Printed 1604. these words are alledged for their common defence out of the Letter of Henry Barrow to a Lady 1593. p. 92. I have every where in my writings acknowledged all duty and obedience to her Majesties government as to the sacred Ordinance of God the Supreme Power he hath set over all causes and persons whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within her Dominions Out of these things I infer that asserting the Kings Supremacy or the power of making Laws owned by the Ministers of England is not making another King besides Christ over his Church nor ascribing such a Headship to the King or Governours of the Church as is pleaded for by the Church of Rome and that for the Kings Supremacy those that dissent about Ceremonies and Church Government do acknowledge it as it is meant in the Oath taken by the Ministers Concerning which Supremacy if what I have written in the little Treatise Printed 1660. intituled A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremncy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions be not sufficient to produce from the Scripture the institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto methinks Dr. Rainold his argument which convinced Hart in the conference with him ch 10. div 1. and such other writings as have been written by Bilson Mason Bramhall and many more should have prevented this calumny of making thereby another head besides Christ equivalent to a denial of his Kingly Office And to his Objections I answer 1. to the first That we use not the title of Head but Supreme Governour yet when it was used it meaning the same it might be used as it was given to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 though not as it it is given to Christ Ephes. 1.22 and 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 Nor is the title of Head so appropriate to Christ but that it is given to the Man over the Woman 1 Cor. 11.3 to the Husband over the Wife Ephes. 5.23 and may in a qualified sense in respect of Government be given to the King over the Church in his Dominions as to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 to the chief of Families as Parents or others of greatest authority or esteem as the heads of houses Exod. 6.14 in which sense Parliament men Judges Ecclesiastical Governours may be termed Heads of the Church or State they represent
or are subject to them To the second though all in the Church are Brethren have no dominion oâ— authority over each others faith or conscience yet neither are all equal in the Church nor doth Luke 22.25 prove it The Apostles sure had power over the members of the Church to command 1 Cor. 7.10 to give orders 1 Cor. 16.1 to judge 1 Cor. 5.3 though no superiority over one another And though the King and Bishops or Convocation are Brethren yet are they Superiours Rulers Rom. 13.1 Heb. 13.17 and though they have no dominion or authority over each others faith or conscience so as that their Laws shall bind the conscience immediately and must be obeyed as precisely and fully as the Laws of God and Christ yet their Laws Edicts Commands Canons or Rules even in the worship of God in things undetermined by God and according to such Rules as the Scripture directs them to observe bind in some sort the conscience as the commands of Parents and Masters by virtue of the authority given them by God Rom. 13.5 1 Peter 2.13 14 16 18 19. though not in respect of the things commanded by them To the third the Church is not the body of any other than Christ as joyned to any or depending on any or subject to any absolutely as unto Christ yet may particular Churches in respect of that Ministration and Government which their Governours afford them be said to be the bodies of their Governors as a wife is in some râ—spect the body of her husband Ephes. 5 28. nor is there any impiety or blasphemy in so saying And in this sense the Apostles and Bishops or Elders were heads of the Church in the Apostles dayes which answers the fourth To the fifth their Headship is by donation from Christ in the places often alledged and in answer to the sixth though not as Christ is termed the Husband of Believers 2 Cor. 11.2 can any be termed Husband nor to govern feed and nourish to eternal life as Christ by influence of his Spirit or power to give eternal life 1 Cor. 6 17. John 17.2 nor their Father as God is said to be Ephes. 4.6 1 Cor. 8.6 Jam. 1.18 Joh. 1.13 yet the Apostles and all others may be in a qualified sense who are instruments to convert or build up others by the Word or Discipline be termed their Fathers in Christ 1 Cor. 4 15. and to govern feed and nourish them to eternal life as 1 Thess. 2.7 11. the Apostle saith of himself Whence I conclude in answer to his major that notwithstanding what he hath said it may by a sober person be denyed that an owning of a visible head or heads over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to worship as the King Parliament Bishops or Convocation do may be no denial of Christs Soveraign authority and power Le ts view that which remains Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christ's proves not owning another King coordinate to him That saith he the present Ministers of England do own and submit to such an Headship is undeniable witness their Subscription Oath Conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads and Governours of the Church which are not onely foreign to but as hath been already demonstrated lift up themselves in opposition against the royal institutions of Christ. This being matter of fact the Individuals charged herewith must either acquit themselves by a denial of what they are impleaded as guilty or prove what they do is not criminous but lawful to be done The former being too notoriously known to admit of a denial 't is the latter must be insisted on what is therein offered is nextly to be considered Answ. Though I cannot justifie all that the present Ministers of England do in their Subscriptions and Conformity as if it were no way criminous but in every thing lawful to be done nor perhaps will all of them plead so for themselves as being mindful of the Psalmists words Psal. 19.12 Who can understand his errours cleanse thou me from secret faults Yet for the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which are the only Oaths I know they have taken as I have so I do still plead that the taking of them is not criminous but may be lawfully done And I further say that were it yielded that the Laws and Edicts made and given forth by those sons of men he means as Heads and Governours of the Church not only foreign to but which I utterly deny he hath demonstrated that they lift up themselves in opposition against the royal Institutions of Christ yet might the Ministers be free from that which he chargeth them with as denying Christs Kingly Office and setting up another King besides Christ as his Peer sith it is clear that such Conformity and Subscription may be out of weakness or errour not out of Faction or Rebellion nor doth he who conforms or subscribes to the Laws or Edicts of an Usurper own his power when he yields subjection to his commands Those who obeyed the Laws of Richard the 3. of England did not thereby acknowledge him to be the King of right nor do all that submit to the decrees of the Trent Council or the Popes Edicts either own the one or the other as being just or the power as rightly claimed but for peace sake submit to what they cannot remedy Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ is not monstrous It is added This is that some say Obj. 1. That they acknowledge another Head besides Christ cannot indeed be denied but the Headship owned and acknowledged by them is an Headship only under Christ. To which we answer Answ. 1. But this Headship is either of Christs appointment or 't is not if it be let it be shewn where it was instituted by him and as we said this controversie is at an end if it be not the assertion of such an Headship even in subordination to Christ over his Churches as such hinders not but persons owning submitting thereunto are guilty of denying the Kingly Office of Christ. 2. The Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other 3. 'T is not so as is pretended they own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a Law-making and Law-giving power touching institutions of Worship that never came into his heart are flatly against his appointments as hath been proved 4. One Head in subordination to another doth as really make the Body a Monster as two Heads conjoined Answ. 1. The term Head of the Church is not used in the Oath of Supremacy but Supreme Governour and this is agreeable to Scripture Rom. 13.1 1 Tim. 2.2 1 Pet. 2.13 and how out of these and other Scriptures his Government is proved in that sense in which it is asserted by the Ministers is shewed by me in my Book of the serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings
Government because of his sons iniquity and out of fear of Nahash King of the Ammonites desired a King as other Nations because Moses Joshuah and all the Judges were immediately chosen by God and raised up extraordinarily for a time to do special services without ordinary succession and accordingly acted and ruled by extraordinary immediate motions and revelations from God in which respects the Government of the Israelites before Sauls reign was not unfitly termed by Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods rule and when they would needs chuse a King or have Samuel to make them a King to judge them like all the Nations 1 Sam. 8.5 19 20. God said they rejected him that he should not reign over them v. 17. where the desire of having a King is not simply condemned as unlawful nor because they desired a Kâ—ng over the Church as such as if they might lawfully enough have desired a King over them as a political Head but not as Head of the Church as such for neither is there any intimation of any such limitation of their desire but on the contrary they desired that they might also be like all the Nations and that their King might judge them and go out before them and fight their Battels 1 Sam. 18.20 Nor is there the least hint of any reprehension of their desire that they would have a King over them as a Church to appoint them Religion and Worship as other people neither was it spoken that they rejected God as though the Lord did not reign where there is set up a Monarchical Government for it is Gods Ordinance and Kings have their power and authority from him according to that Prov. 8.15 16. By me Kings reign and Princes decree justice c. and they are his Deputies and Lieutenants by whom he ruleth In which regard the people might have lawfully desired a King if they had done it with upright hearts oâ— lawful grounds to good and warrantable ends in a right manner and in due time For the Lord had promised that when they were settled in the Land of Canaan he would when he thought good set a King over them out of whose loyns the Messiah should come and also sheweth how he would have him qualified and what he required of him Deut. 17.17 18. and he had promised unto Abraham that Kings