said to be the Bodies of their Governours Whether the Apostles were the Heads of the Church Ojections answered Mr. T. his Exceptions thereunto considered 1 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13. expounded Whether the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church Isa 44. 28. explained The Government of the Church and State proved distinct WE further manifest in S. T. That the present Ministers deny the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ thus 3dly Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office But the present Ministers of Engl. do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ Therefore To which Mr. T. Sect. 11. The Author of S. T. speaks darkly and thence falls to conjecturing what I mean by the Head of the Church Answ To satisfie this Animadverter once for all By the Head of the Church I mean the King and Bishops that as Heads and Law-givers thereunto assume unto themselves a power to institute Laws and Ordinances of their own and create Officers in the Church which were never of the appointment of Christ which Danaeus and others make to be some of the essential parts of Church-Government and they are indeed so And if the owning such an Head-ship be not a denial of his Kingly Authority I must profess I know not what is This Mr. T. denies But 1. without giving us the least reason of his so doing 2. In contradiction to what is affirmed by himself p. 119. chap. 4. of his Theodulia 3. 'T is avowedly condemned by many sober judicious Protestant Writers and Churches as Rivet Calvin c. He tells us 2dly That no such Headship is owned by the present Ministers as the Pope claims Answ 1. The question is not whether such an Headship be owned by them as the Pope assumes but whether such an one as is not a denial of the Soveraignty of Christ 2. With respect to the extent thereof it is acknowledged there is no such Headship owned by them The King is not Universal Monarch of the Church Yet 3. For the kind of it it is the same i. e. Henry the 8th having cast off the Popes supremacy rests himself with it in his own Dominions Hence the learned Fuller in his History of the Church of England tells us That the King became the Popes heir at Law And it was indeed evidently so 1. Did the Pope claim a right to that Title Summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo The Supream Head of the Church under Christ 2. Did he account himself the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Power 3. Did he undertake to make and dispense Laws pro libitu according as he saw meet So did H. 8. and his Successors the Kings of England with respect to the Church of England The Title of Supream Head or Governour under Christ is given to them They are the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction it being by Statute Law annexed to the Crown The Bishops Courts ought to be held all Processes to go out in their Name With a Synod of Priests or without sometimes they can make and dispense with Laws for the binding or loosing of the Members of the Church thereof Hear what the learned Rivet saith Explic. Decal Edit 2. p. 203. touching this matter taxing Bishop Gardener for extolling the Kings Primacy For he that did as yet nourish the Doctrine of the Papacy as after it appeared did erect a new Papacy in the person of the King And reverend Mr. Calvin And at this day saith he how many are there in the Papacy that heap upon Kings whatsoever right and power they can possible so that there may not be any Dispute of Religion but this power should be in one King to Decree according to his own pleasure whatsoever he list and that should remain fixed without controversie They that at first so much extolled H. King of England certainly they were inconsiderate men gave unto him Supream power of all things and this grievously wounded me alwayes for they were Blasphemers and yet the present Ministers avow the same when they called him The Supream Head of the Church under Christ Thus he in Amos 7. 13. What this Animadverter saith Hart the Jesuite acknowledgeth of the Pope with respect to the whole Church is for the most part acknowledged by the present Ministers of the King with respect to the Church of England The Power which we mean to the Pope the King and Arch-Bishop by this Title of the Supream Head is that the Government of the whole Church of Christ throughout the World of the Church of England doth depend of him In him doth lie the power of judging and determining causes of Faith of ruling Councils or National Synods as President and ratifying their Decrees of Ordering and Confirming Bishops and Pastors of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the Coasts of the Earth all the parts of the Nation Of reconciling any that are Excommunicate of Excommunicaâ—ing Suspending or inflicting other Censures and Penalties on any that offend Finally all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ of England which whilst the Animadverter goes about to insinuate as not appertaining to the King he advanceth himself against the Royal Prerogatives of his Crown and Dignity Nor doth the Explanation mentioned Artic. 34. and 37. contradict what we have asserted Jurisdiction and Power of exteriour Government is acknowledged to belong to him which comprehends the substance of what we are contending for In what follows we are not in the least concerned we abhor the Primacy of the Papal Antichrist we deny not the Kings Headship and Supremacy over the Church of England by the fundamental Laws of the Nation it appertains to him We only infer from hence 1st That the Church of England is no true Church because Headed by some one else besides Christ 2dly That whilst the present Ministers account it Christ's Church and own another Head over it besides himself they deny his Soveraignty and Kingship they make another King over it and thereâ—y really unking him We add in S. T. as a proof of the Major Proposition If the assertion of another King in Engl. that as the Head thereof hath power of making and giving forth Laws to the free born Subjects therein be a denial of his Kingly authority as no doubt it is the Major cannot be denied If Christ be the alone King of his Church as such he is its alone Head and Lawgiver If he hath not by any Statute-Law established any other Headship in and over his Church to act in the holy things of God from and under him besides himself the assertion of such a Headship carries with it a contempt and denial of his Authority If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ let us know when and were it was Instituted Whether such a Dominion and
