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
27. The Schism in the Church of Corinth did arise from the affecting of and addicting themselves to some teachers with relinquishment if not disclaiming of others as appears by that which is said 1 Cor. 1.12 Every one of you saith I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas and I of Christ whereupon there were among them envying and strife and division 1 Cor. 3.3 and they sorted themselves into companies severed from others as may be gathered from 1 Cor. 11.17 18. and that about the Lords Supper v. 21.33 Now the not hearing of the present Ministers and the separation from the Churches that hear them and adhering only to their own teachers and Churches according to the principles of the Separatists is either the same or very like the Schism or division among the Corinthians or tends to it and hath begotten and is like to beget the same if not worse effects among the Christians in England as were in the Church of Corinth and therefore it is to be censured to be alike evil as the Schism among the Corinthians and is reckoned Gal. 5.20 21. among the works of the flesh excluding out of the Kingdom of God What is alledged by this Authour to justifie such separation is answered before That which Dr. John Owen hath in his book of Schism tending to acquit such separation from the crime of Schism or to difference it from that which was the evil among the Corinthians hath been examined by Mr. Daniel Cawdrey That notion which is appropriated to the Corinthian Schism as if it were onely division in the same particular Church and not separation from others not joyned in the same particular Congregation or such congregational Church is not agreeable with what the Apostle delivers 1 Cor. 10.17 and 12.12 13. Rom. 12.4 5. Ephes. 4.4 Ephes. 5.30 31 32. Ephes. 1.23 Col. 3.11.15 whereby every Christian believer where-ever is counted of the same body to which they should be joyned in love peace mutual affection and correspondent endeavours for their good and if the Apostle 1 Cor. 12.25 expresly count it a Schism in the body when any Christian doth neglect another and not take care of another much more is it Schism when Christians separate wiâ—hout necessary cause from communion with others and more specially when they disclaim them that are teachers of the Word of God as if Christ were divided as St. Paul speaks 1 Cor. 1.13.23 St. James in his Epistle ch 2.1 writes thus My brethren have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory with respect of persons and he expresseth himself by instance that they preferred the rich before the poor in placing them in their Assemblies and taxeth them therefore as partial in themselves and judges of evil thoughts Now to hear one that preacheth the faith of Christ because he is of our particular Society or by reason of particular interest or agreement in opinion or any other then the unity of faith in the Lord Jesus and to disclaim hearing another that hath the same faith preacheth it and holds communion with them that embrace it and to separate from such to despise or oppose such is to have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons for other reasons then their faith and therefore is condemned by St. James as evil 24. St. Paul Rom. 16 17. writes thus Now I beseech you brethren maâ—k them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine which ye have learned and avoyd them But those who teach men not to hear their Ministers which preach to them the truth of Gods Word because they are not in a congregational Church or not elected or ordained according to the rules of such Churches or because they conform to some things conceived unwarrantable which are made the reasons of unlawfulness to hear the present Ministers who preach the Gospel do cause offences and divisions contrary to the Doctrine Rom. 12.4.5 Rom. 14.1 c. Rom. 15.1 c. therefore their Doctrine is to be avoyded 25. The Apostle 1 Cor. 14.36 speaks thus What came the Word of God out from you or came it unto you only Which seems to reprehend the conceits whether schismatical or arrogant as if the Word of God were from them as the onely right teachers or confined to them as the only persons to whom it was communicated and from whom it might be received and so condemns such supposed inclosures by any Church or company of teachers But such conceits and inclosures they have and make who deny the present Ministers are to be heard conceiving the separated Churches and Ministers the only right Churches and Ministers to be heard 26. The Apostle Philip. 3 15 16. writes thus Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded and if in any thâ—ng ye be otherwise minded God shâ—ll reveal even this unto you thaâ— is as many of you as are well instructed in the Christian Doctrine for so the word is used 1 Cor. 2.6 1 Coâ— 14.20 Hâ—b 5 14. being opposed to Children and Babes that is wâ—ak in thâ— faith Rom. 14.1 Lâ—t them be minded as I am which he had expressed before in the chapter from v. 4. to v. 15. and if any through weakness â—n faith be otherwise minded as those Rom. 14 2.5 that thought Mosaical Laws were yet obligatory God would in time reveal this to be their liberty whicâ— I now judge to be mine Nevertheless saith he whereto ye have already attained let us walk by the same rule let us mind the same things Which requires Christian communion without separation notwithstâ—nding such difference and consequently condemns separation from Ministerâ— or Christians by reason of diversity of judgement about Church Government and Liturgy and different practise about Conformity or Non-conformity to them which are of less moment than those differences about meats and dayes and therefore notwithstanding them there should be walking together in preaching hearing praying and other duties of Christian communion 27. The Holy Ghost hath recorded the Prophesie of â—alaam Numb 24.3 4. c. of Caiaphas John 1â— 51 52. yea the sayings of Greek Infidel Idolatrous Poets cited by St. Paul as the words of Aratus Acts 17.28 of Menander 1 Cor. 15.33 of Epimâ—nides Titus 1.12 which shews the lawfulness of reading hearing and making use of true sayings of any though neither true Ministers of Christ nor believers but Idolaters and wicked enemies to the faith much more may the books be read and the Sermons heard of such learned men or preachers as clear and deliver the word of God notwithstanding dissent or disconformity to others about Liturgy and Church Discipline 28. The Apostle 1 Thess. 5.20 21. requires Christians not to despise prophesyings but to prove all things to hold fast that which is good St. John 1 Epist. chap. 4. Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God they make it not sin meerly to hear them
thereof it is not a reasonable postulatum which he demands to be granted him that in the present enquiry the whole thereof be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament Yea were it granted him yet it would disadvantage those separatists with whom he concurs in Judgment about Nonconformity and separation from the Church of England and the Ministers thereof who use many places of the Old Testament not only about the Sabbath and it's observation but also about Baptism and the Lords Supper Churches ministry and ceremonies in their enquiries and himself also in the present enquiry who useth about election of Ministers by the people and other things in this dispute out of the Old Testament and even the Levitical ordinances sundry places and therefore I conceive not any reasonableness in his postulatum of divolving the whole upon the Scriptures of the New Testament Sect. 4. The judgment of the Antients not useless in this controversie That which he also speaks not perplexing our selves nor the consciences of any with the judgments of men in Generations past wherein they cannot acquiesce though to take of the prejudices of some against truth upon the account of its seeming Novelty we may here and there manifest their harmony with us in the main principles of the ensuing structures may seem to be a reasonable postulatum or demand in respect of those who are not able to examine what is said by Fathers Councils Schoolmen Protestant and Popish writers forraign and domestick and I should have liked it well if he had wholly omitted any such citations in this book which hath been dispersed so farr as I can learn chiefly if not only among such Nevertheless if we would intimate as if in this and other controversies of the separatists and others there were not use of studying and alledging those writers I think his postulatum or demand unreasonable For as Dallaeus in his Learned Book against Popish worship hath done much service to the truth in shewing out of the Fathers that the Popish worship of Saints Angels the Host or bread in the Eucharist Crosses Images and Reliques according to the tradition of the Latins was unknown to the Christians of the three first centuries so it may be of good use to satisfie mens consciences that no such separation as now is from the present Ministers of England was allowed of by the first Fathers and Writers or any approved Council it being a thing of much moment in the arguments about the Lords Day and other Festivals the Sacraments Church and Ministry to understand what was the judgment and practice of the primitive Christians with whom Religion was more pure than in after times though corruptions too soon crept in among them Sect. 5. No approved practice of the Saints afore the Law Countenanceth separation from the present preachers in England Yet saith this Author inasmuch as some Beams of Light may be communicated unto the present Enquiry by a retrospection into the state of things in the time of the Old Law it shall not be grievous to us nor will it be altogether unprofitable to the Reader briefly to remark so far as may concern the matter in hand the state and management of affairs under that Oeconomy and Dispensation Not to mention the Administration of Holy things in the time of the Antediluvian Fathers nor the General Apostacy from the pure wayes of God in the dayes of Seth when according to their duty the faithful remnant the sons of God separated from the Wicked or the daughters of men and solemnly joyned themselves together to worship God according to his holy appointments Gen. 4.26 Let us take a brief view of things with relation unto the People of God after the giving of Moses Law when a Standard was set up for them to repair unto and they became being gathered into one as a City on an Hall conspicuous unto all Answ. How some beams of light may be communicated unto the present enquiry by a retrospection into the state of things in the time of the Old Law will not be easie to discern if the whole thereof be divolved on the Scriptures of the New Testament Yet it will not be grievous to me to examine what I find produced for his purpose I grant that Dr. Owen hath in his Book in Latine of the nature rise progress and study of true Theologie shewed divers Corruptions in the Ages before and after the Flood of Noah in Theologie and the pure Worship of God unto Moses his time and that the restitution of true Theologie was sometimes by a separation from the Wicked when there was a general Apostacy from the true wayes of God unto a prophaning of the Name of God as some conceive Gen. 4.26 is meant either by blaspheming or by setting up of Idol-worship as it was before Abrahams separation Josh. 24.15 But neither by him nor I think by any other is it shewed that a separation was approved from Preachers that teach no worse Doctrine than is held forth by the Articles Homilies and other