should come out of him Gen. 17.6 And Jacob in his prophetical blessing saith That the Scepter should not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his feet until Shiloh did come i. e. the Messias Gen 49.10 And David speaking of himself as a type of Christ saith Psal. 2.6 Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion And therefore this is not simply condemned as a sin in it self to desire a King but because they did it with an ill mind affecting innovation as being weary of Gods Government which he had established till himself pleased to change it and in a prâ—posterous and tumultuous manner before he had given any intimation of his pleasure and to a wrong and evil end that they might be like to the Heathen Nations and out of their confidence in a King as able to protect them and their diffidence in God as insufficient to defend them in his own way unless he would be directed in a course of their prescribing and finally because they would not wait upon him for the accomplishment of his word in his own due time but with all importunity press him to do at their own pleasure Thus the Assembly Annotations Whence the impertinency of the allegation of this Text either against Kingly Government or their Headship over the Church is manifested Noâ— is it more to the purpose which is added that to God even as to their political Head a sicle was paid yearly as a tribute called the sicle of the sanctuary For 1. If this payment be meant of that which is mentioned Exod. 30.12 13 14 15 16. it doth not appear by the Text that it was a yearly tribute paid to God as their political Head but a Tax put on them when Moses took the summ of the children of Israel after their number then they should give every man a ransome for his soul unto the Lord when he numbred them that there might be no Plague among them half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary the offering of the Lord to make an attonement for the souls which he was to appoint for the service of the tabernacle of the Congregation that it might be a memorial unto the children of Israel But if it be yielded that it was after made a yearly tribute as the Jewish Doctors say and a perpetual Ordinance according to what Mr. Ainsworth on Exod. 30 16. out of Maimony cites and that it continued so till the destruction of Jerusalem as Josephus relates in Book 7. ch 28. of the Jewish War yet this proves not that it was paid to God under that notion as to their political Head It is true that the tribute or custome called Didrachma that is shekels mentioned Mat. 17.24 25. is conceived by very many learned men to be that which was paid to the Lord for the use of the Temple as a tribute to him which is largely argued by Cameron in his praelections on that Text with whom Diodate Hugo Grotius Dr. Hammond concurr and before them Hilarius cited by Maldonat who thinks it was paid to the Romans and cites Hierome Bede and of this mind are many others as Beza Piscator Pareus But if Camerons opinion were certain yet it may seem rather to be paid to God as Head of the Church then as a political Head as this Author speaks sith it was paid for the service of the Temple 2. Were that which this Author saith granted him it should rather seâ—ve against him than for him For if it were paid to God as their Political Head it rather proves God to be the alone political Head and so against that which he saith true indeed as they were a political Body they had visible political Governours who when they ceased their policy was at an end than that God was the Churches alone Head and King and that it is false that the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church and therefore his sayings do interfer That the Kings of Israel had a Headship over them to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship is conceived to be proved from 2 Chron. 20.3 21. 29.27 30.1 2 4 5 23. 31.2 3. with many more which I find not yet to be enervated by the Answers I have met with I proceed to examine that which follows CHAP. 6. ARG. 5. Sect. 1. False doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard HE thus writes Argument 5. Those who have the characters and properties of false Prophets and Priests upon them are not to be heard but separated from But the present Ministers of England have
Christ in the Scripture Sect. 7. The Office of Lord Bishops not from the Papacy Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters Chap. 4. Arg. 4. Sect. 1. They that deny not Christs Offices doctrinally may be heard Sect. 2. Every not hearkening to Christs Order is not a denial of his Office Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Sovereign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the will of Christ by not joyning in the separation pleaded for Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church are not Christs Institution Sect. 6. No contempt of the Authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment Sects 8. Prophecying is not opposed by the Ministers Sect. 9. Ministers service may be Divine and Spiritual in the use of the Liturgy Sect. 10. Things objected against the Ministers are not such as justifie separation Chap. 5. Sect. 1. All owning of orders different from or contrary to Christs proves not a denial of his Offices Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured Sect. 3. Making Canons in things undetermined and subjection to them agrees with Scripture Sect. 4. It s no derogation from Scripture or Christ that such Canons are made and obeyed Sect. 5. All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred are not determined in Scripture Sect. 6. It s not proved that the Ministers of England own constitutions contrary to the Revelation of Christ. Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 Sect. 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion justifies not separation Sect. 9. Receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of abstaining from appearance of evil 1 Thess. 5.22 Sect. 10. Forbidding to Marry or eat Flesh at certain times are not Characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant Sect. 11. No such headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christs proves not owning another King co-ordinate to him Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ not monstrous Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel Chap. 6. Arg. 5. Sect 1. False Doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard Sect. 2. The Ministers not false Prophets because not sent as Jer. 23.21 Rom. 10.15 is meant Sect. 3. The Ministers not proved to commit Adultery and walk in lyes as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 4. The Ministers are not proved to strengthen the hands of evil doers as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 5. The Ministers are not proved such daubers as those Ezek. 22.28 Sect. 6. Ministers changing of places sadning some mens hearts not characters of a false Prophet Sect. 7. Pressing rigid Conformity no proof of the Ministers being false Prophets Sect. 8. The charge Ezek. 22.26 reacheth not the Ministers of England Sect. 9. The Ministers are not the false Shepheards meant Ezek. 34.4 Sect. 10. The Ministers of England are not the second Beast foretold Rev. 13.11 Chap. 7. Arg 6. Sect 1. All Idolatry is exhibiting Divine Worship to a creature Sect. 2. All will-worship of God is not Idolatry Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his appointment Sect. 5. Common-Prayer Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer Sect. 6. Common-Prayer Book worship is not of pure humane invention Sect. 7. Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the worship of the Reformed Churches Sect. 8. No particularity instituted is a meer circumstance yet particularities undetermined are Sect. 9. Praying in a form may be praying in the Spirit Sect. 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed are not made necessary essential parts of Worship Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God by the Office Power and Modes of Idolaters may be without Idolatry Sect. 12. The English Ministers oppose Popish Idolatry as other Protestants Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by vertue of an Office Power from Idolaters Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry Sect. 15. Kneeling in the receiving the Sacramental Elements is not Idolatry Sect. 16. The crimination of the Ministers as Idolaters is not excusable Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author Chap. 8. Arg. 7. and 8 Sect. 1. Every offence of others makes not sinful that which is otherwise lawful Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty Sect. 3. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers Sect. 4. It is not scandal given but when the offensive action is done blameably Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians by hearing the present Ministers is not the scandalizing threatned Matth. 18.16 Sect. 6. The Separatists give more just cause of offence to godly sober Christians than the Conformists do to them Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers may be without participation with them in sin Chap. 9. Arg 9 10 11 12. Sect. 1. Separation of some from other Christians is no institution of Christ. Sect. 2. Meeting of Christians as a distinct body is not Christs Institution Sect. 3. Separated Congregational Churches in opposition to National are not of Christs Institution Sect. 4. To attend only on the Ministry of Ministers of Congregational Churches is not Christs appointment Sect. 5. Hearing the present Ministers casts no contempt on Christs Institutions Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers hardens none in sin Sect. 7. Gods people are not called out of the Temples in England as places of false Worship Sect. 8. There is ground to expect a blessing in hearing the present Ministers Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostasie Sect. 10. Pollution in one part makes not the whole worship polluted Chap. 10. Fifty Arguments for hearing the present Ministers Sect. 1. Christs direction Matth. 23.2 3. warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses his Chair as Teachers not as Magistrates Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church Officers of Gods appointment Sect. 4. Christ allows hearing the Pharisees while they taught the Law of Moses Sect. 5. Hearing Pharisees teaching Moses Law not attendance on their Ministry as Pastors is allowed by Christ. Sect. 6. Christ and his Apostles going to the Jewish Meetings is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practise Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ of contention warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach warrants the hearing of them Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers Sect. 10. It is a sin not to encourage good men in their Ministry Sect. 11. The example of the learned