into the Jewish Synagogues c. we shall speak in its proper place Though we have no command to separate from the true Worship of God and the professors of the true Faith walking suitable thereunto yet we have express precepts to have no communion in Worship that is of the devising of man the Pope Antichrist with persons as members of the same Body and that have the very Lineaments of Satan the portraiture of Hell upon them with whom Christ doth not will not walk The Scriptures but now instanced in evince as much Rev. 18. 4. commands separation from a false Church false either in constitution or by apostacy The Church of England Rome is so as we have proved and the false Worship thereof of this we have already spoken Let the Reader seriously consider the Scriptures he will find it to be so In a word the Babylon mentioned our Animadverter will grant is the Roman Church Chap. 17. 1 2 3. The scarlet coloured Beast is th Civil Power not once represented under the notion of Beasts Dan. 7. 3 17. by which she hath ever been supported from the beginning The seven Heads are the seven sorts of Governments viz. Kings Consuls Dictators Decemvirs Tribunes Caesars Christian Emperors and the seven Mountains upon which Rome was built Rev. 17. 9 10. The ten Horns are the ten Kingdoms which her abominations and filthiness of her fornications did overflow of which England was one as is known and generally granted vers 12 13. The coming out of her is a separation from the whole of her Abominations Ministry Rites Inventions which if we do not we come not out of her she hath in the ten Kingdoms by the power of the Civil Magistrate that supported her erected and by external force and violence compelled persons to bow down to with respect hereunto she is represented as drunk with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs of Jesus This is all we plead for from this Scripture We would not have the Institutions Inventions of this old Bawd and bloody Strumpet imposed upon us and subjected to as if from Christ Let the Animadverter or any one for him prove the Hierarchy of Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Chapters c. their Parish-Churches as such Organs Singing-Service bowing before Altars Candles there placed Copes holy Vestments Service-Book to be of the Institution of Christ and we are ready to stoop to them and own those that practise them but if they have no other foundation but what â—he Mother of Harlots compelled the Civil Powers to give them when she rid them at her pleasure and made them serve her Lusts to the muâ—thering of millions of the Servants of Christ in the Nations as most certain it is they have not as it would be the honour of the chief Rulers of the Nations to eradicate them they remaining as a badge of their old slavery to the worst of Strumpets So it s eminently the duty of the Children of God by virtue of express precept from this Scripture in the mean while whatever they may suffer to separate from them The Church of England i. e. the best and most enlightned amongst the chief of the Nation thought it their duty in dayes past to separate from the Doctrine of the Papacy and some of her Trinkets to cast over-board we plead but for separation from her Discipline and Ministry and the rejection of the rest of her fopperies that as we profess our selves Christians we may have not the Canons of Rome but the Laws of our dear Lord for our Rule and sole guide in this matter which one would think above many Mr. T. might permit one peaceably to do 1 Cor. 5. 12 13. Phil. 1. 5. Act. 2. 41. and 17. 4. were brought to prove it the duty of Saints as such to walk together distinct and apart from the world not to distinguish of the duties of Pastors and People nor to prove any written Church-Covenant which we were not treating of So that in what follows in this Sect. we are not at all concerned We have thrown no dirt upon the face of the Church of England as he is pleased to talk we only tell her what diâ—t and filth is there that evety body sees but her Admirers Nor are we solicitous touching his throwing dirt in the face of the separated Churches from the Writings of any railing false accusers God will plead their Cause and bring forth their Righteousness in the fit season The third Institution of Christ mentioned in S. T. is this That he hath intrusted his particular Churches with power for the carrying on the Worship of his House to choose Officers admit Members excommunicate Offenders Acts 1. 23. and 6. 3 5. and 14. 23. 2 Cor. 8. 19. Mat. 18. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 4. The Ministers of the Church of England own not conform not to this Institution of Christ we manifest in the said Treatise Mr. T. his Reply hereunto is 1. The Election Acts 1. 23. was of an Apostle and that by Lot and contains no Institution of Christ we are bound to follow Answ 1. This last is Mr. T. his dictate which 't is fit should be rejected till he proves it especially considering that the Churches for some hundreds of years afterwards chose their own Officers 2. Though it was the Election of the Apostle yet he was I hope an Officer of Christ and that to the Churches 3. His being chosen by Lots doth not evince that he was not chosen by the Church they gave forth the Lots seems to be expressive of the way they took to manifest the person whom they chose What he hath said of Acts 6. 3 5. and 14. 23. is already answered The Election 2 Cor. 8. 19. being of a person imployed in service by them manifests that none are to do services for the Church but by their appointment Of Mat. 18. 17. we have at large spoken already and vindicated it from Mr. T. his Exceptions That 1 Cor. 5. 5. is more than Excommunication practised by the Churches of the Saints he cannot prove his turning Mat. 18. 17. also to another sence is an argument of his denial of any such Institution of Christ to be practised by the Churches in the World 1st That 'T is a Church-Act is evident from the words vers 4 5. The Church is to be gathered together for this end to deliver the Incestuous person over to Satan But no Church saith Mr. T. had power over unclean Spirits to command them to cruciat the Bodies of persons Therefore say we that cannot be here intended 2dly The Church comes together to do that which Paul condemns them that they had not done before stirrs them up to set about vers 2. Now it had been absurd to have condemned them for not doing that which they had no power or Authority to do 3dly That which he calls here a delivering to Satan he calls a purging out from among them the old leaven vers 7. 4thly To the working of
nor the practice of them in the Worship of God under the Old Testament do at all hinder them from depending on the meer Institution of Jesus Christ as to those especial ends of the glory of God in and by himself and the edification of his Church in the Faith which is in him whereunto he hath appointed them nor as unto the special manner of their performance which he requireth in which respects they are to be observed on the account of his Authority and Command only Mat. 17. 5. 28. 20. John 16. 23 24. Heb. 3. 4 5 6. Eph. 1. 22. 2. 20 21 22. Heb. 12. 25. In the explication whereof he speaketh after this wise The principal thing we are to aim at in the whole Worship of God is the discharge of that duty which we owe to Jesus Christ the King and Head of the Church Heb. 3. 6. 1 Tim. 3. 15. This we cannot do unless we consider his Authority as the formal reason and cause of our observance of all that we do therein If we perform any thing in the Worship of God on any other account it is no part of our obedience unto him and so we can neither expect his Grace to assist us nor have we his Promise to accept us therein for that he hath annexed unto our doing and observing what ever he hath commanded and that because he hath commanded us Matth. 28. 