avowed Books of the Church of England or from a Society or Church that was no more polluted by Idolatry or other Corruptions in Worship than are chargeable on the publick enjoyned Worship of the Church of England If Gen. 4.26 be meant of a Reformation by setting up separate Congregations as Dr Owen conceives in that Book l 2. c. 3. it was that therein they might call on the Name of the Lord which shews it was from them that did not call upon the Name of the Lord not from them that did as in the Worship of the Church of England is done And if Noah did reform by separation it was from Wicked men who had filled the earth with violence Gen. 6.13 which doth indeed make a necessary separation though it appear not but that Noah continued to preach to them and live among them 1 Pet. 3.20 2 Pet. 2.5 But is not the cause of the separation avowed by this Author from the Ministers and Church of England And though it be true that by the Law at Mount Sinai and other acts of Gods providence Israel became being gathered into one as a City on a Hill conspicuous unto all yet how then a Standard was set up for the people to repair unto needs some explication sith such as Job and such like holy persons if he or any other lived at that time seem not to have repaired to them nor were bound to repair to them unless they would be made Proselytes which the avoiding Idolatry of the Gentiles might require of them not such Corruptions onely as are in the Church of England But let us see what beams of light may be communicated unto the present enquiry by retrospection into the state of things in the time of the Old Law Sect. 6. Jewish Laws admitted some dispensation and addition First then saith he that the Lord gave unto the people of the Jews whom he had chosen out of all
pretence whatsoever nor in any other sin by joyning in the practice and if the present worship of the Ministers of England be any such fornication or the hearing or joyning with them must be a partaking with them in any sin so farre at least they are to be separated from But neither the Texts alledged nor any other do require separation from the worship of God or the Ministers that are in some things corrupt even in their ministration when Hophai and Phinehas did corrupt the worship of God yet Samuel did lawfully minister before the Lord and Hannah did well in presenting him thereto and her self at the solemn Feasts and even-while there was burning incense and sacrificing in the High places those of Judah were not to separate from the service at Jerusalem which was to God and though the High Priests were unduly set up and sundry corruptions and superstitions in the Pharisees and the services of the Jews in our Lord Christs time on Earth yet did our Lord Christ joyn in the publick service of the Temple and perswaded the cleansed Leper to offer to them the gift that Moses commanded Wherefore I inferr that though there should be some degree of Corruption in Worship and that this should be a breach upon the soveraign Authority of God as every sin is and a grievous sin it is yet this might not be a sufficient cause of separation from the Worship Church or Ministers of it and that the allegation of the Texts produced will not be sufficient for the design of this Author in urging separation from the Ministers and Church of England But let us further attend his motions He adds Sect. 14. The arguing by analogy in positive rites not rational What may rationally be inferred from these positions so evidently comprized in the Scripture and by way of Analogy at least may be argued from them is evident to any ordinary understanding for our parts being resolved as was said to trie out the matter in controversie from such rules and soveraign Institutions as our dear Lord hath left his New Testament Churches to walk by we shall not stand to make that improvement of them as otherwise we might A few Queries upon the whole that hath been offered shall put a close to this Preface Answ. Whether the positions before set down be evidently comprised in the Scripture may be perceived by the examination of them what may be rationally inferred from them for his purpose of condemning the hearing the present Ministers of England is not evident to my understanding which I do not conceive to be any other than ordinary As for arguing by way of Analogy from the institutions of the Old Testament to those of the New Testament from supposed parity of reason how little rationality or force there is therein I presume he may perceive if he read the second part of the Review of my Dispute about Paedobaptism Sect. 2.3 wherein how infirm the way of arguing from such Analogy is is so far evinced that I judge that if the improvement he thinks he might make of his positions for his purpose be by that way of proof it will be found insufficient by an ordinary understanding whether he hath kept to his resolution of tiying the matter in controversie by the rules and institutions of the New Testament will appear by the examining of the ensuing Discourse I judge that to be the way whereby to settle mens Consciences about mere positive Duties or Sins under the Gospel and therefore am resolved to pursue his dispute pede pes yet clearing the way by considering his Queries in a velitary Skirmish before I set upon his Triarii or main Battle Sect. 15. The first Querie about a National Instituted Church answered His first Querie is Whether since the Apotomy or Unchurching the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath ever since so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his Church Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel If so Let it be shewed when and where it was instituted by the Lord What is produced by some to this purpose is but upon a slight view thereof of no moment it is Isa. 49.21 Kings shall be your Nursing Fathers c. which Prophesie waits the time of its accomplishment hitherto both before and since the rise of Antichrist being made drunk by the Whores intoxicating Cup they have been for the most part cruel Butchers of the Saints and were we under its accomplishment a National Church would be far enough from being its result Of a Nations being born at once we shall not sure hear pleaded in this matter it being a Prophesie expresly relating to the Jews and their miraculous conversion if there be no such thing as a National Church of the Institution of Christ as most certain it is there is not the assertion whereof is wholly destructive of Gospel Administrations then Answ. As King James in his Remonstrance against Cardinal Perons Oration saith that the appellation and name of the Church serveth in this corrupt Age as a Cloak to cover a thousand new inventions meaning this of the Popish party so may we say also of others that by reason of the ambiguous use of the appellation and name of the Church and the dictates of men about it the minds of many are perplexed and perverted Wherefore in answering this first Querie which the Separatists do so much harp upon it is necessary that there be a distinct understanding of the notion of the Church and its Institution The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by use is now almost appropriated to the Christian Church hath been variously used both in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament in the Apocryphal Writings and in the New Testament It seems to me of little concernment in the present question to collect them all the Queries to be answered beâ—ng of the New Testament use Now in the New Testament excepting what I find Act. 19.32 39 40. where it is applied to Assemblies of Unbelievers whether tumultuary or orderly and Act. 7.38 where it is applied to the Congregation of Israel in the Wilderness in all places in the Acts of the Apostles the Epistles of the Apostles and Revelation of St. John it is meant so far as I discern of the Christians or People of God or their Meeting or Assembly As it notes the Christian Believers or People of God so it is taken sometimes for the Universal Church whether invisible or visible as 1 Cor. 12.28 Heb. 12.23 Ephes. 1.22 sometimes for the visible Church indefinitely but not universally as 1 Cor. 15.9 sometimes for the Church Topical and then it is taken for the Church of a City or Town or House and so we read of the Church at Jerusalem Act 8.1 of Corinth Ephesus c. in Philemons house Philem. 2. or of a Country or Nation and then
on If there be no such thing as a National Church of the institution of Christ as most certain it is there is not then 2. Whether National Ministers are the Ministers of Christ or whether there can be a true Ministry in a false Church as a National Church must be if not of Divine Institution upon what pretence soever it be so denominated Sect. 16. National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ and National Churches true Churches To this Querie I answer 1 That if by National Ministers be meant Ministers for the Nation or such as have inspection over the Nation whether for the maintenance or propagating of true Doctrine or Worship or holiness of life they may be Ministers of Christ though no such thing as a National Church were of the institution of Christ. As for instance I conceive Dr. James Usher when he was alive was a Minister of Christ when he was Primate of Ireland The assertion I prove thus If the Apostles were Ministers of Christ and National Ministers though a National Church were not instituted of Christ than National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ though a National Church be not instituted of Christ But the Apostles were such as for instance Peter had the Apostleship of the Circumcision Paul of the Gentiles Gal. 2.7 8. Rom. 11.13 1 Tim. 2.7 Therefore National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ. 2. Titus was a National Minister of the Cretians For this cause saith St. Paul Tit. 1.5 left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting and ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee and yet a Minister of Christ St. Pauls partner and fellow-helper concerning the Corinthians 2 Cor. 8.23 Ergo 3. They that may be Ministers of Christ though they be Ministers for the Body of Christ and all the Members thereof may be Ministers of Christ though National because the denial of a National Ministry is upon this supposition that a Minister of Christ is only for one particular Congregation but the Pastors and Teachers as well as Apostles Evangelists Prophets are given for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith unto a perfect man Eph. 4.11 12 13. Therefore for all or any and consequently for a Nation and not only for a particular Congregation 4. If any of the Saints as well as one particular Congregation have an interest in all the Ministers of Christ so as that they are truly theirs then Ministers of Christ may be National yea ought to be yea and Oecumenical if they could be serviceable to them in the things of Christ. But 1 Cor. 3.22 23. Paul and Cephas and Apollos were all the Corinthians and all others who were Christs therefore the same may be Ministers of Christ and National Ministers I know not whether this might be an argument ad hominem but this I take to be justifiable that a man may be a Commissioner for approbation of publick Preachers throughout a Nation and so a National Minister or an Itinerant Preacher to the Nation and yet be a Minister of Christ. 