I grant that Christ hath appointed Ministers as is said and that it is wisdom to choose and hearken to such and most of all to the best and the most able and though the reading of Mr. Matthew Pool's Quo Warranto might deterr many who take upon them to preach constantly and publickly in solemn Assemblies as Gifted Brethren from their practice which they use Nor do I deny there may be liberty yea and duty occasionally especially when there is want of Ministers in Office to preach yet I deny that a lawfulness to hear them as Ministers or as Gifted Brethren doth necessarily thence arise For suppose a Minister or Gifted Brother should be Heretical yet he is not to be heard but shunned Tit. 3.10 Here by the way I take notice that if it be lawful to others then Ministers to preach as their liberty permitted to them Some practice that is a part of Instituted Worship is warranted in Scripture as the persons liberty by permission without command and therefore hearing of the present Ministers may be lawful and warranted in Scripture as mens liberty by permission without command which was my answer to this Authors first Argument against hearing them and is now confirmed by his Concession concerning the preaching of Gifted-Brethren Sect. 2. They may be heard as Ministers of the Gospel who are not rightly called It is added 'T is the minor or second Proposition that is capable in the thoughts of some of a denial which we prove per partes thus 1. 'T is not lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel they are not such therefore may not be heard as such Ans. I deny this consequence if a man either ignorantly or fraudulently get into the place of a Minister of the Gospel or be unduly chosen or ordained yet if he have the place of the Minister of the Gospel and preach it truly he may be heard as a Minister of the Gospel though he be not such that is rightly called and stated in that Function The reasons whereof are 1. Because every Hearer is not bound to examine the entrance of the Teacher into his Function therefore it is enough to hear him as such that there is nothing appears to the contrary 2. Because it is above the ability of Hearers to judge of the Ministers Call in many Cases the resolution thereof depending upon sundry Controversies about the power of Election and Ordination which they are not able to discuss and there are many proceedings in getting Testimonials using means for obtaining Ordination Institution besides what concerns their Baptism which either they cannot or their time and estate will not permit them to enquire into and sure Christ hath not bound men to impossibilities 3. In all Governments and Societies the peaceable Possessour is presumed to have right till the contrary be evinced otherwise there would be perpetual unquietness and so Societies be dissolved Nor do I think even in the most Reformed no not in the Congregational Churches it would be permitted to a Member of the Society to decline the hearing of him who is taken for their Minister by the most though he conceive or know him to be unduely admitted into the Office Sure I am St. Paul did apply the Precept Exod. 22.28 to Ananias as High Priest Acts 23.5 though it was manifest that he was not such by any legitimate succession but by unrighteous practices and favour of the Roman Governour in Judaea Yea the Scripture makes Caiaphas to prophesie as High Priest though contrary to the Law not High Priest for life but that year Joh. 11.51 and if relations of the Histories of those Times be right no legitimate Successour in that Office but an Usurper and yet our Lord Christ did not except against him when he was convented before him as convented coram non judice or any other way excepted against his Office And therefore I judge that Christs example and St. Pauls are sufficient Warrant to us to submit to and hear them that are not right Officers when they peaceably possess the place and consequently it is lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel who are not such rightly called But let us consider this Authors Plea against the present Ministers of England Sect. 3. Preachers may be Ministers of the Gospel who are not chosen by a particular Instituted Church That they are not Ministers of the Gospel but Thieves and Robbers is manifest such as come not in by the Door which is Christ Joh. 10.9 viz. by vertue of any Authority derived to them from him are not Ministers of the Gospel but Thieves and Robbers Joh. 10.1 from whom 't is the property of the Sheep to flee ver 4 But the present Ministers of England come not in by the Door Therefore That they come not in by the Door viz. by vertue of any authority derived to them from Christ is evident If they have received any such authority or Commission from him they have received it either mediately or immediately the latter will not be asserted nor without the working of miracles should it so be would it to the Worlds end be made good 'T is the former must be fixed upon viz. That they have received their Authority or Commission mediately from Christ but to as little purpose for 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 of their own Officers according to the tenor of the ensuing Scriptures Acts 6.5 14.23 Answ. If this could be proved there need no more to prove That the present Ministers of England are not to be heard for if they be Thieves and Robbers the sheep will flee from them and ought to do so Joh. 10.5 But it is an ill sign of an inconsiderate and audacious spirit for so high a charge which he that fears God I think should tremble to bring against so many Preachers of a Reformed Church to bring so low a proof which if it be well considered may be not only urged against Presbyterian Preachers if he mean by particular instituted Church as his meaning appears to be by his Preface a Church gathered in the Congregational way by Church Covenant as they speak but also against his gifted Brethren who have not authority to Preach mediately by election of a particular Church but onely from their gifts And if it be said They are chosen by the Church yet this will not authorize them unless the Church have power to choose any besides their own Officers which this Author doth not pretend Now let it be considered what a heavy burden is put on the consciences of hearers They must hear no Thieves and Robbers no nor any Stangers if this Author argue rightly from this Text and all are Thieves and Robbers and Strangers who are not chosen by a particular instituted Church who have power onely to choose their own Officers therefore they
18.4 to go out of Babylon But that their going out is by separation from the Service of God not Idolatrous or from a Church not Heretical by reason of some supposed or real corruption or disorder or defect in Government Service Members or Ministry is so far from the meaning of the Text that it needs no other refutation but the looking into the Text and comparing it with the foregoing Chapter Of withdrawing from such as walk disorderly 2 Thess. 3.6 enough hath been said before ch 2. sect 6. Nor is it made any where the Ministers Office to make such separation as the Separatists require 1 Cor. 5.12 is not spoken of Ministers as belonging to their Office to judge them that are within or if it be yet the putting away v. 13. is not made his act and how it is to be done is best discerned by v. 2. Christians are to walk together in Societies or Churches for their mutual edification and comfort in the Lord and this they are no doubt bound to do as occasion is towards all Christians And so much Phil. 1.5 Acts 2.41 and 17.4 may prove but that they are to conjoyn in separated Churches by the so termed Church Covenant as if they were not Members of other Churches nor to joyn in Prayer Praise of God hearing breaking Bread but with either that one Church or Company to which they have associated themselves or those that are of the same way of Church-order is neither proved from those Texts or 2 Cor. 8.5 which mentions no such Church-Covenant as it is alledged for nor any other And therefore the imputations here used to the Ministers and Churches without distinction are so unsavoury and from such an intemperate Spirit that I had rather cover them than rake in such a dunghil And I think respect to the fraternity this Author seems to be of should have made him wary in charging the Ministers with these things lest some of his adversaries should throw as much dirt on the face of the separated Churches out of Bayly's Disswasive Edwards Gangraena Welds History of Antimonianism yea the Preface to their Declaration Octob. 12. 1658. Besides what particular persons know by experience and the relations of the miscarriages of the ancient Separatists would furnish them withal Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church is not Christs Institution Yet this Author cannot hold but on he goes 3. Saith he That he hath entrusted them so called and united together with Power and given them Rules for the due and right exerting thereof for the carrying on the Worship of his house to chuse Officers over them to act in the holy things of God for and to them of which more shall be spoken in its proper place to admit Members to excommunicate Offenders c. all which we find shining forth in brightness in the ensuing Scriptures Act. 1.23 and 6.3 5. and 14.23 2 Cor. 8.19 Mat. 18.17 1 Cor. 5.4 Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this Institution of Christ nothing less is there any thing like this in the whole Oeconomie invented and practised by them Do they not to the utmost of their power labour to break this Bond of Christ asunder cast away this Cord from them by stirring up the Magistrate to persecute by Fines Imprisonments Banishment c. the precious people of the Lord that desire to be found in the practice of this Law of Christ branding them with the odious names of Phanaticks Sectaries Schismaticks c. Answ. The Election Acts 1.23 was of an Apostle and that by Lot and contains no Law or Institution of Christ which we are tied to follow Of the impertinent allegation of Acts 6.3 5. and 14.23 enough hath been said before ch 2. sect 3. The Election 2 Cor. 8 19. was of a person not to be a Pastor to themselves but to travel with St. Paul about the Contribution for the poor Saints and though it be a good precedent for the like occasion yet was but a Fact not a Precept Law or Institution of Christ necessary to be observed at all times much less binding as a perpetual rule in Election of Pastors or Teachers No other Excommunication is expressed Mat. 18.17 but what is permitted to the injured person of which more may be seen in the answer to this Authors Preface Sect. 15. The delivery to Satan 1 Cor. 5.5 is argued by Peter Moulin in his Vates lib. 2. c. 11. to have been more then our ordinary Excommunication to wit the permitting Satan to cruciate the body of the person that sinned which no Church now hath power to do nor indeed was the Church then to do it but the Apostle by his power Apostolical as having power over unclean spirits though absent yet with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ in their presence when gathered together which being in the Greek in the Genitive Case absolutely put notes not their acting but presence the Apostles determined to do it and therefore contains no Institution of Christ which Ministers are to practice What else is charged upon the Ministers it concerns them who are guilty to answer I know he cannot justly charge all with it It follows Sect. 6. No contempt of the authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices 4. That the Officers of his appointment are onely such as these Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons Widows or Helpers who as they are in one particular Congregation so they have not any Lordship or Lordly Authority over each other being all Brethren Ephes. 