20. This promised Presence respects only the observance of his Commands Some men are apt to look on this Authority of Christ as that which hath the least influence into what they do If in any of his Institutions they find any thing that is suited or agreeable to the Light of Nature as Ecclesiastical Societies the Government of the Church and the like they say are they suppose and contend that that is the ground on which they are to be attended unto and so are to be regulated accordingly The interposition of his Authority they will allow only in the Sacraments which have no light in Reason or Nature so desirous are some to have as little to do with Christ as they can even in the things that concern the Worship of God But it would be somewhat strange that if what the Lord Christ hath appointed iâ— his Church to be observed in particular in an especial manner for special ends of his own hath in the general nature of it an agreement with what in like cases the Light of Nature seems to direct unto that therefore his Authority is not to be considered as the sole immediate reason of our performance of it But it is evident First that our Lord Jesus Christ being the King and Head of his Church the Lord over the House of God nothing is to be done therein but with respect unto his Authority Mat. 17. 5. Eph. 4. 15. 2. 20 21. Secondly and that therefore the suitableness of any thing to right Reason or the Light of Nature is no ground for a Church-observation of it unless it be also appointed and commanded in especial by Jesus Christ Thirdly That being so appointed and commanded it becomes an especial Institution of his and as such is to be observed so that in all things that are done or to be done with respect unto the Worship of God in the Church the Authority of Christ is alway principally to be considered and every thing to be observed is commanded by him without which consideration it hath no place in the Worship of God Thus far he with convincing brightness and evidence 'T is true Mr. T. tells us there are some particularities which God hath tied us to in the New Testament in hearing But of what nature they are he expresly tells us not Whether such as do constitute it New-Testament-Worship without which it is not or cannot be accounted to be so The Scriptures cited by him are not wholly strangers to such a thing First Mat. 17. 5. fairly intimates that what ever is to be done in the New-Testament-Worship is to be done solely upon the Authority of Christ In v. 2. we have an account of Christ's transfiguration before Peter James and John Vers 3. Moses and Elias appear talking with him Moses was the great Lawgiver to the Old-Testament-Church Deut. 33. 21. i. e. in the portion or inheritance which Moses the Lawgiver according to the Command God had given to the Gadites Elias was the great Reformer of the Church in the dayes of Jezebels Apostacy from God men of great renown in their day Peter and the rest of them being amazed cryes out It is good for us to be here let us make three Tabernacles one for thee one for Moses and one for Elias Whereby he seems to equalize them with Christ each of them a tabernacle v. 4. What saith the voice of God v. 6. While he yet spake behold a bright cloud overshadowed them and behold a voice out of the cloud which said This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him And Mark tells us chap. 9. 9. That suddenly when they looked about they saw none but Jesus Moses and Elias were vanished and gone The intendment of the whole seems to be this That though betwixt Christ Moses and Elias there was a sweet coalescency and agreement they talked together yet in the Worship of God under the Gospel not Moses nor Elias but only Christ is to be hearkned and attended unto Therefore but a reasonable postulatum that the whole of the Worship of Christ in the times of the Gospel be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New-Testament He being appointed and deputed by the Father solely to be attended unto for Laws and Directions touching it for which also he came from the bosome of the Father John 1. 18. By whom he hath spoken to us in these last dayes Heb. 1. 2. To whom fulness of Power and Authority is delegated by the Father Mat. 28. 18. From whence the Commission to the Apostles for preaching the Gospel v. 20. doth originally spring and consequently our hearing or attending upon Preachers in that work is to take its measure from the Laws and Statutes which as Lord of the Family he hath given forth thereabout for his Houshold to observe and do Nor 2dly doth Luk. 10. 16. cited in the second place by this Animadverter serve to any other purpose but to cut the throat of the cause he hath at present undertaken the management of They are the words of Christ unto the Seventy whom he sent two and two before his face v. 1. and prove thus much That hearing those that are sent out by Christ is a positive Institution of his and such an Institution that therein we hear him which proves not the lawfulness of attending upon the Ministry of such as act not by vertue of any Authority received from him but the contrary If the Argument Christ here useth be valid That he who heareth them whom he sends in his Name heareth him and he
Luther ought not to be severed from the choosing Ecclesiastical Persons 'T is tyranny to do so saith Bullinger Let the judicious Reader peruse the words of the rest recited in S. T. and he will be convinced that they speak home to the matter in hand and that Mr. T. doth but trifle whilest he labours to avoid their Testimony That there is nothing like this Institution of Christ practised amongst the Ministers of the Church of England is known And Mr. T. acknowledgeth That by reason of the continuance in force of so much of the Popes Canon Law things are far otherwise than they should be Now this is that we say A non-hearkening to the Institutions and Laws of Christ with an imbracement and subjection to the Cannon-Law of Antichrist is a real denial of Christs Kingly Authority This the Ministers of England are guilty of The latter our Animadverter hath the ingenuity to confess the former we have proved What difficulties Congregational men have found in the rectifying these things besides what they have ground to expect in any work of God in which 't is no new thing to find Satan at our right hand to resist us I know not That Separation and Election by the Churches makes things worse than they are is a plain calumny against the known experience of them all We proceed and in S. T. instance a sixth Institution of Christ viz. 6thly That Saints may Prophesie one by one and ought to admonisy exhort and build up one another in their most holy Faith 1 Cor. 14. 40. Rom. 8. 26. and 12. 6. 1 Cor. 4. 17. and 5. 4. and 11. 23. Ephes 4. 7 11 12. 1 Tim. 2. 1. and 3. 15. Jude 20. 1 Cor. 12. 7 11. Mat. 25. 24. 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. 1 Cor. 12. 15. and 14. 12 24. Ephes 4. 3 7 15 16. Acts 2. 42. Rom. 15. 14. Ephes 5. 19. Col. 3. 16. 1 Thes 5. 14. 2 Thes 3. 15. Heb. 3. 13. to which might be added the frequent Examples of the Saints in the Old and New Testament 2 Chr. 17. 7 8 9. John 2. 11. Mal. 3. 16. Luke 4. 16. Acts 13. 15. 1 Cor. 14. 