2. A National Church denominated so either from the agreement of all the Believers in that Nation in the same profession or from their subjection to some Common Rulers Ecclesiastical or Civil or Convening by Deputies in some National Synod though not of Divine Institution may be a true and not a false Church which I prove thus They may be a true Church who have all things essential to a Church and nothing destructive of its being such But Believers of a Nation or a National Church so denominated any of those wayes may have all things essential to a Church and nothing destructive of its being such Ergo. The Major is taken from the proper notion of the term True Church or its definition For the definition of a Church of Christ or a true Church is and can be no other than a Company or Number of persons believing in Christ or professing the Faith of the Gospel and obedience to God by Christ according unto it not destroying their own profession by any errours concerning the foundation or unholiness of conversation even according to the expression of the Congregational men in their Declaration Octob. 12.1658 ch 26. The Minor is also manifest by Reason and Experience A National Church so denominated may have the Truth of Doctrine of Faith the Truth of Worship the Truth of Holy conversation besides which there is nothing essential to a true Church For the defect of outward order were the order pretended indeed of Christs Institution yet could not nullifie the Church or destroy the Truth of it but only the regularity The Corinthians were a true Church 1 Cor. 1.2 even then when there were disorders in their Meeting 1 Cor. 14.26 in their Discipline 1 Cor. 5.1 2. in their Communion 1 Cor. 11.21 in their Faith 1 Cor. 15.12 in their Conversation 2 Cor. 1.1 and 12 2â— As for the outward form of their Combination by a Church Covenant or their number or their habitation or their descent these and such like things though for convenience they be requisite yet not essential to the Church or its Truth Yea the having of Baptism Organizing by Officers though more necessary and of Divine Institution yet are not essential to a Church or its Truth but that the Church without them may be a true Church though not so regular and well ordered as it should be Nor doth the having of National Rulers Ecclesiastical either single persons or in a Synod or Convocation make a false Church Those of the Congregational way have had Synods and submitted to Courts even in Ecclesiastical things of larger extent than a Congregation of one Town and Churches of a greater number and at greater distance of habitation than could meet in one place every Lords Day for all Ordinances and deny not a Catholick visible Church and therefore should not by reason of the number distance want of Officers of Divine Institution or because modelled by humane prudence call a National Church a false Church The proofs used by those that held that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government Printed in the Year 1645. from the number of the Church at Jerusalem yet one Church Acts 8.1 under one Government besides what is found in the Scripture about the Churches of Corinth Ephesus are sufficient to evince that many Congregations may be one Church and that the unity and truth of Churches is to be taken from agreement and verity of Faith and that a National Church so denominated in respect of the agreement in profession or subjection to Government or convention by Deputies or Messengers in one Synod may be one National Church and a true Church of Christ. But it is objected That the first Church is of Christs Institution and that was of so many as might meet in one Congregation even the Church at Jerusalem that
to my wants sometimes both are joyned 2 Cor. 9.25 the administration of this service or the ministration of this Ministry and the higher powers are termed Rom. 13.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. that is the Minister or Officer of God In ecclesiastical matters both words are used and are applied to Christ who is termed the Minister of the Circumcision Rom. 15.8 a Minister of the Sanctuary Heb 8.2 and to Ministers of Christ Acts. 13.2 2 Cor. 11.23 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oft restrained to the office of a Deacon Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.8 But the Ministry we are enquiring of is neither that of a Servant that waits on his Master nor of a contributor that supplieth anothers wants of outward necessaries nor the performing of the function of a Magistrate by doing acts of publique justice nor the ministry of Christ which was and is peculiar to him nor the Ministry of Angels who are also termed Gods Ministers and Ministring Spirits Heb. 1.7 14. Nor the office of Deacons as their office is termed serving tables distinct from the Ministry of the word Acts. 6.1 2 4. But that Ministry to which Matthias was elected Acts 1.25 and of which it is said 1 Cor. 3.5 who then is Paul and who is Apollos but Ministers by whom ye believed even as the Lord gave to every one and is meant Ephes. 4.11 12. where it is said that Christ gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the work of the Ministry This Ministry was performed by the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists somewhat extraordinarily either in respect of their gifts or their commission which are now ceased That Ministry we now enquire of is that of ordinary Pastors and Teachers as now sent To these sundry Ministries are usually assigned to 〈◊〉 Ministry of the word of Baptism of the Lords supper of confirmation ordination government by admonitions censures and if there be any other work allotted to those whom the Scripture terms Bishops or Elders But our quaerist in this his writing medling only with that part of Ministry in this main question disputed by him which is by Preaching I understand his quaerie to be meant of that part of the Ministry Now this Ministry is usually expressed by the Ministry of the word Acts 6.4 the Ministry of the Gospel of God Rom. 15.16 the Ministry of the New Testament not of the letter but of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 8. of righteousness v. 9. the Ministry of reconciliation 2 Cor. 5.18 Stewards of the Misteris of God 1 Cor. 4.1 and sometimes our Ministery without any other adjunct 2 Cor. 6.3 and an Oeconomy or dispensation 1 Cor. 9.17 more fully Acts 20.24 the Ministery which I have received of the Lord Jesus to testify the Gospel of the grace of God Which shewes the Author of this Ministry whereupon he requires 1 Cor. 4.1 Let a man so account of us as of the Mynisters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Minister Acts 13.5 of Christ and Stewards of the mysteries of God The finis cui or those for whom this Ministry is appointed are the Saints and therefore it is said to be for the perfecting of the Saints or joynting together of them and the edifying of the body of Christ Ephes. 4 12. wherefore St. Paul saith of himself that he was made a Minister of the Church according to the dispensation of God which is given to mee for you to fulfill the word of God Col. 1.24 25. which shewes that he was not a Minister for one particular Church but for any part of it where his lot was to Preach and that he was not Minister of the Church by their election or mission or direction for these were of God and Christ Jesus but for the Church or Saints as the subjects to and for whom he was appointed to fulfill the word of God even the mystery which had been hid from ages and from generations but then was made manifest to his Saints to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles which is Christ in you the hope of glory v. 26 27. to which purpose he speaks also of himself Ephes. 3.6 7 8 9. which yet is not to be restrained so to the Saints but that the Ministry of the Gospel was to be to them that were not Saints I am a debtor saith he Rom. 1.14 both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians both to the wise and to the unwise and 1 Cor. 1.23 We preach Christ unto the Jewes a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness and 2 Cor. 2.14 15. Thanks be to God which alwayes causeth us to triumph in Christ and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved and in them that perish So that the Ministry of the word though it be primarily for the Church and the Saints yet is the preaching of the Gospel the Ministry of Christ even to unbelievers as Ezekiel was a Prophet to the rebellious Nation of Israel when he spake Gods word whether they did hear or forbear Ezek 2.5 And hence I inferre that there may be a true Ministry not only in but also out of a Church of believers Sect. 19. A true Gospel Ministry may be in a false Church so deemed Secondly A Church may be said to be false many wayes 1. Because it was irregularly constituted that is not gathered by consent or Church-covenant or baptism but by humane Laws in forcing men to meet together in one Congregation or more because dwellers in such a Precinct or born or living in such a Countrey In this respect I conceive the Quaerist makes a national Church a false Church 2. Because it is an hypocritical company which doth indeed make them a false Church before God yet quoad nos they are a true visible Church if there be no falsehood in that which is descernible by men 3. Because it is Schismatical so as to break off from other parts of the Catholique Church without a justifiable cause whether out of ambition passion misapprehension or any other such like undue motive 4. Because it is heretical or Heresy is broached and upheld by a party in it Now I confess that it can hardly be that there should be a true Ministry in a Church tainted with Heresy Yet sith our Lord Christ writes to the Church of Pergamos as one of his seven Golden Candlesticks though there were that held the Doctrin of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans Revel 2.14 15. and in like manner the Church of Thyatira or the Angel of it suffered the Woman which called her self a Prophetess to teach and seduce his Servants to commit Fornication and to eat things Sacrificed to Idols I inferre those Angels were true Ministers though in a Church in some sort false that is tainted with