4.11 Rom. 12.7 and 16.1 1 Cor. 12.28 Phil. 1.1 1 Pet. 5.1 2 3. Act. 6.5 and 15.2 and 20.17 and 28.21 28. 1 Tim. 3. chap. and 5.9 10 17. This Law of Christ so clearly revealed in the Scripture they are so far from subjecting to that they have neither the name nor thing required by him therein See up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of his Authority of which it may righteously be said He did at no time command them neither did it ever enter into his heart so to do Answ. It is true that those whom he calls Officers are mentioned in some or other of those Texts he cites and are some of them termed gifts given by God or Christ in or to or for his Church or Body But there are also other as Apostles and Prophets mentioned in some of the Texts as given also by God and therefore those whom he reckons are not the only Officers of his appointment nor all of them to be in one Congregation Apostles were certainly to go up and down and though they had not Lordship or Lordly Authority over others yet had they authority preeminence and some kind of superiority over others and if not in the same measure yet some superiority is still allotted to Pastors over Deacons which are acknowledged to be Officers to be still continued in the Church nor is it unlikely that those
Kingdom of Christ and the real owners of his Authority and Power Answ. That Bishops or Presbyters should be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ in each City or Parish or select Congregation I find not to be the appointment of Christ in the Scriptures alledged or any other the impertinency of the Allegations to this purpose is shewed before Chap. 2. Sect. 3. In this Chap. Sect. 6. besides what is said in answer to the Preface Sect. 7.22 the only text not before considered Acts 9.26 27. and 16.17 if it were alledged were altogether impertinent there being no election of St. Paul but to be an Apostle and that by Christ not the Church on whom Ananias laid hands at the appointment of Christ only That he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost and to remove the fear of him and non credence of his being a Disciple Barnabas and no other we read of took him and brought him to the Apostles declaring how Christ had converted him Which are altogether impertinent to prove election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church and Ordination thereupon to be the appointment of Christ. It is granted before in the answer to the Preface Sect. 22. that there are relations in antiquity of the election of Bishops by the people which could be no other way then in times of Persecution when the Emperors were Infidels yet withal that even then things grew into such heats that sometimes the Emperor was fain to interpose for quietness and after when Wealth and Power by favour of Christian Emperours were added to Bishops sometimes bloody frayes and other evils made that Election so turbulent that it was found necessary to put it into the hands of fewer until the investiture of Bishops being wrested from the Emperours the Popes seized on it leaving the election of the inferior Clergy unto the Bishops or Patrons that had endowed the Ministers with Estates except in cases reserved to his Romans But where the Reformation is with the consent of Princes much of the power usurped by Popes is recovered by them in other places the people either chuse or consent to the election which being made the whole essence of the Ministerial Call by Congregational men and by Divine Right their opinion is opposed by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici Printed 1654. Chap. 8 9. Nevertheless the Testimonies produced by this Author are not fully to his purpose those out of Clements his Epistle are not home the former speaks of constituting and appointing Ministers after the Apostles by other famous and discreet men as it is in Burtons English translation of that Epistle with the good liking and consent of all the Church which is less then Election constituting their Call The other contains only a voluntary offer to prevent breaches which is nothing to the asserting of a power in them rightly seated if it were such it would be more then this Author I think would yield that upon the command of the multitude a Minister is to relinquish his place The words of Luther Bullinger and perhaps the rest of the Protestants whose words are not set down meant no more than the not obtruding Ministers on the Churches of Christ as the Monks and Popish Bishops did who put on the People Priests unable to Preach the Gospel such as fed themselves and not the flock without choice or consent of the people Which if it be any where practised is unjustifiable as on the other side where people are corrupted with Error or Factiousness or Carnal Relations and Sâ—lf aims or are unskilful to judge of the disposition and abilities of a Minister it is unsafe or rather more dangerous to intrust the Church of Christ though a gathered Congregation with the election of their Minister by Common Suffrage without intervention of some discreet and able Ministers to ratifie or disanul it What Cyprian saith upon the occasion of the lapse of Basilides and Martialis Bishops in Spain of their rejection and the election of Sabinus and Felix was agreeable to the Canons then in use and to the state of those times what he saith of Divine Authority is not rightly proved The Scriptures of the New Testament and Old prove no Divine Institution of a certain way of electing or rejecting Ministers so as that there may not be variation from what he saith was in his time yet it is meet that according to the sayings of Cyprian Lambard Gualter or others respect be had to people that they be heard what they can say for or against their Minister and that he who is criminous or insufficient be not imposed on them to their souls hurt What our Reverend Fathers and Ministers of the Church of England say to these things may be seen in Whitgift's Answer to the first Admonition and Defence of the Answer Tr. 3. p. 170. Bilson of the perpetual Government of Christs Church Chap. 15. Andrews respons ad Bellarm. Apolog. Chap. 13. p. 313. after King James his Premonition Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 5. sect 80. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 54. If the Prelates do any thing unjustly therein they must give an account to God the Ministers who consent not thereto are not chargeable both may be accounted as Subjects of the Kingdom of Christ and the real owners of his Authority and Power notwithstanding what is objected against them especially if the evil be either from the defect or iniquity of Laws Canons and Customs whereby that redress of Grievances in this kind which even the Prelates have complained of is stopped I confess that the continuance in force of so much of the Popes Canon Law or our Common Law as hinders a godly and able Ministry in every Parish hath been deplored and much endeavour hath been to amend things But the experience that hath been of the difficulty therein even when Congregational men have been most industrious to rectifie things should methinks abate the censures of this Author and rather cause men quietly to wait for a remedy using the benefit of the Ministry we have than by separation and popular election in gathered Congregations make things worse than they are Sect. 8. Prophesying is not opposed by the Ministers But this Author hath not yet done but tells us To these many other institutions of Christ may be added which they subject not to What should I mention 6. That Royal Command of our Soveraign King and Lawgiver which the profound self-philosophically wise but indeed foolish and unlearned Doctors of this day wrest to the countenancing of the disorders and confusion of Antichrist darkness so gross that it may be felt that all things be done decently and in Order 1 Cor. 14.40 viz. that the Saints may Prophesie one by one and ought to admonish exhort and build up one another in their most holy faith Rom. 8.26 and 12.6 1 Cor. 4.17 and 5.4 and 11.23 Ephes. 4.7 11 12. 1
conclude that these persons and their Abettors were guilty of Rebellion against their Rules and did really deny the lawfulness of their Authority This is the present case if men shall be found traversing paths in the possession and practice of Orders and Constitutions that are foreign to the edicts of Christ yea contrary thereunto shall we not as rationally conclude that these persons are really opposers of his soveraign Authority and Government doubtless so Answ. To the major proposition of the fourth Argument Those that oppugn or deny any of the Offices of Jesus Christ are not to be heard but separated from Answer is made before The major of this argument here needs elucidation and limitation Orders and Ordinances which not only are not of Christs revealing but contrary thereunto are not all of one sort Some are in points of Faith some of practice some in things not fundamental some in fundamental Owning submitting and subscribing to them is either out of ignorance inadvertency infirmity through fear or some other motive or voluntary more or less which may be aggravated by many circumstances and effects Likewise the denying really and opposing of the Offices of Christ may be virtual or formal directly or by consequence by a factious setting up an open Antichrist or by neglecting the proper Authority of Christ. It is true every sin and every errour doth in some sort and degree oppugn the Offices of Jesus Christ Every disobedience to a lawful Magistrate every subjection to an Usurper hath in it somewhat of denying or oppugning his Authority Yet he that should deny that for every such sin or errour a person can be a good Christian or for every such disobedience or subjection a person can be a true subject should too Stoically make a parity in sins and neither hold good Divinity nor teach good Policy It is true he that shall openly and factiously set up another universal Monarch of the Church make other Mediatours to God besides Christ teach any other way of justification than by faith in Christ that shall expresly forbid the observation of what Christ hath commanded as for instance the Lords Supper or any other plain Command of Christ such do deny really and oppose openly the Offices of Christ. But there may be some errours in Faith and teaching of some use in positive Rites as may be a real denying or opposing interpretatively Christs Offices as in teaching Circumcision as necessary at that time Acts 15.5 in owning submitting and subscribing to some use as may be not only