24 to 34. and the practice of the Primitive Church as witness Origen in his Epistle to Celsum Tertullian in his Apol. Justin Martyr in his Apol. and many others This Institution of Christ the present Ministers trample under foot rail against oppose reproach do all they can to cause to perish from amongst the people of Christ To which Mr. T. Sect. 8. upon the matter speaks not one woâ—d in a way of contradiction tells us Prophesying was an extraordinary gift by an immediate Revelation of the Spirit whereby some hidden thing is discovered and this prophesying the Ministers of England neither do nor can hinder none that he knows of have this gift Answ 1. Were all this granted it would not at all advantage him There is a Prophesying that was as he saith an extraordinary gift But that is not the Prophesying as he knows we are treating of but a speaking to men to edification exhortation and comfort This we say is an Institution of Christ bottom'd upon the forecited Scriptures which notwithstanding the present Ministers of England oppose and deny Are not these things so Is Mr. T. able to disprove them Doth he attempt to do so nothing less A very fardle of Contradictions not worth the mentioning is the whole of what he is pleased to return in Answer hereunto one while the restraint of such exercises is no transgression of Christ's Command and yet immediately adds that the duties in the Texts ought to be cherished furthered and such meetings countenanced Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo An Institution of Christ he denies not this to be nor that it is not hearkened to but rejected opposed by the present Ministers His imputing practises to us tending to Sedition and Disturbance very ill becomes him The whole Nation is under the conviction of the contrary 'T is no more than what of old was charged upon the Saints A very false crimination for which I advise him that he pray to God to give him repentance unto Life A 7th Institution of Christ remarked in S. T. is this That nothing be offered up to God but what is of his own prescription divine and spiritual without affectation of Legal Shadows John 4. 24. Of worldly Pomp or carnal Excellency 2 Cor. 1. 12. and 2. 17. 1 Cor. 2. 12. and 6. 13. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Isa 33. 22. Jam. 4. 12. Mat. 15. 6 9. Heb. 8. 5. 1 King 13. 33. and 12. 13. Jer. 7. 31. Numb 15. 39. Deut. 12. 1. 4. 31. This the Ministers of England conform not to they act what is contrary thereunto whilst they offer up a Service not of his prescription affect Legal Shadows worldly Pomp and carnal Excellency Mâ— T. replies Sect. 9. Where God hath left us free not forbidding us to use a prescript form of words Musick in the praising of God there we may so do Answ 1. This is such a shameful petitio principii or begging the thing in question that he could not sure write without blushing 2dly Contrary to what he hath in other Treatises formerly asserted 3dly Directly opposite to some of the Scriptures instanced in which he takes no notice of 4thly An open door for the Introduction of all the Popish trinkets and fopperies 5thly A most Papistical assertion generally exploded by Protestant Writers when they dispute against the Papists who affirm that an Argument from the authority of the Scripture negatively is valid i. e. 't is not commanded in Scripture not to be proved thence therefore not to be believed nor practised as Sutcliffe argues against Bellarmine de Pontif. l. 2. c. 9. p. 134 135 and others So that notwithstanding what Mr. T. is able to say to the contrary the present Ministers of Engl. refuse to subject to despise oppose persecute the Orders and Institutions of Christ in his House and therefore deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office We proceed in S. T. to the removing an Objection which is thus proposed But perhaps to these things some may say These are but small matters good men differ among themselves herein To which we Answer 1. That they are part of the Instituted Worship of God hath already been proved To say that any part thereof is a small matter is no small derogation to the wisdom of him who instituted it To this Mr. T. Sect. 10. Replies 1st Though nothing commanded by God is small yet some things are comparatively small Mat. 23. 23. Answ 1. Christ speaks not of Gospel-Institutions of which we are treating But 2. Of Commandments and Ceremonies that were then drawing apace to their period and full point 3. He saiâ—h not that they were so small that they ought not to be observed but the contrary 4. The Appointments instanced in by us are of such import as that in them the visible Kingship of Christ in and
c. that never entred into the heart of Christ the judicious Reader will easily from what we have already offered discern the impertinency of Ezra 6. 7. and 7. 13. Dan. 3. 29. and 6. 26. to the present design 'T is true as he saith Christianity alters not civil Relations or Estates 1 Cor. 7. 24. And 't is as true that if in the time of my infidelity I have been the servant of men that are my Political Masters with respect to Worship though I am whilst I continue their servant to perform faithful service to them with respect to things Civil yet am I not to own them or subject to them as my Lords Governours with respect to the Service of God therein one only being my Lord and Master viz. Christ 2. I say not that all the Kings of Israel were Types of Christ but that the Kings of Israel were so i. e. some of them nor do I restrain the word Israel to the ten Tribes but to the twelve headed by David Solomon a pair of eminent Types of the Messiah That Christ and the Apostles yeelded subjection to Civil Powers with respect to things sacred of which this Animadverter must speak or he speaks impertinently is a gross mistake unworthy so learned a person We say in S. T. 3dly That the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church is false God was its alone Head and King Hence their Historian saith Their Government was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when they would needs choose a King God said They rejected him to whom even as to their Political Head a Shekel was paid yearly as a Tribute called the Shekel of the Sanctuary True indeed as they were a Political Body they had visible Political Governours but that these had any Headship over them to make any Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matter relating to Worship will never be proved To which Mr. T. replies 1. That the Church of Israel was different from the Kingdom of Israel is one of the proper opinions of those who would establish from that example an Ecclesiastical Independent Government in the Church distinct from the Civil Government of the State Answ 1. 'T is no matter whose opinion 't is if Truth it ought to be imbraced 2. That there is a real and formal distinction betwixt the two Societies Church and Common-wealth is at large proved by several As Mr. Gillespy in his Aarons Rod Blossoming b. 1. c. 3. The Assembly in their Jus Divinum Hear their Reasons p. 88 89. 1st The Society of the Church is only Christ's and not the Civil Magistrates it s his House and he hath no Vicar under him as is abundantly proved by Mr. Rutherford in his Divine Right of Church-Government Chap. 27. Q. 23. Pag. 595 to 647. 2dly The Officers Ecclesiastical are Christ's Officers not the Magistrates 1 Cor. 4. 1. Ephes 4. 8 10 11. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 3dly These Officers are elected and ordained by the Church without Commission from the Civil Magistrate by virtue of Christs Ordinance and in his Name Acts 6. 3 4. with 14. 23. 1 Tim. 4. 14. with Acts 13. 1 2 3 4. 