583. yields that our English word Priest and the Dutch Priester and the French Prebstre and Prestre and the Italian Prete to be formed from Presbyter Selden de Syn Ebrae l. 1. c. 14 p. 586 Certà in Ritualibus Anglicanis nostris Priests Ministers pro Presbyteris clim semper usurpata And besides what I said before out of the English 39 Articles and letters of Orders it doth appear from the very words of the Master of the Sentences Peter Lombard cited by this Author in this Chapter pag. 26. out of the Fourth Book of the Sentences distinct 24. divis 9. that the same whom the Papists call Priests they call Presbyters and say that they have the precept of the Apostle for them and that the Order of Priesthood or Presbytery the primitive Church had and therefore in this the Papists themselves use the word Priest in English but as the same with Presbyter or Elder from the Scripture or primitive Church not from either Jews or Heathens and therefore symbolizing in this name with the Papists if men had not mistaken it and clamourously and ignorantly inveighed against it had given no cause of suspition of compliance or willingness to return to the Idolatry of the Mass as it is used in the Church of England who have declared against Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Articles 28.31 in the Liturgy as it hath been lately revised and to which assent is required by all Ministers besides other wayes as amply as any other Protestant Church and therefore it is very evil that this Author doth insinuate into the minds of men such a suspicion of the willingness of the present Ministers to return to Popery because of retaining the name Priest which neither came from the Antichristian Church so called of Rome nor is an Idolatrous Superstitious name commanded by the Lord to be abolished Hos. 2.15 Zech. 13.2 This of Zech. 13.2 is not a command but a promise that God would cut of the names of the Idols out of the Land and that they shall be no more remembred which if it imply a command yet it is but of the abolition of the names of Idols not of the name of Priests whom I never found to be reckoned amongst Idols or that the name Priest is the name of an Idol The other text Hos. 2.16 17. is thus And it shall be at that day saith the Lord that thou shalt call me Ashi and shall call me no more Baali For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall be no more remembred by their name which is a Prediction of what should be rather than a Prohibition and the reason of that Prediction seems to be this God would not be called Baali that is my Lord because that word noted a Husband as commanding or dealing hardly or rigorously with his Wife but Ishi according to the first notation of Ishah Gen. 2.23 one from whom the Wife comes as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh and therefore is bespoken as a kind and gentle Husband which the words v. 14 19 20. lead to But if the reason of the not calling God Baali be as Grotius in his Annot Although Baal in common use signifie an Husband she shall not dare to use that name out of horrour of that name which hath been imposed on an Idol it may seem that the reason of not using should be not the unlawfulfulness of bespeaking God by that name according to the proper and original meaning but lest either she should in thought remember the Idol or be thought by others to continue that Idolatrous name For the words are not thou shalt not use the words at all thy Husband among men but thou shalt not call me Baali that is in thy Prayers and Confessions of me as thy God But if it be understood as a Prohibition according to the Law Exod 23.13 which I will not deny the 17. v. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall be no more remembred by their name to import it cannot be conceived that it forbids any more than the use of those names with honour or so as to trust in them as their worshipers did when they applyed them to their Idols as Psal. 16.4 is meant when the Psalmist saith He would not take up the names of their gods within his lips that is as Hos. 14.3 Neither will we say any more to the work of our hands ye are our gods Which sense the words before lead to that they should not any more prepare their silver or gold for Baal as v. 8. and as in the dayes of Baalim wherein she burnt Incense to them and she decked her self with her ear-rings and her jewels and she went after her lovers and forgot me saith the Lord v. 13. By which name of Baalim was meant the Sun and other Planets as may be proved out of holy Scripture and is shewed by Mr. Selden in his Syntagma de Diis Syris So that the forbidding the name of Baal or Baalim doth not appear to be any more than the using of these names as applyed to Idols with approbation of the Idolatrous Worship done to them or giving occasion in applying the name to God to conceive as if he were like the Idols or allowed their Worship even as the Apostle Eph. 5.3 forbids any naming of fornication uncleanness or covetousness with any shew of liking For that the Prophet meant not to prohibit the name of Baal to be given at all to God much less by a Woman to her Husband or Lord as the word did originally signifie may be gathered from that Isa. 54.5 who prophesied about the same time with Hosea where what we render thy Maker is thy Husband the Lord of Hosts is his name is in the Hebrew thy Baal or Baalim in the plural number and Nahum after him Nahum 1.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Baal of wrath that is who is a Lord of wrath by our Translatours rendred furious and by God himself after him as we now read Jer. 31.32 I was a Husband unto them is in Hebrew I was a Baal to them saith the Lord. Yea were the prohibition such as that we might not give the names given to Idols to God we might not give God the title of Melec or King because the Idol of the Ammonites was called Molech Milchom or Malcham that is their King Zeph. 1.5 nor call God Jehovah because the Gentiles termed their God Jove or Jah because they termed their God Jacchus or Helion the High one because they termed the Sun Helios or Adonai because of Adonis all which to have been used in imitation of and derivation from these names of God is shewed in that imperfect relique of Mr. Hugh Stanford in the first Book of Mr. Parker De descensu ad inferos in Fullers Miscel. l. 2. c. 6. Dr. Hammond Annot. on Psal. 68.4 in
suppositions as ever objection in so weighty a case was built upon 1. 'T is supposed that Christ hath not determined in the Scripture how the affairs of his house should be managed with decency and order as well as commanded that they be so which is 1. No small derogation to the perfection of the Scriptures 2. To the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ debasing him herein below Moses though the Scripture in this respect prefers him before him 3. Diametrically opposite to the Scripture instanced in which stands as a two edged Sword to cut the throat of their cause in its approaches thereto for shelter of which take this brief account The Apostle having in the beginning of the Chapter prest the Church of Corinth to follow after spiritual gifts but especially that they might prophesie the liberty of the Saints therein being fully asserted and several directions thereabout given he condemns their disorderly practice in respect of this important duty and priviledge ver 26. and gives direction touching its regular performance and this he doth First Generally ver 26. Let all things be done to edifying which with a little alteration he represses ver 40. Let all things be done decently and in order Secondly Particularly by telling them how they ought to manage this affair in a way of decency order and edification wherein several rules are comprised too long to be here insisted on as in cases of speaking in an unknown tongue ver 27 28. of prophesying by two or three ver 29 30. of the duties of women with respect thereunto ver 34 35. that from hence a power invested in the Church for the binding of the consciences of men touching ceremonies in Worship should be regularly deduced is the first born of improbabilities and absurdities 1. Paul speaking by an infallible spirit of Prophecie advises the Church of Corinth that all things be done decently and in order therefore persons that have not pretend not to such a spirit may of their own heads bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the service of God 2. Paul doth not only tell them that all things ought to be done decently and in order but discovers to them wherein that decency and order lies therefore the Church hath power to determine in this matter are such Non-sequiturs as will not in haste be made good I reply as the Argument is framed by me there is moment in the objection which is not built upon the principle he expresseth but this that however Christ hath not only commanded but also determined in generals in the Scripture how the affairs of his House should be managed with decencie and order yet in many particularities he hath not determined how the Worship of God and Rule of his Church should be managed with decencie and order as whether at the Communion there should be a Table spread with a linnen cloth the Service begin with a recital of the Institution or Prayer Publike Prayer begin with Confession of Sin or Thanksgiving or profession of our faith seating of persons in the meeting be with respect to their civil degrees or sexe or promiscuously Sermon begin at the reading of the Text and Prayer be after or before these with many more are indeterminate by Christ or his Apostles in the Scripture and yet are to be determined according to the Rule of Decency and Order either by each person himself in that which is private or by Rulers in that which belongs to the Community and Obedience is due to the determinations of Rulers in these things And it seems to me to use this Authors own phrase the first-born of improbabilities and absurdities that God should charge parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord Eph. 6.4 that we should first of all make supplications prayers intercessions giving of thanks for all men for Kings and for all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty 1 Tim. 2.1 2. that the Bishop should be one that takes care of the Church of God 1 Tim. 3.5 If these have no power in the Worship of God and rule of the Church to make Constitutions about things undetermined or that they may without any sin be disobeyed For as for the exception as if such power reaches only to things Civil not Ecclesiastical the contrary is proved by Bishop Sanderson in his sixth Lecture about the obligation of Conscience Nor is there any derogation to the perfection of Scripture or the faithfulness of Christ by such a grant For the sufficiency of the Scripture being in affording Doctrines of Faith and Rules of Life if as able to make a man wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus as the Apostle speaks 2 Tim. 3.15 its perfection is acknowledged there is no lessening of its use though it be said that notwithstanding its sufficiency to its end yet Laws Domestical Civil National Ecclesiastical are necessary to be added for good order and Government And the faithfulness of Christ Heb. 3.2 is not placed in determining every particularity in Worship yea he was faithful in that he did not for then he should have put upon us such a yoke as Moses bid contrary to his Office Joh. 1.17 but in that he discharged the work his Father had appointed him as our High Priest in suffering and interceding for us and as the Apostle of our Profession in teachinng us the counsel of God fully in the Doctrine of the Gospel and that above Moses as being not as a servant in Gods house only as Moses but as a Son over his own house And it is to be considered what Bishop Sanderson observes that if Christs faithfulness must have been extended to the determination of all particularities equally to Moses he must have set down all particularities of Civil Government as Moses did in the judicial Laws of the Jews and so those Laws must be observed as some have attempted and the Common Law of England must be evacuated and a yoke put upon our necks from which Christ hath freed us And therefore a good Argument is hence deducible that God would have the ordering of things undetermined left to Governours because otherwise Christ should not have been faithful as Moses sith he hath not determined them yea should have been unfaithful if he had sith it was the Will of God that Christians should not have such a yoke of Rites put upon them as Moses did put upon the Jews Acts 15.9 10 Gal. 5.1 2 3 4. But the Text 1 Cor. 14.40 requires more consideration sith he saith it is diametrically opposite to that principle it is alledged to establish which is but a meer Dictate of his for which he brings no proof For neither is his account of the Apostles dissertation right it being not true that he asserts the liberty of the Saints in prophesying as if prophesying were the liberty of the Saints as such which