not revealed by Christ but also is by nearer or remote consequence a denial of Christs Offices and yet the persons observing it as v. g. the reservation of the Bread in the Eucharist sending it to the sick absent as many did in former times either out of ignorance fear or such like motives and yet these neither to be reckoned for such as either in heart or profession or practice deny the Offices of Christ as enemies to him nor to be shunned as such but may be his true subjects though weak ones Peters denial of Christ his dissimulation Gal. 2. shewed not enmity but infirmity and instability And many sincere Christians may out of errour or weakness teach and practise many things not only a while but also all their dayes and that with much contention and zeal which may inferr a denial of Christs Offices or his Nature as for instance Lutheran Consubstantion and yet are not to be judged opposers of the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ so as to be disclaimed separated from and rejected as no true Christian Brethren or Teachers And therefore the major proposition here may be variously conceived and without some limitations and explications is not to be received But he tells us Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured 'T is the minor or second Proposition that may be under suspition among some viz. That the present Ministers of England the very best of them do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not only not of Christs revealing but contrary thereunto in which two things are incumbent on us to prove 1. That the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not of Christs revealing This being a charge as to matter of fact the production of a few particulars that lie near at hand for its confirmation will give it a speedy dispatch 1. They own submit and subscribe to the Orders and Offices of Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons with many others appertaining unto this Hierarchie as Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ and promise subjection and obedience unto them Eccles. Canons Can. 7. 2. They own and submit Can. 4. to a Liturgy or prescript Form of Worship devised by men and imposed solely by their authority to which they tie themselves neither diminishing nor adding any thing in the matter or form thereof 3. They own subscribe and engage to conform to all the Orders Rites and Ceremonies prescribed in the said Book of Common Prayer Can. 36. such as bowing at the Name of Jesus using the Cross in Baptism kneeling at the Lords Supper which though we do not some would say smells very strong of the Popish Leven and is but one Peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden god wearing the Surplice c 4. They own that the Office of a Deacon is the first step or degree to the Ministry Can. 32 36 to which they are tâ— submit and subscribe before they are made Priests 5. That no person be admitted to expound the Scriptures though indeed worthy of the Cure of Souls as they speak Can. 49. without license from the Bishop thereunto 6. That there be some lawful Ministers which are no Preachers Can. 49 57. 7. That these unpreaching Ministers Can. 57. may lawfully administer the Ordinances of Baptism and the Lords Supper 8. That persons refusing to have their children baptized by such dumb Ministers or receive the Communion from them worthily deserve Excommunication if they shall persist herein Can. 57. 9. That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops is an Ordinance of God Can. 60. 10. That it appertains to the Office of Ministers to marry Can. 62. 11. That the Bishop of the Diocess may lawfully for a while suspend a Minister from his Ministry for refusing to bury the Dead Can. 68. 12. That 't is not lawful for Ministers to preach or administer the Communion in private houses except in times of necessity Can. 71. 13. That no Minister may lawfully appoint or keep any solemn private Fasts or be wittingly present at any of them nor hold any Meetings for Sermons in Market-Towns or other places which if he do and persevere therein he may lawfully be deposed from his Ministry Can. 72. 14. That Ministers ought to be distinguished by their Vestments and Apparel as Gowns Hoods Tippers Square Caps and in their journeys Cloaks with sleeves called Priests Cloaks Can 74.
Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ when or where were they instituted by him I might answer by cross Interrogations Are the Church-Covenant gathering of Churches in the Congregational way by severing choice Members from the rest requiring an account of the manner of their Conversion making Election by the common Suffrage of the Members essential to a Minister imposition of hands tied to the Eldership of that Church maintenance by Collection every Lords day Excommunication by the major part of the Members with many more of the Orders of Congregational Churches Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ when and where were they instituted by him It is not I presume altogether forgotten that such questions have been propounded to them by Mr. Ball Apollonius and many others and their answers judged insufficient And if they cannot shew Christs appointment for their Orders which they require why do they charge so deeply the Ministers of England as denying and opposing the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ for submitting to Orders which as well may be said to be of Christs appointment as their own or at least when they themselves may by the same reason be concluded to deny or oppose the same Offices But for a direct answer I grant they are not Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ and yet judge they may be submitted and conformed to and required of Governours while they are regulated by Laws of Ecclesiastical Policy and do think that Mr. Hooker in his three first Books of Ecclesiastical Policy hath evinced thus much IV. To what is said that these are Posts set by the Lords Posts and thresholds by his thresholds of which the Lord complains Ezek. 43.8 who sees not I answer Diodate his Annot. on Ezek. 43.8 is this Their threshold that is to say they set their Idols and perform their service in my Temple in places and Chappels near to the places which are consecrated to my service See 2 King 16 14. and 21.7 Jer. 11.15 Ezek. 8.3 and 23.39 and 44.7 All the Interpreters I meet with and the words themselves shew that the thing complained of was another thing than making Orders and Constitutions without revelation and appointment of Christ for Ecclesiastical Rule such as those Constitutions in the Canons of the Church of England are which in Christian Churches have in like sort been made in the best times yea and some in the Jewish Church without reproof to wit Idolatrous practices by their Kings such as Ahaz and Manasseh were called Whoredoms v. 7 9. and abominations which they committed and defiled Gods holy Name and for which be consumed them in his anger and therefore tell this Author that I see not those Ordinances he mentions to be Posts set by the Lords Posts and Thresholds by his Thresholds complained of Ezek 43.8 but rather think him in a dream or phrensie that saith he sees it Yea further if it were granted that the complaint were against their Act as adding inventions of men to Gods Ordinances yet this cannot be understood but of such as are made Gods Worship or wherein that which God hath appointed is altered or corrupted And therefore I conclude that it is no small abuse of this Text which occurrs in sundry printed Sermons and other Books to make every Order of men about Gods Worship or the Governing of the Church to be thus branded and out of all infer that what he saith he hath evidently evinced is but a vain brag of this Author Let 's proceed in viewing what follows Sect. 3. Making Canons in things undetermined and subjection to them agrees with Scripture Object If it be said 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 't is 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 without questioning its authority Answ. Though I assert not that the Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical of the Church of England may be rationally deduced from Scripture and therefore make not the Objection as here it is framed yet I assert that Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Divine Worship and Church Covernment may be made by Governours if they be 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 and that the Members of the Churches under their Governours should submit to and yield obedience to them as to other humane Laws not conceiving the things commanded obligatory of their Consciences as things appointed by Divine Authority so as that it should be sin to disobey or omit them in any case But by virtue of the general Precept of Obedience Heb. 13.17 and in Order to the ends of their rule without any Contempt of their Authority or refractariness they should be either actively or passively obeyed though the things themselves be only indifferent and not of themselves or directly binding the Conscience And this I conceive to be proved 1. From Reason because without such regulations Church Societies can no more be continued by reason of the difference of minds and capacities than other Societies which is proved true by experience 2. From the practise of all sorts of Churches who have in process of time found it necessary to have Synods to this end 3. From the course God hath taken with the Christian Churches to whom he hath delivered the Doctrine of Faith and necessaries of Worship in the Scriptures but hath left many accidentals about Worship and Church Government undetermined therefore left them partly to each one 's own light in things concerning himself only partly to the Rulers Domestical National Civil Ecclesiastical in things that concern the several Communities 4. From the Texts 1 Cor. 14.40 Heb. 13.17 and other places For in that after all his discourse about ordering the use of their gifts he ends with this general rule he thereby shews that more things were to be ordered by that rule either by each one himself or by their Governours as he himself did resolve 1 Cor. 11.34 and appointed Titus and Timothy in the Epistles to them and enjoyned obedience Heb. 13.17 Now let us consider what is answered hereto He saith Sect. 4. It 's no derogation from Scripture or Christ that such Canons are made and obeyed Answ. That there is any thing of moment in this Objection though their Achilles in this matter and that which they are upon every turn producing is easily demonstrated The whole of it being built upon as uncertain principles yea upon as notoriously false