4thly The Church meets not as Civil Judicatories for Civil Acts of Government but as Spiritual Assembles for such as are spiritual viz. Preaching 5thly Should not these two Societies be acknowledged to be really and essentially distinct from one another several gross absâ—rdities would follow As 1. Then there can be no Common-wealth where there is not a Church but this is contrary to all experience Heathens have Common-wealths yet no Church 2. Then there may be Church-Officers elected where there is no Church seeing there are Magistrates where there is no Church 3. Then those Magistrates where there is no Church are no Magistrates And if so then the Church is the formal constituting Cause of Magistrates 4. Then the Common-wealth as the Common-wealth is the Church and the Church as the Church is the Common-wealth 5. Then all that are Members of the Common-wealth are because so Members of the Church 6. Then the Common-wealth being formally the same with the Church is as Common-wealth the Mystical Body of Christ 7. Then the Officers of the Church are the Officers of the Common-wealth the power of the Keys gives them right to the Civil Sword and consequently the Ministers of the Gospel as such are Justices of the peace All which how absurd let the world judge He adds 2dly That Solomon and other Kings did exercise power over Ecclesiastical persons is evident because he deposed Abiathar Answ 1. Who denies it How this proves the power of the Kings of Israel as Heads of the Church to innovate in Worship which is the thing to be proved I know not Hic labor hoc opus est And Mr. T. hath more wit than seriously to attempt it 2. Solomon deposed Abiathar not as High Pontifee or Head of the Church for male administration in Church-affairs but as King of Israel for treason against the Common-wealth in the business of Adonijah Ergo Solomon was the Head of the Church of Israel risum teneatis amici Of 2 Chr. 29. 30 and 30. 2. which he produceth to prove That the Kings of Israel had power in Ecclesiastical things we have already spoken What follows in this 14th Sect. is not worthy our spotting paper with the repetition of 1. He grants That God was the alone Head and King of the Church of Israel with respect to power Legislative to assign what Faith Worship Judicatories and what other things were necessary for that Congregation all which solely appertained to him which is all we need contend for The Kings of Israel had not any Legislative power with respect to these he grants from the power of these Kings then it cannot be argued that any have power now to innovate in matters of Faith and Worship they are not Heads of the Church invested with authority to introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship as such nor had the Kings of Israel any such Authority Jam sumus ergo pares nec ab uno dissidet alter 2. What he talks of Kingly Government we are not at all concerned in All that we assert in S. T. is that Josephus saith Their Government was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Theocracie that when they choose a King they rejected God 1 Kings 8. 17. which when he attempts the confutation of we may attend him 3. That a Shekel was yearly paid to the Lord Ex. 30. 13. which continued to the destruction of Jerusalem Josep l. 7. c. 28. of the Jewish Wars he grants that it was paid to him as their Political Head he denies Now though this be not of any moment as to our present concern therein yet the truth thereof is easily demonstrated 1. It was paid to the Lord in token of their thankfulness for his delivering them from the Egyptian yoke which he did as their Political Head 2. None were
He tells us That the Prophets Isa 49. 4. he should have said Christ for the Prophet there personates Christ 53. 1. and Christ John 12. 37 38. had the same success Asnw False and untrue that they had not that success as was desirable is true that it was rare to hear of one soul converted by them our Animadverter cannot prove What he cites from Mr. Robbinson is directly against what it is the good pleasure of Mr. T. to plead for he saith The Ministers that convert Souls may be said to be sent of God We affirm that this is rarely if at all found to be the attendment of the present Ministers preaching and all that know any thing know it to be true Nor indeed do I know how upon their Principles they can preach the Doctrine of Conversion when they reckon and account all those to whom they preach to be Church-Members i. e. such as are converted already for of such only is the Kingdom of Heaven or Gospel-Church-State John 3. A fourth Character of false Prophets instanced in is That they prophesie placentia smooth things according to the desires tempers and lusts of men to the pleasing of whom they addict themselves Jer. 6. 14. 27. 9. Ezek. 13. 10 11. This it 's said the present Ministers have been are guilty of which whilst they do they cannot be the Servants of Christ Gal. 1. 10. In answer to which Mr. T. tells us Sect. 5. what Mr. Gataker saith upon Jer. 6. 14. which is not at all opposite to what is affirmed by us nor is that which is afterward added by himself let it be granted that the false prophets told them that they should not serve the King of Babylon that all should be well notwithstanding what Gods Prophets told them the false prophets knew these things would please the people and therefore they gave them forth And this is called Ezek 13. 10 11. Daubing with untempered morter Upon which Scripture Mr. Greenhil observes that it 's a clear Argument of a blind and false Teacher to speak things answerable to the humours and corruptions of men This Mr. T. attempts not to disprove That the Ministers of England are guilty hereof he grants A fifth Character of a false prophet mentioned in S. T. is That they are greedy dogs that can never have enough and look every man for his gain from his quarter Isa 56. 11. seeking and serving themselves in their ministration Ezek. 13. 19. Mic. 3. 5 11. The present Ministers of England do so Their gaping after preferment manifests as much To which Mr. T. Sect. 6. replies 1st Isa 56. 11. may be understood as well of the Civil Magistrate as the Minister 't is not a character of a false Prophet Answ 1. Of this you have only his say-so for proof 2. It appertains to the Prophets to admonish the people of their sins Isa 58. 1. and forewarn them of evils approaching Ezek. 3. 18 19. the neglect whereof is charged upon the Watchmen in the Text under the notion of dumb dogs that cannot bark v. 10. an evident demonstration that they are Prophets that are spoken of v. 11. 3. The generality of Expositors interpret the words of them 4. That they should be Prophets that are there characterized and not false prophets is a vanity once to imagine They are sure no character of true Prophets these were men of another complection and therefore must be a description of them that are false 2. He grants that Ezek. 13. 19. Mich. 3. 5 11. characterize false prophets But the proper character of them as such is not their prophesying for handfuls of Barley or preparing War against them that put not into their mouths but that they polluted God among his people by lying to them that they make them to err Answ Seriously Mr. T. is a bold man who dares to separate what God hath joyned together and out-face the Spirit of the Highest when he bears testimony against him Let the Reader seriously peruse the Scriptures and he will be led captive to the belief of the truth of the Suggestion Will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of Barley q. d. pollute me ye do by your ceremonies inventions prophesies of your own heart and ye do it for reward and ye slay the Souls that should not die by raising persecution against them who will not receive your lies submit to your ceremonies inventions looking after gain and persecuting such as put not into their mouths he will plainly see is made equally Mich. 3. 