daughters that did prophesie Acts 29.1 mention is made of the woman praying or prophesying 1 Cor. 11.5 we cannot exclude them from extraordinary Ministry when God gives such a gift nor sith Priscilla instructed Apollos Acts 18.26 can we exclude them from private teaching of the most able if they be fitted thereto Sect. 9. Receiving the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of the abstaining from appearance of evil 1 Thess. 5.22 10. That the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling which is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof Mark 14.18 22 23. and positive precept as being what hath an appearance of evil in it being a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Breadâ—n god 1 Thess. 5.22 as also to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after to the time of the invention and the introduction of the Popish Breaden god not to mention its contrariety to the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches if not all at this day Answ. This Constitution and the subscription to it by the present Ministers of England cannot be denied nor that it hath been a great stumbling block to many persons and as great a cause of separation from the Communion as it is ministred in the Church of England as any other thing But that it is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution of the Lords Supper is denied by them For though it is said Mark 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate as they sate yet it is denied that this gesture is mentioned as binding Christians to the the same gesture in the use of the Lords Supper in subsequent times 1. Because this gesture seems not to have been of choice used by Chrisâ— that thence he might prescribe the same gesture he used in the Institution making his example in this as a constant rule but it seems rather to have been used occasionally because it was instituted after the Paschal Supper at which they used that gesture as they did eat Mat. 26.26 Mark 14.22 2. Because St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 where he saith he delivered to them what he received of the Lord he omits the mention of Christs gesture which he would not have done if he had judged it binding and necessary to Christians 3. He mentions the night in which Christ was betrayed v. 23. that he took the cup after he had supped v. 25. Luke 22. â—0 and it it is not judged necessary that the Lords Supper should be either annually on the night in which he was betrayed or weekly or monethly in the night or after supper no not though it be termed by the Apostle the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.20 therefore with 〈◊〉 reason the gesture should be urged by them as obligatory 4. If the gesture Christ used be obligatory to Christians then they must use the self same gesture he used but that was neither sitting nor standing which are used by the opposers of Kneeling but lying along on beds as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Mark 14.18 intimates and is gathered from Joh. 13.23 and other relations of the use of those times which I think will not be denied it being by the learned generally acknowledged See Ainsworth on Exod. 12.8 And so kneeling is no more directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof than other gestures nor however it be different from his practice then can it be truly said to be directly opposite to his practice unless he had commanded the gesture he then used to be observed or forbidden by his practice at that time kneeling The positive precept 1 Thess. 5.22 is urged very importunely not only in this point of knâ—eling at the Lords Supper but also very frequently on many other occasions in Sermons Writings and Conferences to deterr persons especially of scrupulous Consciences and weak Understandings from any thing to which persons and practices are disaffected and therefore for the setling of such persons judgment as are not averse to the unlearning their mistakes as I did many years since in my Book of Scandalizing cap. 4. sect 23. somewhat fully open the meaning of that Text so I shall again with some enlargement in this place it being no grievance to me to write the same things again but necessary and so much the rather because Mr. Henry Jeans in his second Edition of his Tract upon this Subject gives me occasion to examine more exactly the meaning of this Precept The chief difficulty is concerning 1. The Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Concerning the appearance of evil which we are to abstain from and how far we are by that precept bound to abstain from it 1. Concerning the Translation it is doubted whether it should not be rather read abstain from every kind or sort of evil answering to genus and species as Cicero renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as Porphyry in his Isagoge Aristotle Plato and other Logicians use it That it may be so saith Mr. Jeans Mat. Flac. Illyricus and Beza determine that it is so the Syriack Interpreter and after him Faber and after them our own great and learned Doctour Hammond resolve But I would fain know upon what ground they are thus singular against the current both of an Ancient and Modern Expositors Wherein he might have been satisfied from Dr. Hammonds own words in his Annot. on the place where having said the meaning will be from all sort or the whole kind of evil from all that is truly so be it never so small according to that in Pirke avoth be as careful in the keeping a light as a heavy Commandement to this sense he cites St. Basil on the beginning of the Proverbs Theophylact and Leonâ—ius But saith Mr. Jeans It is used but four times in the New Testament besides this place and in none of them in a Logical notion It is true and it is true also that in none of them it is taken in his sense for an appearance to the understanding but either for the shape or representation to the sight or the sight it self as it is rendred 2 Cor. â— 7. However it is sufficient for the justifying of the Translation that it is used in that notion not only in other Greek Authors but also in Ecclesiasticus ch 23.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two sorts of men ch 25.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three sorts of men and in the LXX Version Jer. 15 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 four kinds which acception is enforced by this reason which out of St. Basil Dr. Hammond thus expresseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 21. try all things being taken from Merchants that which is evil v. 22. is opposed to that which will upon trial bear the touch A good Merchant will keep that which is good unadulterate metal but will
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
in the Liturgy of the Church of England Therefore The major is grounded on the rule given by Divines about the Decalogue That which requires a duty requires the means conducing thereto The minor is proved in that the Common-Prayer Book directs what things are to be prayed for by reason of the brevity of Collects the Responds the frequent use the plain expressions help the memory and elocution wherein the acquired gift of Prayer consists therefore it is not an obstruction but a help to the gift of Prayer But this Author though he may perhaps count this tolerable in others yet not in Ministers let 's view what he saith of them He alledgeth Eph. 4.11 and would inferr from thence That all Ministers have the gift of Prayer and are to use it that the Common-Prayer Book worship shuts it out of doors as unnecessary and therefore is not of Christs appointment But 1. The Text expresseth not the several sorts of Qualifications but the several sorts of Officers 2. If it be supposed that ministerial gifts are also implyed yet whether extraordinary or ordinary may be doubted 3. If ordinary gifts there may be a question Wheâ—her the gift of Prayer as he means it were one that is Whether Christ hath required that every Minister should be able on all occasions to express himself without any stinted form either conceived by himself or composed by others to make known the requests which it concerns his people to whom he is Pastour in the most solemn and publick auditory to ask of God in their behalf in words and elocution fitting the matter and auditory I doubt not but the Minister should be able to express the requests of the people as he should be able to declare the mind of God to the people yet neither the one nor the other is of necessity to be done or the Minister tied to do it every way but the best way he is able or at least that way as is fit for the end of his expressions to wit the peoples understanding not the ostentation of his parts The Apostles could preach without study but Timothy was to give attendance to reading to meditate to give himself wholly to thâ—se things whereby his profiting might appear to all and yet had a gift given by prophecy 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15. Ministers are to preach the Word now but they are not tyed to preach without notes without study without other helps which God affords Nor are Ministers bound to express themselves alwayes without pre-conceived or prescribed forms in prayer and yet they may faithfully discharge their work Now God doth not give gifts as he did in the Apostles times and therefore the same readiness and exuberancy of expressions or composure of petitions is not to be expected of Ministers now as was of them 4· I add That though the Apostles said Acts 6.4 We will give our selves continually to Prayer and to the ministry of the Word And St Paul 1 Tim. 2.1 exhorts Thaâ— first of all supplications prayers intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men for Kings and all that are in authority Yet we read not that this is made the Ministers work to express the common necessities of the Church in a publick auditory or any rules about the form or manner of praying Nor do we find that either Christ or his Apostles used any forms of prayer before or after their preaching and therefore conceive not this to be the proper work of a Minister or that either way of praying is determined and therefore both may lawfully be used by the Minister or other Christians Nor doth the one way of Worship shut out of doors the other or the Minister by using the Common-prayer Book exclude conceived prayer by the speakers If they were tyed by the Governours to use no other than the Common-prayer Book expressions yet this is not to be imputed either to the Common-prayer Book or its way of worship or to the Ministers but unto those who do so rigidly impose it I add further That were there a prohibition of using any other than the Common-prayer yet this were not a shutting out of doors Christs institution unless it were proved Christs institution that at all times in Prayer no stinted form should be used Nor doth it shut out of doors the gift of Prayer unless it be proved they only have the gift of Prayer who use their own conceived expressions which if so not only those who use the forms of Prayer though with never so much fervency of spiâ—it which they read or remember in the Common-Prayer Book or in the Practice of Piety or any other such Book of mens composure but also those who use the words of the Psalms or the Lords-Prayer yea that do say Amen to the words of any Preacher before Sermon or any that gives thanks afore meals should shut out of doors the gift of Prayer or the exercise of it sith he useth not the gift he hath to wit the ability of mind to form words and to utter them which is the definition of the gift of Prayer before given There are many in the Congregation perhaps yea some Women that can form and utter words as fit for Prayer as the Minister will not this Author have this gift of Prayer shut out of doors and yet not conclude that a positive duty is obstructed thereby Besides there may be a restraint of a duty as unseasonable sith affirmative precepts bind not ad semper to be done at all times perhaps time will not permit or weather or some accidents or more necessary business and yet the gift not shut out of doors as unnecessary but as only inconvenient at that time Do not the most able Preachers sometimes omit the exercise of their gifts and yet count not them shut out of doors as unnecessary Yea doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 1â— put some restraints upon Prophecying to keep order Did he then shut out of doors as unnecessary the gift of Prophecy I have read that the Separatists in the Low Countries have spent so much time on the Lords day in debating causes and matters of Discipline that they have omitted exercise of their gifts in some other Ordinances and yet I presume they have not shut them out of doors as unnecessary If at one meeting of Christians no other thing had been done but the reading of St. Pauls Epistles as he appointed Col. 4.16 yet were not the exercise of Aâ—chippus his ministry thereby shut out of doors as unnecessary but only suspended for that time And this would be no Napkining up of his Talent nor such exclusion of the gift of preaching or prophecying as with others this Author clamouâ—ously inveighs against The 55 th Canon directs Preachers what they should pray for doth not limit or bound them in the words or matter It saith They shall move the people to joyn with them in prayer in this form or to this effect as briefly as conveniently they