not acknowledged Arch-Bishops over the whole Church as the Pope but in their own Province nor are they termed Arch-Bishops as if other Bishops had their authority from them as the Pope claims but they only have a Primacy or Precedency with some other Prerogatives by that title Nor are they or other Bishops made Lords as Christ over the whole Church or have such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3 Luke 22.25 26. and is usurped by Popish Bishops but are Lords only by the Kings Grant as is said before in Answer to Chap. 3. Sect. 5 6. not in the Church of Christ but in the Kingdom and Parliament and therefore this acknowledgement is not contrary to the revelation of Christ there being no contrariety or contradiction unless there were an opposition in the same respect as Logicians determine Christ is said 1 Tim. 6.15 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only Dynasta or Potentate and yet without contrariety or contradiction the Eunuch Acts 8.27 is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dynasta or Potentate as in the reading in the margin of our translation But were there contrariety yet it is not shewed that what is acknowledged is a Law Constitution or Ordinance which do usually determine not what may be but what shall and must be nor that Ministers own it by subscription 2. That men may and ought to be made Ministers only by these Lord-Bishops which is contrary to Heb. 5.4 John 10.1 7. and 13.20 and 14.6 Act. 14.23 with 6.3 5. Answ. It is true it is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England that men may be made Ministers by these Lord-Bishops but not that they may and ought to be made Ministers only by these Lord-Bishops sith Ministers are allowed who are made by Suffragan Bishops who are not Lords and for the Churches Reformed of Foreigners dwelling in England Ministers made by Presbyters only But this is not a Law Constitution or Ordinance to which Ministers subscribe nor if they did is there any contrariety therein to the revelation of Christ. Heb. 5.4 it is said And no man taketh this honour that is of being High-Priest unto himself but he that is called of God as Aaron But this is impertinently alledged being not spoken of the Gospel Ministery but of the Priesthood of the Law and the High-Priest and of his Calling by God immediately and therefore if that which the Ministers acknowledge be proved contrary to the revelation of Christ by this text the making of Mâ—nisters in Congregational Churches by their Eldership is alike contrary sith they are not called of God as Aaron Of the impertinency of John 10.1 7. enough is said before in the Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Joh. 13.20 He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me is no more contrary to Bishops Ordination than to Presbyters John 14.6 speaks not at all of making Ministers but of the way whereby Christians have access to God Of Acts 14.23 and 6.3 5. enough hath been said in Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. 3. That Prelates their Chancellors and Officers have power from Christ to cast out of the Church of God contrary to Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 Answ. That there is a Law Ordinance or Constitution of this to which Ministers subscribe I finde noâ— Of the texts Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 enough hath been said in Answer to the Preface Sect. 15. to Chap. 4. Sect. 5. whence the impertinency of the alledging these texts may appear 4. That the Office of Suffragans Deans Canons Petty-Canons Prebendaries Coiristers Organists Archdeacons Commissaries Officials Parsons Vicars and Curates are lawful and necessary to be had in the Church evidently contrary to 1 Cor. 12 18 28. Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 The Officers instituted by Christ are sufficient for the edification and perfecting of the Saints till they all come unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ ver 12 13. in what sense the forementioned being not one of them of the institution of Christ may be owned as lawful or necessary without an high contempt of the Wisdom and Soveraignty of Christ cannot by such dull persons as my self he conjectured That any others see them any way useful to the Church of Christ may be imputed to such a sharp-sightedness as was that of Caius Caligula to whom when he enquired of Vitellius whether he saw him not imbracing the Moon 't was answered Solis Domine vobis-diis licet se invicem videre Answ. Where this imagined Law Ordinance or Constitution is or when and how the present Ministers do own acknowledge submit and subscribe to it as this Author suggests is not here shewed by him nor do I know where to finde it Oâ— the Office of so many of these as are ordained Presbyters or Priests as the term is in the English Liturgy enough hath been said in answering the 3 Chapter Sect. 3 5. c. that though their names are various yet their Office is the same with some of those who are of Christ 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 and consequently lawful and necessary the rest are not reckoned among the Orders of Ministry in the Church but counted Services which are acknowledged not necessary and whether they be useful or not it matters not in respect of the present enquiry if there be no Law Constitution or Ordinance to make them lawful and necessary to be had in the Church which the Ministers subscribe to as I think there is not 5. That the Office â—f Deacons in the Church is to be imployed in publick praying administration of Baptism and preaching if licensed by the Bishop thereunto contrary to Act. 6.2 Ephes. 4.11 Answ. That at first the institution of Deacons was to serve tables Acts 6.2 not to preach the word of God yet Steven and Philip being imployed in Preaching and Philip in Baptizing it is not contrary to Christs revelation in those texts or any other that they should be imployed in those works 6. That the Ordinance of breaking Bread or the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be administred to one alone as to a sick man ready to die which is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance 1 Cor. 10.16 and 11.33 Mat. 26.26 Act. 2.42 and 20.7 Answ. The Communion is in time of infectious diseases allowed to be administred to one only besides the Minister which whether it be fit to be done is left to the Minister That it is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance is not easily proved 1 Cor. 10.16 A Communion is proved in that Sacrament but ver 17. and 1 Cor. 12.13 rather proves the Communion to be therein with all believers throughout the world though absent than only with the present partakers and if so though but two joyn the Minister and the sick man the Communion there meant is held with all Christians the meaning and
a way of prayer and thanksgiving according to their abilities Indeed Claudius de Sainctes and Pamelius two Popish Divines tell us of Liturgies compâ—sed by the Apostles James Peter and Mark Of Peter 's and Mark 's Cardinal Bellarmine himself not only takes no particular notice but upon the matter condemns them as supposititious and spurious which that they are is abundantly demonstrated by learned Moâ—ney and no more need be added thereunto There are some also fathered upon Basil Chrysostome and Ambrose but as these lâ—ved about the years 372 381 382. in which time many corruptions had crept into the Churches of Christ so the spuriousness thereof as being falsly fathered upon the persons whâ—se names they bear may easily be demonstrated T is already done to our hands by learned Morney in his Book De Missa l. 1. chap. 6. Durantus himself the great Liturgy-monger acknowledgeth That neither Christ nor his Apostles used any prescribed forms but the Lords Prayer and the Creed that they used these he sayes but proves not nor will it ever be proved to the worlds end That about the year 380. Theodosius the Church being rent by Heresies intreated Pope Damasus at whose election though the contest was betwixt him and Ursinus a Deacon of the Church there were not fewer than one hundred thirty seven persons slain that some Ecclesiastical Office might be made which was accordingly done by Hierome and approved by Pope Damasus and madâ— a Rule The unlikâ—lyhood of this later part of the story is manifest Theodosius was too well acquainted with the spirit of Prayer than to goe about any such thing had he judged it necessary having assembled the great Council of Constantinople wherein were not less than an hundred and fifty persons convened is it probable this good man Theodosius would in so momentous a Concern rather consult with one single person than such an Assembly as were by his Authority met together And yet should this be granted it would not from hence appear that at this time there was any devised and imposed all that is pretended to be done by Hierome was the appointiing an order for the reading of the Scriptures which is another thing to the imposition of Forms of Prayer in worship There is one passage in Socrates his Ecclesiastical History l. 5. c. 21. who lived about the year 430. that carrying an undeniable evidence with it that at that time there were no Liturgies we cannot pass over in silence t is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he tells us That among all the Christians in that age scarce two were to be found that used the same words in Prayer Not to tire the Reader in this disquisition Though one part of the Liturgy was not long after introduced by one Pope and another part by another yet till Gregories time who to the honour of Liturgies be it spoken was the very worst of all the Bishops of Rome that preceded him viz. about the year 600. was there any considerable use or any imposing of them yea till the time of Pâ—pe Hadrian which was about the year 800. was it not as I find by publick Authority imposed Then indeed the Emperour Charles the Great being moved thereunto by the foresaid Hadrian by his Civil Authority commands the use of a Liturgy viz. Gregories Liturgy as it is thought to which he compels his Ministers by threats and punishments the usual attendencies and support of Liturgies ever since their production in the world The summ is That in as much as first it cannot be proved the contrary being most manifest in the Scripture that any Liturgy was enjoyned by Christ or his Apostles or in use in the first Churches planted by them 2ly It is evident that for the first four hundred years and more after Christ there was no Liturgy framed nor any by solemn Authority imposed to the year eight hundred it follows undeniably from hence That to worship God in the way of a Liturgy or stinted forms of Prayer is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment Answ. 1. It is to be remembred that as I said before were his Conclusion granted yet Ministers would not be proved to be Idolaters all worshipping of God in a way that is not of his appointment being not Idolatry except therein Divine or Religious Worship be exhibited to a Creature 2. That his own Argument whose way of Worship is not prescribed without a stinted Form of Prayer would as well prove himself an Idolater as the Ministers of England 3. That he still acknowledgeth that the worship according to the Common-Prayer-Book is the worship of the true God nor doth he shew that according to it any other is worshipped 4. That he doth not except against the matter of the Prayers in the Common-Prayer-Book no nor the particular forms of expression as if they were not agreeable to the Scriptures or indecent or inept But 1. That all Liturgies or stinted forms of Prayer and consequently this are not of Gods appointment but of humane invention 2. That they are unduly imposed on Ministers 3. That Ministers do sinfully yea Idolatrously use them because it is a way of Worship not appointed by God The two former of these reach not the Ministers of England but the Composers and Imposers it is the third thing which is pertinent to the present Crimination which may occasion to enquire 1. Whether stinted Forms of Prayer and service of God which are not otherwise faulty than in that they are stinted may not be lawfully used by a Minister of the Gospel in his publick ministration 2. Whether such Prayers and service may not be a Worship of God in a way that is of his appointment I affirm both and to what is said against either I answer 1. That Christ did in appointing the Lords Prayer to be used by his Apostles Matth. 