5 11. the character of the Prophets spoken of as their causing the people to erx Ribera though a Jesuite is forced to acknowledge as much in his Comment on the place In what follows we are but little concerned We manifest in S. T. That the present Ministers have this character of false prophets upon them 1. From their removing from places of less to places of greater value Mr. T. replies 1. This may be objected to the Pastors of the Congregational Churches Answ 1. This is but a recrimination no answer 2. This hath been but rarely if at all practised by them 3. Never without the consent of the Churches as I know of to which they were related upon the account of greater opportunity of Service for God as they judged If otherwise 4. let the individulas plead for themselves I shall never be their Advocate 2. This may be upon just cause of it self it proves not a covetous mind Answ 1. We grant it but outward advantages and emoluments are no just cause 2. Their removal from places of less to greater profits seldom or never from greater to less is no small Argument of such a frame of Spirit which being their constant practice men may righteously judge of 3. From their persecuting persons that cannot in Conscience put into their mouths by imprisoning ruining them and their Families which 't is known they do What Mr. T. discourseth in a way of justifying them in their so doing till he produce a Scripture Warrant for what he undertakes the defence of we are not obliged to take notice of it I am sorry to find him an Advocate of such cruelties Sect. 3. A 6th 7th 8th Character of false Prophets found upon the present Ministers Mat. 7. 15. Rev. 13. 11. opened and explained The second Beast Rev. 13. and false prophet Rev. 19. are the same proved THE sixth Character of false Prophets instanced in is this That they sadden the hearts of the Righteous Ezek. 13. 22. This we say they do by prophaning the Name and Ordinances of God by their subjecting to the ceremonies and inventions of men To which Mr. T. adjoyns 'T is granted that sadning the hearts of the Righteous by lies is a Character of a false prophet but the Author omits by lies Answ That by lies is meant the inventions of men introduced into the Worship of God we have already manifested that by their supporting of subjection hereunto
contradists himself for in chap. 5. p. 40. he hath said That kneeling at the Lords Supper is one peg beneath the adoration of the Breaden God he will not affirm but here he saith 't is an adoration in by or before the Creature respectivè or with relation to the Creature Answ 1. Very good and I say so still nor am I able to discern the least contradiction betwixt these two assertions The present Ministers may not worship the Popish Breaden God as the Papists do and yet worship the true God in by or before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature His pittiful jibes are beneath â—e to take notice of The Idolatry in kneeling at the Sacrament is to be referred to the second kind of Idolatry we at the beginning mentioned it being a way of adoration enjoyned by man not commanded by the Lord and every thing beside the Commandment is an Idol hath been an hitherto received Maxime But it cannot be this kind of Idolatry saith Mr. T. for kneeling in prayer to God is appointed by him Answ 1. This is false I no where find any such appointment exclusive of any other posture 2. Impertinent We are not treating of kneeling in prayer but in receiving the Sacrament Where hath God said he will have this Gesture and no other used in this part of his Worship 'T is true man hath of late so determined it and written the cruelty of their determination in bloody Characters Worthy Mr. Dyton and Mr. Porter of Ware being stifled by their Imprisonment the one in the Gate-house the other in the New-Prison for not conforming thereunto not to mention others then nor late sufferers for the same cause 3. Even in prayer to God the posture of standing seems to be more used throughout the Scriptures Gen. 19. 27. Levit. 9. 5. Deut. 10. 8. 29. 10. 1 Kings 8. 14 15. 2 Chron. 20. 5 19. 29. 11. Jer. 15. 1. 18. 20. Ezek. 44. 11 15. Luke 18. 11 13. Mark 11. 25. an Argument kneeling in that duty was no appointment of the Lord. That the Primitive Christians for above 800. years after Christ on all Lords Dayes throughout the year and from Easter till Whitsuntide constantly prayed standing Mr. T. knows is upon good Authority affirmed What he nextly adds we have already answered That I speak ambiguously and indistinctly I cannot help 't is not given to every one to be a B. D. nor to speak with that eloquence and clearness as Mr. T. I did what I could to be understood However to make sure work on 't he denies both major and minor 1. Adoration in by or before a creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is not Idolatry such as so worship God are not Idolaters for the Holy Ghost invites the Jews to worship at God's Foot-stool his Holy Hill Psal 99. 5 9. which were creatures in by or before whom respectivè or with relation to them as the objectum significativè a quo or the motive of their Worship they were to bow down to God Answ 1. From God's Commands to mans Inventions is but lame arguing God commanded Israel to worship at Jerusalem before the Ark Altar there which they did without being guilty of the sin of Idolatry therefore when men command us to bow down and worship before the creature we may do so without the contraction of any such guilt is a sort of reasoning that Mr. T. upon second thoughts will be ashamed to defend As good he may argue 'T is lawful for men to rob and spoyl their Neighbours for the Israelites by the command of God spoiled the Egyptians without being guilty of Theft But 2dly that the Temple Altar was the objectum significativè a quo or the motive of their Worship is not true it was solely the command of God that was the motive thereof and had neither Temple nor Altar been there had God bid them worship there they would have done it 3dly To worship at his Foot-stool is no more than to worship in the Temple to worship in the House of his Sanctuary saith the Chald. Paraph. which is as remote from Mr. T. his purpose to prove it lawful to worship God in by or before the creature respectivè as 't is from Bellarmines who introduce it to prove the lawfulness of Image Worship What follows 2dly is of an easier dispatch 'T is true the use of the Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper is of the Institution of Christ but bowing down before it is not so as worshipping at the Temple before the Altar was So is 3dly the instance he gives of the Israelites falling down upon their faces and worshipping God when the fire came down and the Glory of the Lord was seen 1 Kings 18. 38. 2 Chron. 7. 