extemporary conceived Prayer of Preachers and others such is the praising of God in the English metre the reading of the Scriptures according to ordinary division of chapters and verses with the contents of the chapters Therefore The major is his own the minor stands good till it be shewed where Christ hath appointed such extemporary praying or such praising such reading the Scripture so divided To which I might add in hearing taking notes of Sermons Preachers using notes in the Pulpit with sundry more but I forbear As for the Texts alledged Ephes. 4.7 c. it speaks not of Worship and its institution by Christ nor what is the necessary requisite to such Worship as is instituted by Christ but only of Gifts that is preaching Officers and the end and use of those gifts Col. 2.19 speaks not of Worship or what is requisite that it be of Christs institution but tells us that Seducers which taught worshipping of Angels held not the Head that is Christ And that from him all the Body that is the Church by joynts and bands having nourishment ministred and knit together increaseth with the increase of God Acts 9.31 speaks not at all of Worship or its institution by Christ or Christs aim in Gospel-administrations or what is requisite that Worship be of his institution Rom. 14.14 15. much less it speaks of the cleanness of things of themselves the uncleanness to him that thinks them so and our duty not to grieve our Brother with our meats 1 Cor. 10.23 tells us of the inexpediency of some things lawful in that they edifie not nothing of Christs aim in his institutions or what is requisite to his instituted Worship 1 Cor. 14.3 4 5 12 26. tells us of the benefit of prophecying the end and use of spiritual gifts nothing of Christs aim in his institution of Worship or the requisite to such institution 2 Cor. 12.10 doth not mention any thing but Pauls affection and estate 1 Tim. 1.4 nothing but the incommodity of fables and genealogies Which should be observed by the Reader that he may be wary how he trusts to this Author's and other Separatists multiplying Texts impertinently that they be not ensnared by them and that such persons may see what cause they have to repent of such abusive wresting of Scripture As for that which he saith of the Common-Prayer Book worship if he mean thereby the prayers or praises in the forms therein I will not say They are necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Vnity of the Gospel I yield that they are not necessary those ends may be obtained by other forms of Prayer or rather by preaching confessions of Faith and reading of the Holy Scriptures unto which the Lessons and portions of Scripture confessions of Faith in the Common-Prayer Book are as conducible as other Whether the Churches of Christ in the four first centuries were so excellent as he saith And whether they knew not any thing of such a Worship as the Common Prayer Book worship is a disputable point Et adhuc sub judice lis est What is said That to the Reformed Churches at this day the Common-Prayer Book worship is as a polluted accursed abominable thing I find no cause to believe except he mean by them the Churches of the Separatists I find Calvin in his 200 th Epistle saying indeed In Anglicana Liturgia qualem describitis multas video fuisse tolerabiles ineptias Yet in his 87 th Epistle he saith Quod ad formulam precum rituum Ecclesiasticorum valde probo ut certa illa extet c. And I find Maresius of Groning in his Academical Decision of some Questions qu. 11. alledging those words of Calvin and disputing against Francis Johnson his Latine Answer to Carpenter against Liturgies and asserting Liturgical Forms to be admitted by all the Reformed Churches Nor do I find any thing to the contrary in Voetius his Ecclesiastical Policy or any other that have lately written who have gainsaid these speeches and therefore I conceive that this Author in this speech hath too great a smack of that which is in one of Tullies Epistles said of such men Qui semel vereâ—undiae fines transilierit eum gnaviter impudentem esse oportet Neither Smectymnuus nor the Assembly nor Mr. Baxter in his Disputation of a Form of Liturgy nor any other of the Presbyterians that I know have written such things of the Common-Prayer Book as this Author vents If they are to be read he that would find truth should also read the Answers to Smectymnuus Ball 's Tryal of Separation Paget 's Arrow against the Separatists with others As for â— Powel his Tract I find in it such a sardle of false Principles misallegations of Texts non-syllogizing confused Dictates with vain Giâ—des that me-thinks no sober or judicious person should be moved by it The Common-Prayer Vnmasked I have not seen The Discourse of the Interest of Words in Prayer doth not advantage this Author to prove separation from Ministers or their Ministry by reason of the Common-Prayer The Discourse of Liturgies I have read and find in it little Logick a great many words which if they were reduced to syllogistical form would appear to be a bulk without sinews Not to mention the many absurd Dictates among which I have observed this that p. 16. The Lâ—rds Prayer is made to belong to the Oeconomy of the Old Testament and to argue thence to the New is to deny Christ to be ascended on high But I must attend the Author here who adds Sect. 8. No Particularity instituted is a meer Circumstance yet Particularities undetermined are Object If to what hath hitherto been proposed it be said That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer Book is no essential part of Worship but meerly circumstantial Praying t is true is part of Worship but praying in this or that Form is not so but meerly a circumstance thereof And therefore though it be true that the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer Book yet it follows not that they worship him after a way that is not of his appointment To this we answer 1. That many things are strenuously supposed as the Basis upon which the weight of this Objection is laid which the Framers thereof knowing to be no easie task to demonstrate do earnestly beg us to grant unto them which being matter of greater moment than many are aware of we shall not part with on such easie terms T is supposed First That there are some things in the instituted Worship of Christ that are meerly circumstances thereof as such Secondly That it is lawful for Saints to pray in a Form Thirdly That Forms of Prayer imposed are but meer circumstances of Worship and no essential parts thereof Fourthly That circumstances of Worshâ—p as such are not determined by the Lord in the Scripture but left to the wills of men to determine therein as they shall
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
way that what in their preaching and practice he and they did pull down and destroy conceâ—ning the Pâ—elatical conforming Preachers their communion and Church government and worship by the Common-Prayer Book they do not by conformity in hearing and communion build up because if they should do so they should cause the opposite party whom he counts the enemies of the Lord to triumph that they have brought them to recantation and returning to what they had left and to blaspheme or speak evil of the holy way of endeavouring Reformation they formerly took in the day of liberty because they are now fallen into a day of trouble On the other side That this Author and those of his way being satisfied that God is calling all godly sober Christians to have nothing to do with but to separate from this generation of men that is Ministers that conform to the Common-Prayer Book and Episcopal Government and that these now hearers of them were once satisfied of the same that yet they should disobey this calling of God and hold communion with them have most just cause of offence for their so doing But I presume the godly sober Christians in the Objection were never satisfied with this way of separation which this Author saith God calls them to but though they have been for Reformation yet not for such violent practises and preaching as it may be gathered this Author hath been for as to pull up root and branch of the old form of Government to unsettle all the Ministers to set up itinerant Preachers any gifted Brethren though many of them never studied Divinity but had gotten some ability by hearing Preachers and other wayes to speak of practical points without any ability to convince gainsayers and that they should take away the frame of parochial Churches and gather Churches out of Churches which should though but a few be an entire Church within themselves for government without appeal or subordination to any other Minister or Synod that they should be tyed to use no Form no not the Lords Prayer in effect that there should be as some were wont to speak overturning overturning overturning without setling any thing making the Pastors eligible by every small company that should call themselves a Church who should admit and excommunicate by most voices censure their Pastor desert him allot him maintenance and deprive him as they saw cause Sure the godly sober Châ—istians who now are offended at this Authors separation were then offended as many of their writings then did shew and the Apology of the ejected Non-conformists lately hath shewed p 136. of the 2 d. Edition and particularly at that eminent Independent who would not have the Lords Prayer used in the prescript form of words p. 10. which and the like courses they conceive were in the day of liberty evil and occasions of the day of trouble and if persisted in likely to bring more trouble on themselves and others who neither then nor now did oâ— do approve of such rigid separation or deformation of all instead of Reformation conceiving a middle way might agree better with truth and peace They condemn such heavy censures of them that aâ—e of the opposite party as if they were the enemies of the Lord a generation of men they were called by God to have nothing to do with but to separate from them sith they are Christians of the same Faith they judge that this Author and such as acted as he seems to have done should have brought glory to God and