6 9. Luke 11.2 the Salutation to be used by the seventy Disciples Luke 10.5 appoint such a stinted form of service 2. That we have footsteps of such a way of Worship in the New Testament in his justifying and countenancing the crying of Hosanna that is Save us now taken from Psal. 118.25 26. as Mr. Ainsworth in his Annotation observes by the multitude And the Children Matth. 21.9.15 Mark 11.9 With the Disciples Luke 19 38 40. John 12.13 In Christs using the Forms which David used before in the Psalms Matth. 27.46 He prayes in the Form used Psal. 22.1 Luke 24.46 In the Form used Psal. 31.5 In the Apostles use of a Form of Prayer in his Epistles Rom. 1.7 Rom. 16.24 1 Cor. 1.3 1 Cor. 16.23 2 Cor. 1.2 Gal 1.3 Ephes. 1.2 Phil. 1.2 Phil. 4.23 Col. 1.2 1 Thes. 1.2 1 Thes. 5.28 1 Thes. 1.2 2 Thes. 3.16 17 18. 1 Tim. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.2 Tit. 1.4 Philem. 3. Heb. 13.25 1 Pet. 1.2 2 Pet. 1.2 2 John 3. Jude 2. Revel 1.4 In the Old Testament Numb 6.23 24 25 26. 1 Chron. 16.7.35 2 Chron. 20.21
which when they have proved that ever the Lord Jesus did intrust an Assembly of the greatest Murderers Adulterers and Idolaters in the world with any power for the sending forth Officers to act in the holy things of God to and for the Church his Spouse will be admitted but that they shall never be able to do so hugely importunate are some of them herein that they are not ashamed to ask us VVhy Ordination may not be received from the Church so called of Rome as well as the Scripture To which we shall only say That when it is proved that we received the Scripture from that Apostate Church by vertue of any Authority thereof as such somewhat of moment may be admitted in that enquiry but this will never be done T is true the Bible was kept among the people in those parts where the Pope prevaileth yet followeth it not from hence that we received it from their Authority as Ordination is received If we did why did we not keep it as delivered from them to us in the Vulgar Latine So that of these things there is not the same reason It will not then be denied but the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office power received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters that Church being eminently so as hath been proved Answ. This Objection though it be but a slight thing and of no real force to nullifie or invalidate the Calling of the present Ministers yet because the well-affected Protestants are zealous against Popery as having learned the Pope to be Antichrist and that terrible threanings are in the Revelation against any communion with any thing that is suggested to them by those to whom they adhere to come from Rome or the Pope as being Antichristian it is needful that this thing should be cleared for rectifying the mistakes of people that their unadvised zeal against some things as Popish which are not may not occasion unnecessary Schism and such other evils into which persons perhaps otherwise of honest hearts cast themselves to their ruine It is known to those that study Controversies between Protestants and Papists that this hath been one grand Objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches that their Ministers are not rightly Ordained and therefore they have no succession which by Bellarmine in his Book de Notis Ecclesiae c. 8. is made a Note of the Church and therefore they are not a true Church but schismatical The Answers given to this Objection are 1. For the truth of the Reformed Churches the succession in them of true Doctrine is sufficient to demonstrate them true Churches as I have asserted in my Romanism discussed against the Manuel of H. T. Art 2. 2. That Ministers may be sent of God who teach the Doctrine of God though they have not Ordination according to Church-Canons as was the case at the first beginning of the Reformation in which there was something extraordinary by reason of the long tyranny of Popes and the great corruptions in the Latine Churches 3. That their Ministers were at first ordained by the Popish Bishops and though they did after renounce the offering Sacrifice for quick and dead yet even by the Papists own Canons and resolutions of their Casuists their power to administer the Word and Sacraments according to the Word of God continued still 4. That those who had been thus ordained had power to ordain others for which the French and other Protestants of the Presbyterial Government allege That Presbyters may Ordain even by the confession of the Romanists and that Bishops though they be hereticks in their account yet they lose not the power of Ordaining no not when degraded of which more may be seen in Rivet sum Controv. tract 2. q. 1. Alsted suppl ad Chamier panstrat de memb Eccl. milit c. 8. Ames Bellar. Enerv. tom 2. l. 3. de clericis c. 2 sect 10. and many more who have still pleaded That notwithstanding the impurity of the Church of Rome yet the Calling which Luther Zuinglius and others had from Popish Bishops was sufficient without any other Ordination for an ordinary calling to the Office of a Minister and that those who have succeeded them have been true Pastours in their Churches The English Protestants who have had Bishops above Presbyters have advantage above other Protestants to plead for the regularity of the Ordination of their Ministers because they have been ordained by Bishops and those Bishops consecrated by other Bishops according to the â—anons of the Ancients in a succession continued from Bishops acknowledged by the Papists themselves To evacuate this plea saith Dr. Prideaux Orat. 8. de Vocatione Ministrorum The Papists would fain find a defect in the succession of the English Bâ—shâ—ps from the preceding Bâ—shops and in the solemnity of their consecration And being beaten off from the denial of Cranmers consecration by the producing of the Popes acknowledging of him Arch-bishop and the register of his consecration as also of other Bishops in King Edwards dayes After Christophorus à sacrâ—bâ—sco or Father Halywood of Dublin in Ireland Anthony Champney and James Wadsworth say That Arch bishop Parker Bishop Jewel and those others which were made Bishops in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth though theâ—e were an attempt of their consecration at a Tavern at the Nags-head in Cheapside yet could not they procure an old Catholick Bishop to joyn with them and therefoâ—e their consecration was disappointed To shew the falshood of this fable and to make evident the compleat solemnity of Paâ—kers and others consecration and the truth of the Ordination of the English Ministers even by the Canons of the Papists Bishop Bâ—del in his Answer to Wadsworth ch 11. and Mr. Francis Mason in his Vindication of the English Ministry have fully proved the solemnity of the consecration out of the Aâ—ch-bishops Begister to have been â—ight and the succession to have been legitimate even according to the Canon Law and the Ministers Ordination to have been good though not ordained sacrificing Priests for quick and dead against the exceptions of Bellarmine 〈◊〉 and such other of the Papists ' as have denied Protestant Ministers true Pastours and their Churches true Churches It is not unlikely that some of the Prelaâ—ical party have vented in writings and conference such expressions as carry a shew of their disclaiming the Churches which have not Bishops and extolling the Popish Churches Government and avouching their Ordination from Rome which hath caused a great aveâ—seness in many zealous persons from Bishops and the conforming Ministers and is taken hold of by this Author and other promoters of Separation as an engine sutable to that end But as those learned men Bedel Mason Prideaux and others have pleaded the succession of Bishops from the Popish Bishops and the Ordination of Ministers by them there is no cause given of that out-cry that is made of the Bishops
Antichristianism declining to Popery or of Separation for that reason the Presbyâ—erian Churches making the like plea for themselves That the first Reformers had ordinary calling even according to the Papists own Canons and the Episcopal Divines pleading only the same thing more fully Yet it is not true which this Author saith That either the one or other make the succession from Popish Bishâ—ps one of the best pleas they have for the justâ—fication of their ministâ—y For though they plead this succession against the clamorous and violent actings of the Popish party which Petrus Molinaeus in his 3 d. Epistle to Bishop Andrews mentions to have been in France by Arnola the Jesuite and the writings of Champney Wadsworth and others shew to have been in England yet they have justified their ministry without it as may be seen in Amos Alsâ—ed Bâ—del and others And for the present Ministers of England I conceive they will deny that they act by vertue of an Office-power from the Combination and Assembly of Idolaters in the Church of Rome their Office-power being not such as Priests are ordained to in the Church of Rome to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead but to preach the Gospel administer Sacraments and Discipline according to Christs institution And in the solemnity of their Ordination the Româ—sts rites being relinquished by the Ordainers who are not a Combination or Assembly of Idolaters but professors of the true Faith and haters of popish Idolatry though some succession of their Predecessors from Idolaters be alleged to stop the mouths of Papists who pervert their proselytes by impuâ—ation of novelty to the reformed Churches and their Ministers rather than by proving their Doctrine out of Scripture As for that which is obâ—ected That Christ would never entrust such to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God for his Church it is without reason objected sith many of them might be and in charity we are to conceive were the servants of God who abode in the communion of the Roman Church Dr. Ames himself in his Animadversions on the Remonstrants Scripta Synodalia Artic. 