3. For 1st should we grant that the people bowed and worshipped God by occasion of the coming down of the fire it would not follow that they worshipped before it which is somewhat more 2dly The Plea is Papistical and may as righteously be used for the worshipping God before Images 3. The sight and presence of the fire was not the motive of their worshipping but the conviction of the Glorious Majesty of God that from that Vision fell upon them 4. Their bowing was as to man a voluntary act from the extraordinary compulsion of the Spirit and by singular occasion ours a forced act frequently performed in imitation of the most horrid Idolaters in the World by the compulsion of the spirit of Antichrist and Satan Their Act hath therefore no place in our present case wherein neither such a compulsion nor occasion can be pleaded Dr. Jackson tells us That such actions as have been managed by Gods Spirit suggested by secret instinct or extracted by extraordinary and special occasions are then only lawful in others when they are begotten by like occasions or brought forth by like impulsions Which is indeed what is usually asserted by our Protestants in answer to such Papistical Arguments as our Animadverter for want of better is forced to make use of He adds 2dly The minor may be denied the present Ministers do not worship God in by or before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature as the objectum significativè a quo or the motive thereunto for the Common-Prayer-Book saith That kneeling is not for adoration of the Elements but for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ Answ 1. But it saith not the Elements are not the motive of their kneeling which they are else why is not this posture enjoyn'd in other parts and acts of worship wherein 't is our duty to signifie our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ Nay 2dly whence is it that in that very Ordinance another posture is after the receiving the Bread and Wine permitted Yea do not our kneelers teach us that we ought to stand up at Gloria Patri which is as
667. when he is able The ground of the offence on the Non-hearers side is so visibly just and righteous the others so notoriously groundless that his impertinent and false stories some of them contrary to his own knowledge and Conscience are insignificant to remove the one or justifie the other We add 4thly That 't is the duty of Saints especially if in a Church-relation to meet together as a people called and picked by the Lord out of the Nations of the World cannot be denyed The neglect of which is charged by the Lord as the first step to Apostacy Heb. 10. 25. Be you in the practice of this duty and see what Spiritual Saint will be offended at you If any should you might have peace therein you doing your duty no just cause of scandal is given Mr. T. replies They do not think it their duty to meet together as a separated Church Answ 1. Who do not so think Do not they that are for Seperate Churches so think To these we are speaking 2. That 't is the duty of Saints so to do we evince Ch. 9. of S. T. Heb. 10. 25. is again taken notice of by him Chap. 9. S. 2. where we shall consider it We yet add in S. T. 5thly Consider on which side the Cross lies which the flâ—sh and fleshly interest is most opposite to whether in going or forbearing to go to hear these men Usually that is the way of God that hath most of the Cross in it and the flâ—sh is most strugling and contesting against In which I only assert That the way of God hath usually most of the Cross in it and is mostly opposed by flesh and blood which Mr. T. knows is true and therefore though of it self this be no certain sufficient Rule to judge by yet is it not together with others inconsiderable which Mr. T. doth not oppose Sect. 3. An eighth Argument against hearing the present Ministers We cannot do so without being guilty of partaking with them in their sin The several wayes of partaking with others in their sin Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14 15. explained THE 8th Argument against hearing the persenr Ministers is in S. T. thus formed That which Saints cannot do without being guilty with others in their sins is utterly unlawful for them to do But the Saints cannot attend upon the Ministers of England without being guilty of partaking with them in their sins Therefore The Major Proposition is bottomed upon Psal 50. 18. Ephes 5. 7. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 John 11. Rev. 18. 4. 1 Thes 5. 22. This he grants is true In order to the confirmation of the Minor two things are briefly enquired into 1st What that or those sins are the Ministers of England are guilty of These we say are worshipping God in a false way acting from an Antichristian Office-power therein opposing the Offices of Christ doing what such as go to hear them account to be sinful who therefore cannot do the same nor joyn with them whilst they do it We instance in the case of Reordination using the Service-Book administring the Sacrament to all To which when Mr. T. or any one for him shall inform us of any thing that is offered by him by way of Answer that deserves a Reply we shall consider it What he saith requires proof we have already proved We enquire in S. T. 2dly How it will appear that any person attending on their Ministry renders him guilty of partaking with them in their sins This we say the consideration of the several wayes persons may be justly charged with being guilty of partaking with others in their sin will demonstrate We instance in these particulars 1. Then may persons be justly charged as guilty hereof 1st When they are found any way consenting with them in their sin Psal 50. 18. 2dly When they do that which hath a real tendency to encourage persons in their sin 2 John 11. 3dly When they neglect the doing those duties which the Lord requires at their hands for the reclaiming of them from their sins such as watching over rebuking admonishing first privately then by two and in case of obstinacy and perseverance therein telling it to the Church according to 1 Thes 5 14. Heb. 3. 12 13. and 10. 24 25. Lev. 19. 17. Mat. 18. 15 16 17. all this Mr. T. tells us he grants nor doth he except against the Texts brought to prove them except that Mat. 18. 15 16 17. the vanity of his exceptions whereunto we have demonstrated pag. 87. of this Treatise 4thly When they notwithstanding all that they can do perceive them to persevere in their sin shall still continue to hold Communion with them and not separate from them Rev. 18. 4. The abiding with obstinate offenders as it is against positive injunctions of the most high Rom. 16. 17. 2 Cor. 6. 14 15 16 17. 1 Tim. 6. 5. Ephs 5. 8. 11. Rev. 18. 4. so in the last place instanced in 't is assigned by the Spirit to be one way of pertaking with others in their sins So saith learned Brightman upon the place To which Mr. T. Sect. 7. This is not true we may hear the Word of God pray with receive the Lords Supper from a Minister that is an obstinate offender and yet not be partaker with him in his sin The texts alledged prove not separation from such Answ Whether they do or not we leave to the judgment of the discreet and pious Reader to determine yea to Mr. T. himself the texts are so marvelously plain for the proof of such a separation when he is able in an undistempered unprejudiced spirit to review tâ—em What he here offers to the contrary is not worth the spotting Paper with 1. A man may cause divisions and offences contrary to the Apostles Doctrine Rom. 14 and 15. touching the use of Liberty in matters indifferent to the offence and scandal of the Saints as the Ministers of England do if Mr. T. his notion about the indifferency of their Ceremonies be true whilst they practise them to the offence of the Saints and yet preach the same Doctrine in other things the Apostles preached which yet the present Ministers do not 2dly When Mr. T. is at leisure he may prove that sepâ—ration from the wicked and prophane or from a false Church is contrary to Rom. 16. 17. Because the Apostle charges them to note and avoid those that cause devisions in a true Church By the use of things indifferent contrary to his Doctrine thereabout of 2 Cor. 6. 14 15 16 17. Rev. 18. 4. we have already spoken and vindicated it from Mr. T. his exceptions We add in S. T. Not to multiply more particulars let us in a few words make application of these remarked to the business in hand Is there any thing in the world that carries a greater brightness and evidence with it than this that the hearing the present Ministers is to be partakâ—rs with them in their sin To which