peace to their own consciences if they had un-said those things which abusing their liberty they vented heretofoâ—e and did endeavour to promote union as they have done division and this would tend to their honour as Augustine's Retâ—actaâ—ions did and would not cause the enemies of the Lord to triumph and blaspheme but both them and all sober godly Christians to rejoyce and bless God for their so doing who are now justly offended at these Separatists pertinacy and have by their moderate conformity in hearing Ministers who preach the Gospel and joyning in the publique worship of prayer and the communion given no just cause of offence to this Author or any other Nor do they think iâ— their duty to meet together as a sepaâ—ate Church Nor do they conceive that Heb. 10 â—5 requires such assembling but that the foâ—saking thâ— assembling there meant was the forsaking the assemblâ—ng of Christâ—ans and going back from Christianity to Judaism as the whole series of the Text shews and that their joyning in the publique assemblies in England is agreeable to the precept there and that it â—ends noâ— to Apâ—stacy But the Assemblies according to the Separatists pâ—inciples are Schismatical and that spiritual Saints will be offended at them at giving just cause of Scandal nor can they expect peace by so doing Nor is that which is here made a rule 〈◊〉 that way that hath most of the crâ—ss in it right suffeâ—ings being nâ—t â—ight unless the cause be for God Sometimes the â—onforming 〈◊〉 sometimes the Popish Prâ—estâ— have been under sufferings yet I suppose this Author would not have men go their way and therefore his rule is not sale until the cause for which we are to suffer be proved to be for God Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers may be without participation with them in sin Arg. 8. That which Saints cannot do without being guilty of partaking with others in their sin is utterly unlawful for them to do But the Saints cannot attend upon the ministry of England without being guâ—lty of partaking with them in their sin Therefore The major Proposition is clearly bottom'd upon Scripture Psal. 50. â—8 Ephes. 5.7 1 Tim. 5.22 2 John 11. Revel 18.4 which mâ—ght be abundantly demonstrated were it needful Sure that God who commands me to abstain from all appearance of evil 1 Thes. 5.22 never enjoyned expects noâ— that I should be in the practice of what without sin cannot be performed by me The 〈◊〉 Pâ—â—pâ—sition That the Saints cannot attend upon the mâ—â—â—stry of England without being partakers with them in theiâ— sin will admit of a speedy dispuâ—â—h Two things are briefly to be enquired into 1. What that or those sins are we suppose the Ministers of England to be guilty of 2. How it will appear That any person's amending upon their ministâ—y renders him guilty of partaking with them therein Of the former we have already treaâ—â—d and proved beyond what any are able to say to the contrary That they are guilty of the sins of worshipping God in a way that is not of his appointment of acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian pâ—wer office or calling of opposing really the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ of using and conforming to modes and rites in worship not appointed by the Lord that have been abused to Idoâ—atry c. Nor is it denied by our conforming Brethren but with some of these things the present
of their converts are the cause thereof by their invectives begetting enmity and prejudice against them in the minds of men May it not be said to themselves Where are the souls that are converted comforted strengthened stablished by your Ministry Were not many if not most in your Churches wrought upon at first by other Preachers And if so may it not be said Ye your selves are the seal of their Ministry in the Lord nevertheless though God onely can tell exactly and fully what is the fruit of any mens Ministry yet I hope there are that can testifie their receiving good by the Ministry of some of the present Ministers and that however it be by reason of the many stumbling-blocks cast in the way God will yet have mercy on the people of England and give them hearts to receive the truth Preached to them in the love of it Sure this Authour should rather pray it may be so and encourage the Ministers to do the work of the Lord more faithfully and not weaken their hands by drawing their auditors from them As for that which he saith of the decaies of the auditors of the Ministers I joyn with him but add withall That so far as mine acquaintance or intelligence reacheth there is too great and sensible a decay of the spirit of love power and of a sound mind in the Congregational Churches of old and new England and that a spirit of bitterness consoriousness misreporting mistaking dissenters words and actions unrghteousness unpeaceableness is too abundant in them that I say nothing of their proneness to embrace Antinomianism Quakerism and other dangerous errours Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra The Lord pardon our evils and heal our breaches Yet there is one more Argument to be answered Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostacy Argument 12. That the doing whereof is one step to Apostacy is not lawful to be done But the hearing the present Ministers of England is one step to Apostacy Therefore The major Proposition will readily be granted by all The beginnings of great evils are certainly to be â—esisted Apostacy is one of the greatest evils in the world The minor or second proposition Viz. That the hearing of the present Ministers is one step to Apostacy is evident 1. It cannot be done especially by persons of Congregational principles without a relinquishment of principles owned by them as received from God That the Church of England as National is a Church of the institution of Christ That persons not called to the office of the Ministry by the Saints are rightfull Ministers of Christ must be owned and taken for granted ere the Conscience can acquiesce in the hearing the present Ministers for we suppose 't will not be asserted by those with whom we have to do that there can be a true Ministery in a false Church or that false Ministers may be heard and yet the present Ministers are Ministers in and of the national Church of England and were never solemnly deputed to that office of the suffrage of the Lords people 2ly Nor can it be done without the neglect of that duty which with others is eminently of the appointment of the Lord to secure from Apostacy instanc'd in by the Author to the Hebrews Hebr. 10.25 Not forsaking the assembling of your selves together as the manner of some is but exhorting one another and so much the more as you see the day approaching in which the duty of Saints assembling themselves together as a body distinct from the world and it's assemblies â—s also their frequent and as often as may be exhorting one another as a medium to secure them by the blessing of the Lord thereupon from a spirit of degeneracy and Apostacy from God is clearly asserted whence it undeniably follows that the hearing of the present Ministers of England being inconsistent with the constant and diligent use of the means prescribed for the preservation of the Saints in the way of God for whilst they are attending upon their teachings they cannot assemble themselves according to the prescription of God in the forementioned Scripture is at least one step to the dreadfull sin of Apostacy from God and therefore it is utterly unlawful for Saints so to do And thus far of the Twelfth Argument for the proof of the assertion under our maintenance viz. That 't is not lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England to which many others might be added but we doubt not to the truly tender and humble enquiring Christian what hath been offered will be abundantly sufficient to satisfie his Conscience in the present enquiry Answ. If by Apostasie be meant Apostatie from the living God and the Christian faith the major is granted and the minor is denied nor is there any thing tending to a shew of proof of it produced for it and if it should be meant of such Apostasie the thing is so notoriously false the hearers of such Ministers as â—e now Ministers in England having been as constant in the profession and practice of Christianity both against Popery and other ungodliness in times of persecution by Papists and at other times as other Christians in other ages that this Author would be hissed at as one extremely impudent in asserting so palpable an untruth But I conceive by his proof of the minor he means by Apostasie the relinquishing of the Congregational principles and practise Concerning which I conceive the major may be denyed it being not unlawfull but a necessary duty to depart from some of their principles and practises I mean such as are for separation in communion from dissenting Christians Yet I do not think but the Conscience may well acquiesce in the hearing of the present Ministers as teaching truth without relinquishment of the two principles owned by them as received from God I think if they will weigh what is here written they may find if not the congregational principles yet separation inferred from them to be an errour and to beget nothing but Superstition in their minds and sinfull uncharitable division in their practise Nor do I think it necessary that they which still adhere to that way of Communion need neglect the duty of meeting and exhorting one another according to Hebr. 10.25 the mistake of which is shewed in the answer to this chapter Sect. 2. They that hear the present Ministers some hours may hear other Ministers at other hours they that at one time hear them may at another time exhort one another Heretofore persons of Congregational Principles could hear in Parochial Assemblies Parochial Ministers why they may not do so still I understand not were it not that opinions of separation animated them to division and faction which the Lord amend and make them diligent to provoke one another to love and to good works I have now answered the Jury of Twelve Arguments which I have found brutum fulmen as the shooting off Ordinances without a bullet