5. c. 7. saith We believe there were and yet are many who have not so farr separated themselves from the Papists but that they are polluted with their manifold Idolatry who yet have their part in the Kingdom of God Even in the dayes of King Henry the 8 th and Q Mary all the Bishops were not like Gardiner Bonner and such as were inhumane persecutors Why Christ should not entrust Cranmer Tonstall and such like to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God as well as Judas to be an Apostle I find not cause The baptism received in the Church of Rome the Brownists in their Apology p. 112. acknowledge to be so farr valid as not to need rebaptization and why not then the Ordination by their Bishops Bishops and Ministers though they be evil men and unduly get into power yet as it is with other Officers their actings are valid as Caiaphas Ananias and such like persons who by bribes unjustly and irregularly usurped the High-Priests Office yet their sentence and ministration were not therefore disannulled He who said We received the Bible from the Church of Rome it is not likely meant it to have been received by vertue of their authority but their ministry Preachers having been sent by the Pope to instruct the Saxons in the Faith But whatever was meant by that speech this we may safely say That if the Office-power of the present Ministers had been as it is not received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters yet being no other Office-power than what hath been instituted by Christ it no more proves the present Ministers Idolaters than the receiving of baptism or the Scriptures by the ministry of men in that Church It is further added Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry 3. Nor can it be denied but they offer up to God a VVorship meerly of humane composition as the Common-Prayer Book worship hath been proved to be once abused to Idolatry with the mâ—â—es â—nd rites of Idolaters That the Commonâ—Prayer Book worship is a worship that was once abused to Idolatry being the worship of that Church whose worship at least in the complex thereof is so cannot with the least pretence of reason be denied That the whole of it is derived from and taken out of the Popes Portuis as are the Common-prayers out of the Breviary The administration of the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual or Book of Rites The Consecration of the Lords Supper Collects Epistles Gospels out of the Mass Book The Ordination of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests out of the Roman Pontifical hath been aâ—â—erted and proved by many VVhich might be evidenced if needful beyond exception not only by comparing the one with the other but also from the offer was made by Pope Pius the 4th and Gregory the 13th to Q. Elizabeth to confirm the English Liturgy which did it not symbolize with the service of the Church of Rome they would not have done Yea when the said Queen was interdicted by the Popes Bull Secretary Walsingham procures two Intelligencers from the Pope who seeing the service of London and Canterbury in the pomp thereof wonder that their Lord the Pope should be so unadvised as to interdict a Prince whose service and ceremonies did so symbolize with his own VVhen they come to Rome they satisfie the Pope That they saw no service ceremonies or orders in England but might very well serve in Rome upon which the Bull was recalled Not to mention what we have already minded viz. the testimomy of King Edward the 6th and his Council witnessing the English service to be the same and no other but the old the self-same words in English that were in Latine which was the worship of England and Rome in Queen Maries dayes it is evident That the present Minsters of England offer up a worship to God once abused to Idolatry That they do this with the rites ceremonies and modes of Idolaters viz. such as are in use in that Idolatrous Church of Rome needs not many words to demonstrate What else is the Priests change of voice posture and place of worship enjoyned them Not to mention their holy Vestments Bowings Cringings Candles Altars c. all which as it s known owe their original unto the appointments thereof In the margin Maccovius loc com append de adiaph p. 860. saith Non licet mutuari aut retinere res aus ritus sacros Idololatrarum sive Ethnicorum sife Pontificiorum c. etsi in se res fuerint adiaphorae quia vitandam esse omnem consormitatem cum Idololatris docemur Lev. 19.4.27 and 21.5 Deut. 14 1 It remaineth That the present Mâ—nisters of England acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offering
and more exceptions then the present Ministers It is added Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church-officers of Gods appointment But let this be granted Suppose 2. The Scribes and Pharisees to be the preachers and expounders of the Law in that day the seat mentioned to be a Ministerial seat Yet this will not at all help them in the matter in controversie except it be granted to them that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawful but a false Ministry that had surreptitiously climbed up into this Ministerial seat for who sees not the invalidity and nothingness of this argument 'T was lawful to hear the Scribes and Pharisees which were the lawful Church-officers of that day of the appointment of the Lord acting by vertue of an authority derived from him therefore 't is lawful to hear persons that have not any such authority from Christ but are meer intuders and Ministers of Antichrist as the present Ministers of England have been proved to be now this upon that supposition that they were Ministers we cannot yield to these reasons 1. The Pharisees are expresly said to be Priests and Levites John 1.19 and this is the record of John when the Jews sent Priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him Who art thou v. 24. And they that were sent were of the Pharisees which were the ordinary lawful Ministers of that day 2. These of all others were most apt to question the authority of such as taught the people So when John appears preaching and baptizing and professes to them that he was not the Christ nor Elias nor Prophet who was expected by the people of the Jews they immediately question his authority John 1.25 Why baptizest thou then which they could not be supposed to have the face to do if they themselves of all others had been the greatest intruders Nay 3. When they question Christ himself about his authority he asks not them from whence they had theirs which doubtless upon that occasion he would have done had they not been lawfully seated in the seat they did possess but from whence John had his who was esteemed as a prophet 4. We have the Lord Jesus many times crying out above all others against the Pharisees condemning them of pride hypocrisie avarice c. but not the least tittle of the usurpation of Moses seat is by him charged upon them or in the least intimated which doubtless would have been had they been guilty thereof I reply that this grant that the Scribes and Pharisees were preachers and expounders of the Law in that day will help the objectours in the matter in controversie though it be not granted to them that the Scribes and Pharisees were not a lawfull but a false Ministry that had surrepticiously climbed up into this ministerial seat For they are assured that this Author hath not proved nor can prove the present Ministers of England to be meer intruders and Ministers of Antichrist and therefore need not this supposition concerning the Scribes and Pharisees to prove Christs allowing the hearing of the present Ministers Only this is urged that there is as much exception and more against the Pharisees teaching than against the present Ministers and yet they might be heard therefore with better reason may the present Ministers be heard Nevertheless I deny that the Scribes and Pharisees which they were to hear were the lawfull Church Officers of that day of the appointment of the Lord acting by vertue of an authority derived from him it being certain that as he saith they were a particular Sect among the Jews no where appointed by God to this office of Priesthood or teaching but taken up by men as orders of Friers among the Papists though some of them were Priests and some of them Rabbins or teachers of the law and educated thereunto as teachers of Divinity are in the Schools among us at this day which if the Ministers of England had no further ordination being the condition of most or very many of the present Ministers in England might justifie the hearing of them as well as the hearing the Pharisees who had no better calling to that function As for the reasons of this Author the first is not valid For it proves only that some of the Priests and Levites were Pharisees not all St. Paul certainly was not though a Pharisee nor that those that sate in Moses chair were Priests for all were not there being many thousands of Pharisees who were not Rabbins St. Paul was a Pharisee the son of a Pharisee when he sate at Gamaliels feet Acts 22.3 yet not a Doctor of the Law sitting in Moses his chair Nor if they were Priests doth it prove they were the lawfull Ministers of that day For to say nothing of Christs Apostles who were at that day the lawfull Ministers with and under Christ himself it is certain the Priests of those times got their places as for instance the High Priest by undue and unlawfull wayes by bribing the Roman Deputy as Josephus reports and therefore if it were proved they were Priests yet they are not proved to be lawful Ministers Yea that which is said of their Ordination and Education by the most favourable Writers of the Jewes proves they had some kind of entrance into their profession according to the customs of those times which were of human invention but nothing of Gods institution that they should sit in the chair of Moses As for the Second reason there is no marvel they had the impudence to question Iohns authority though themselves intruders when they were puft up with conceits of their authority though they had none when they were so proud and impudent as to conceive themselves righteous and despise others Luke 18.9 and to allege it in prayer to God though their Consciences might tell them they were covetous and unrighteous yea to deride Christ when he told them they could not serve God and Mammon Luke 16.14 Nor is the Third reason of force For Christ might question their authority though he did not when they questioned Johns and he seems after John to have done it in calling them a generation of vipers blind guides with sundry other expressions disparaging of them and their traditions And his charging them with affectation and ambitious seeking of the chief Seats and to be called Rabbi Rabbi what is it but an evidence that they did unlawfully climb into Moses his seat which they did so ambitiously gape after As for the not in express words charging them with usurpation it is no marvail it is not related sith their instigation of Herod to take away John Baptists life related by Iosephus is not related as imputed to them by Christ in any of the Evangelists Besides how irrational this argument is we read not that Christ charged them with usurpation of Moses seat therefore he did it not every puny in Schools knows who hath learned that rule in Logick argumentum non valet ab authoritate negativè an