Saints Liberty That 't is a sin against the 5th Commandment is ridiculous till he hath proved them our spiritual Parents Sect. 3. Non-hearing the present Ministers tends not to Schism The nature of Schism The Schism condemned in the Church of Corinth what 'T is not to have the Faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or accepting persons condemned Jam. 2. 1. what it is 'T is not to cause offences and divisions contrary to Rom. 12. 4 5. 14. 1. 15. 1. 16. 17. Nor making inclosures coâ—â—â—â— to 1 Cor. 14. 36. Phil. 3. 15 16. explained The vanity of Mr. T. his arguings from thence manifested The Holy Ghosts recording the Prophesiâ— of Balaam Of Caiphas of Infidel Idolatrous Poets no grounds for the Saints to hear the present Ministers The impertinency of 1 Thes 5. 20 21. to his purpose Nothing can be argued to prove the lawfulness of hearing them from the Authors concession Chap. 2. Our Reasons against hearing them cannot righteously be retorted against our selves The grounds of our denying the lawfulness thereof neither false nor doubtful The Ministers of England have not sufficiently proved the truth of their Ministry Of the duty of Christians with respect to hearing The power of the Church over Ministers Non-hearing the present Ministers takes not away the the Christians Liberty Is no negative Superstition Our denial of the lawfulness of hearing them no denial of the Kingship of Christ or usurpation thereof No hindrance of the knowledge of Gods Word No evil consequences or absurdities follow hereupon FOR the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers Mr. T. further argues thus Arg. 22. That which tends to Schism amongst Christians or to a breach of that peace unity and love should be among them who have the same God Lord Spirit Faith that is the same or very like Schism among the Corinthians or tends to it and hath begotten or is like to beget the same if not worse effects among the Christians in England is to be avoided as a great evil and that which tends to peace among them is a great good to be imbraced 1 Thes 5. 13. 1 Cor. 12. 25 26 27. But the non-hearing the present Ministers of England tends to Schism amongst Christians Therefore Answ We deny his Minor Non-hearing the present Ministers is not Schism tends not to it is nothing like the Schism amongst the Corinthians For 1st We were never by our free consent Members of the Church of England 2dly It 's no particular instituted Church of Christ 3dly We meet not with them and there dispute side quarrel contend when met together for the celebration of the samâ— numerical Ordinances as was the case of the Church of Corinth The matter of Schism is so clearly stated our non-concern therein with respect to our departure from the Church of England by Dr. Owen in his Treatise of Schism that as Mr. Cawdrey hath not Mr. T. will never be able solidly to reply thereunto 4thly We do nothing in our separating from them than what God calls us to as we have proved If the disturbance of peace envyings ensue hereupon we cannot help it these things were the frequent attendments of the Gospel in the first promulgation thereof as is known whilst we make it our care to keep the guilt of these things from off us we are innocent and not concern'd with the bitter and passionate declamations of persons hereabout We may with more evidence of truth argue That which tends to Schism amongst the Churches of Christ or to a breach of the peace unity and love which should be among them which is the same or much like the Schism that was amongst the Members of the Church of Corinth is to be avoided as a great evil But the hearing the present Ministers tends to Schism Therefore He further Argues Arg. 23. That which is to have the Faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons for other reasons than their faith is sinful and unlawful Jam. 2. 1. But 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 than the unity of Faith in the Lord Jesus and to declaim hearing another that hath the same Faith preacheth it and holds communion with them that imbrace it or to separate from such He should have added because he is not of our particular Society or by reason of particular interest or non-agreement in opinion is to have the Faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons Therefore Answ We may grant the whole without the least disadvantage to the cause we have undertaken the defence of we refuse not the hearing the present Ministers because not of our particular Society but for other Reasons of which before 2. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or accepting persons that is condemned Jam. 2. 1. is a respecting persons for their outward condition in the world as their riches honour with the neglect or contempt of others though equal or better deserving for their poverty or the like which cannot be charged upon us with respect to the present Ministers so that this instance of the Apostle is not at all to his purpose He adds Arg. 24. To cause offences and divisions contrary to the Doctrine taught us in the Scriptures is sinful and unlawful Rom. 16. 17. But those who teach men not to hear their Ministers which preach to them the truth of Gods VVord because they are not in a Congregational Church or not Elected and Ordained according to the Rules of such Churches or because they conform to some things conceived unwarrantable which are made the reasonâ— of unlawfulness to hear the present Ministers do cause offences and divisioâ—s contrary to the Doctrine Rom. 12. 4. 5. 14. 1. 15. 1. Therefore Answ This Argument is bottom'd upon many miserable mistakes the discovery whereof will expose it to the contempt of all that pass by for its insufficiency and weakness in respect of the end aimed at by it 1st We teach not men not to hear their own Ministers but such as â—ccording to the appointment of Christ were never such 2dly VVe teach them not to avoid such as preach the pure Word of God but suct as corrupt it intermixing therewith the leaven of Antichristianism and Superstition which Mr. T. tells us in his Fermentum Pharisaeâ—â—um is a good ground to avoid hearing them 3dly We say not that they are not to be heard meerly because not in a Congregational Church but because we are destitute of any Scripture-Warrant for our so doing because they walk disorderly act from an Antichristian Call That this is to cause offences contrary to the Doctrine Rom. 12. 4. 14. 1. 15. 1. which forbids the giving offence to weak Believers by the intempestive using of our Liberty in things indifferent is such a frivolous conceit as persons