preaching of the Gospel though 't was preached out of envy Phil. 1.15 16. To which briefly 1. There may be cause of rejoycing in respect of the issue and event of things by the wise providence of God though the means used for their production be evil and not to be abetted or complyed with In what have Christians greater cause of rejoycing than in the death of Christ yet had it been utterly unlawfull to have joyn'd in counsel with or any wayes abetted or encouraged those wicked persons that Crucified and slew him Should the Pope send some Jesuits into any remote parts of Africa to preach the Gospel to the poor Indians there here were upon some accounts ground of rejoycing yet no ground for Saints to attend upon a Jesuitical Ministry But 2ly It appears not that these Paul speaks of were not true Gospel Ministers and so it reacheth not the case in hand This being that we have proved the Ministers of England guilty of viz. and acting in the holy things of God without any commission from Christ which when our dissenting brethren prove they have we shall easily acknowledge the lawfullness of attending upon their Ministry 3ly It follows not in the least that these the Apostle speaks of were either not real Saints or not true Ministers of Christ because they are said to preach him out of envy the object whereof was not Christ for had they envyed him they would never have preached him but Paul thinking sayes he to add afflictions to my bonds which is consistent with grace and a lawfull mission to the preaching of the Gospel Yet 4ly Here is not in this Scripture the least word requiring Christians to hear them That because Paul rejoyces at their preaching therefore 't is the duty of Saints to attend upon their Ministry is such a non-sequitur as will never be made good I reply nor needs it the lawfulness to hear the present Ministers of England not the duty of the Saints to attend upon their Ministers being the thing in question and therefore it is sufficient for my purpose if I prove hence the lawfulness of hearing them though I should not prove it the Saints duty to attend on their Ministry Which I conceive may be done by this argument They in whose preaching of Christ we may rejoyce though they should not preach Christ sincerely but in pretence out of envy not good will out of contention thinking to add affliction to other Ministers bonds may be heard by the Saints lawfully But the Saints may rejoyce in the present Ministers of England their preaching of Christ though they should not preach Christ sincerely but in pretence out of envy not good will out of contention thinking to add affliction to other Ministers bonds Therefore the Saints may hear the present Ministers of England lawfully The major is grounded on this that the thing we may rejoyce in is good for which we may thank God and consequently hear which is agreeable to that of the Prophets Esai 52.7 Nahum 1.15 applyed by the Apostle Rom. 10.15 to the preaching of the Gospel who he supposeth are to be welcomed and heard The minor is proved from the Apostles example Phil. 1.15 16 17.18 That preaching of Christ that is no other then St. Paul rejoyced in and professed he would rejoyce in the Saints now may rejoyce in though it be not sincerely but in pretence out of envy not good will out of contention to add affliction to other Ministers bonds But such is the preaching Christ by the present Ministers ergo the Saints may rejoyce in it The major is not to be denyed unless it be shewed that the Apostle did evil in so rejoycing The minor is manifest in that no other exception is taken against their preaching then such as with as great reason might have nullified the joy of St. Paul in that which moved him to rejoyce In a word though personal defects and miscarriages were in the preaching of Christ yet the thing it self being good and occasioning the magnifying of Christ it is and should be matter of joy to all that love Christ. To this Argument I find the Author of the Pamphlet intituled prelatical preachers none of Christs teachers p. 45. answering thus that preaching of Christ is not to be rejoyced in without limitation because of these texts Mark 1.24 25. Luke 4.34 35.41 Acts 16.18 Acts 15.1 Gal. 5.2 4.12 Phil. 3.2 3. Acts 20.29 Psal. 50.16.18 But he sets not down the limitation he would gather thence only it may seâ—m by the texts that we are not to rejoyce in the confession of Christ or his servants by the Devils when the necessity of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses for justification is taught when hypocrites take Gods law into their mouths by professing or declaring of it but hate to be reformed Which we grant but say all these texts and the limitation thence deducible are impertinent to the present argument for as much as these do not preach Christ. Nor saith that Author in propriety and strictness of speech can Christ be said to be preached by a prelatical Ministry they justifie them that deny Christ to be the sole law-giver of his Church and so make him an Idol Which to be false is shewed in the answer to the 5th chapter of this treatise Yet saith that Author p. 46. In case such a Minister as this that preacheth by the Bishops licence should in his Doctrine or Sermon affirm Jesus Christ to be the sole law-giver unto his Churches yet in and by his very act of preaching he should deny it should the Apostle rejoyce in that preaching of Christ which is a denying him An horrible speech of monstrous absurdity and impudent malice I should not say so much of such preaching though it were by the Popes licence or the Devils instigation For though I should not rejoyce in the motive or impulsive cause by which it is done yet I would not so censure the thing it self as a denying of Christ. But how the receiving of a license from a Protestant Bishop to preach the Gospel within his Diocess and preaching there by vertue of it according to the order established by the law of the land should be a denying of Christs legislative power is to me incomprehensible and to use that Authors phrasifying the first born of absurdities I should rejoyce and bless God to obtain such power upon justifiable conditions But to our Author His First answer is not to the purpose For rejoycing in the Ministers preaching of Christ or those that preached out of envy is not a rejoycing in the good event by evil means but in a good event by good means the preaching Christ is a good thing in which the Apostle and we rejoyce and the effect is good although the motive and end of the preachers be evil The putting of Christ to death was in it self evil and not to be rejoyced in though the effect of it be good and to be
treasure found in a dunghill or a pearl brought by an unworthy person 8. If the word of God preached by the present Ministers may be effectual for that good which is the end wherefore it is preached then it may be lawfully heard from them or rather ought to be heard according to that precept James 1.21 Receive with meekness the ingraffed word which is able to save your souls 1 Pet. 2.1 2. Desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby But the word of God preached by the present Ministers may be thus effectual For the efficacy of it comes not from the personal qualifications of the Preacher but from the verity of it it 's derivation from God his promise and blessing and however Sepatists have declaimed against such Ministers and suggested to their Partisans as if no good could be gotten by hearing them yet experience hath proved the contrary and therefore they are to be heard Finis dat mediis ordinem mensuram amabilitatem The hearing of them is an ordinary means of hearers edification in the faith and obedience of Christ and therefore is not unlawful but to be made use of 9. That is not unlawfull the neglect of which may be the occasion and reason of a mans condemnation it is the condemnation of a person John 3.20 that he comes not to the light But the present Ministers holding forth the light mens not hearing them is not coming to the light and so much the more dangerous if by not hearing them they are deprived of any other to bring the light to them as it may and perhaps doth fall out at some times and in some places Therefore the neglect of hearing them may be the occasion and reason of a persons condemnation and so a damnable sin in them that refuse to hear them and in those that deter others from hearing them 10. The words of Peter John 6.68 Lord to whom shall we go thou hast the words of eternal life include in them this proposition We may go to them as to Teachers of us who have the words of eternal life But the present Ministers who teach the Gospel of Christ have the words of eternal life for it contains his words and is the power of God to salvation from the matter of it Rom. 1.16 17. Mighty through God to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ 2 Cor. 10.4 5. Therefore we may go to the present Ministers who teach the Gospel of Christ and hear them as our Teachers 11. The Apostle Paul 1 Thâ—s 2.13 writes thus For this cause also thank we God without ceasing because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us ye received 〈◊〉 not as the words of men but as it is in tâ—â—th the woâ—d of God which effectually worketh also in you that believe Whence I thus argue If the word of God be to be heard as his word and not as the word of men then it is sufficient for right hearing that we attend to the preaching of it without consideration of the personal qualifications of the men that deliver it and consequently we need not decline hearing of Preachers that deliver it though otherwise liable to exceptions yea it is our duty to hear any men preach it without questioning any thing but whether it be the word of God and it is evil to refuse to hear it because of our disaffection and prejudice against the Preachers and accordingly it is enough to justifie the hearing of the present Ministers that they preach the word of God and that we hear them as teaching it For quatenus ipsum incâ—udes de omni if we may yea ought to hear the word of God as Gods word we may and ought to hear it at any time from any person and if we do not hear it under this consideration we hear amiss and worship not God in hearing But the word of God is to be heard as Gods word as is evident from St. Pauls thanksgiving that the Thessalonians so heard it and not as the word of men though Preached by himself who ascribes the efficacy of it to this consideration in their hearing Therefore it is sufficient for right hearing that we attend to the Preaching of Gods word without consideration of the personal qualifications of them that deliver it and consequently we may rightly hear the present Ministers Preaching Gods word though without such personal qualifications as are required of them 12. The same is further proved by the holy Ghosts approbation of the practice of the Beraeans neighbours to the Thessalonians Acts 17.11 12. These were more noble then those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so therefore many of them believed Whence I argue They may be right hearers of the present Ministers who may hear them as the Beraeans did which proposition is confirmed in that the holy Ghost gives them the commendation of right hearers in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily whether the things taught by St. Paul were agreeable thereto without examining his commission to Preach or other qualifications of his person yea and this is made the reason of their believing and therefore the word of God is sufficient to beget faith because of it's agreeableness to the Scripture and hath most success when hearers hear it with respect to it's congruity to the holy Scripture and not because delivered by such men as they approve of But thus may Christians hear the present Ministers of England and therefore may be right hearers of the present Ministers and consequently they that do so do lawfully hear them and they that hear their Ministers out of other particular respects and not in this manner hear not rightly nor doth their hearing edifie them in the faith of Christ but tends to inordinate glorying in men and to division consequent thereon 13. From our Lord Christs word Luke 9.49 50. And John answered and said Master we saw one caâ—ting out devils in thy name and we forbade him becaâ—se he followeâ—h not with us And Jesus said into him Forbid him not for he that is not against us is for us I gather That Christ would not have him forbidden to Preach who Preached in his name though he were not joyned to Christs disciples For though the acting in Christs name expressed 〈◊〉 onely using his name to expell devils yet by using his name there was some Preaching of Christ and the words Mark 9.39 For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me and the occasion both Mark 9.37 and Luke 9.48 immediately foregoing Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name receiveth me and whosoever shall receive me receiveth not me but him that sent me and Christs reason Forbid him not for he that is not against us is
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