and indeed as by shadows we are sometimes to understand the Jewish administration of affairs under the old paedagogy so by day the time of the dispersion of those Shadows and the introduction of the Gospel-Churcâ—-state Cant. 2. 17. 4. 6. The whole of what Mr. T. would infer from this place would not only be enervated but a Sword ready furbished put into the hands of his Antagonist to put an end to his expiring cause Nor wil it at all avail him to say that the Gospel-administration was already introduced and brought in for although that was afoot some while before yet many Jewish Ceremonies were yet winked at and practised by the believing Jews of whom the charge was committed unto Peter Gal. 2. 7 8 9. to whom he writes these Epistles who were much in practise of their old Ordinances some of them till the time of the ruine and devastation of their Temple by Titus Vespasian when some think 2 Pet. 3. 7 9 10. of the burning and consuming of the then Heavens and Earth viz. the Jewish Paedagogy and old Administration of affairs had its accomplishment and the new Heavens or Gospel-Church-state was fully introduced Though we need not assert any thing of this nature The Apostle as was said is treating not of the Worship but Doctrine of the Messiah in particular of his Glory Power and Coming which the Prophets he tells them had abundantly bore witness to and to their Testimony it was their duty is ours to attend That hence such a conclusion as this is or can be logically inferred that therefore the Precepts and Directions of the Old-Testament are to be heeded and learned in respect of the matter therein contained and the persons that reveal it with respect to Worship of which he must speak or he saith nothing to the matter in hand is the first-born of absurdities and needs the abilities of one transcending the degree of a B. D. to make good But this Mr. T. thought not of No wonder his late Writings as he complains find so little acceptance amongst persons inquisitive after Truth if there be such chasma's betwixt the head and heels of his Arguments that 't is impossible the Reader should find mediums enough to fill up and render them in the least conclusive But he goes on and tells us that he meets with no prohibition to hear any but false Prophets Mat. 7. 15. Deceivers Tit. 1. 10. That teach other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1. 3. 2 John 10. Another Gospel Gal. 1. 8 9. Answ 1. Christ's institution of Officers of his own for the administration of the affairs of his House had there been no express interdiction had been interdiction sufficient to hear a Ministry not of his appointment The Lord having caused Fire to come down from Heaven and giving a charge that it should be kept alive continually upon his Altar was such an interdiction of offering Sacrifice with strange Fire that Nadab and Abihu not observing it though no express command against offering strange fire die by the immediate hand of the Lord as a punishment for their transgression But 2dly we reade of other prohibitions in the Scripture though Mr. T. is not pleased now to take notice of them as Mat. 15. 14. which about twenty five years ago he seems to suppose to be an injunction of Christ not to hear the Scribes and Pharisees and indeed the word there used plainly imports as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to remove from forsaken so as never to come at them more which Beza saith is the proper signification of the word and the learned Grotias * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut remittere proprie et primigenio significatu est a se amovere atque ita sumitur Mat. 4. 20. et alibi saepe unde sumpta metaphora significat deserere dimittere permittere frequentissime autem rationem alicujus rei non habere quod Latini simili locutione dicunt missum aliquid facere ita sumi haâ—c voâ—em apparet Mat. 15. 14. Gâ—ot de saâ—is Christi saith little less and in them a prohibition to hear such as should act like them viz. teach for doctrines the traditions of men Nor is the Animadverter a stranger to that solemn Injunction of the Apostle 2 Tim. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from such turn away The word signifies devocare avocare saith Aretius whence saith he we may understand that 't is our duty to shun them that we be not made like them That there is a dispensation granted to abide with Ministers of such a complexion I never yet read 3dly Were there no more prohibitions than those instanced by Mr. T. these were enow to prove it the duty of Saints to separate from the present Ministers of England That they are false Prophets Mat. 7. 15. we have evinced ch 6. of S. Test which is vindicated from Mr. T. his Exceptions chap. 7th of this Treatise and Sect. 10. of this chapter That they are Deceivers according to Tit. 1. 10. the second place instanc'd in by him were easie to demonstrate That they teach other Doctrine according to 1 Tim. 1. 5. the third place he is pleased to introduce he that thinks it any part of his concern to examine what they do cannot be ignorant Is not Canonical obedience compulsion in matters of Religion and Faith conveniency at least of Surplice Organs Cross in Baptism Regeneration thereby with many more that might be instanced in as a National Church in the time of the Gospel Communion with persons visibly wicked and prophane Subjection to which they have a Law to compel men to the necessity of Godfaâ—hers and Godmothers another Doctrine Did they learn these things from Christ and his Apostles or from the Cabal at Rome Nor will it avail this Animadverter to say that these cannot be called anotheâ— Doctrine because some of them not expresly forbidden nor directly contrary to what is taught by them For what is more than they taught is another Doctrine though not directly contrary thereunto Hear what the Assembly in their Annotations upon the place say Teach no other doctrine the chief Pastors of the Church who were endued with Apostolical Authority as was Timothy were to forbid any to preach not only doctrine that was contrary but that which was beside that which the Faithful have received from the Apostles And indeed the word is plainly so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e. i. saith Piscator 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they teach not things divers viz. from the Doctrine of the Apostles So Beza And Hyperius is very full that they teach no other Doctrine either for matter or manner for substance or circumstance As to what he adds that Christ more especially tied his Disciples to hear his Apostles and such as were sent by them to them yet when all the Church at Jerusalem except the Apostles were scattered abroad by persecution and went every where preaching the Gospel Acts 8.
invested with authority derived to them from Christ to elect ordain officers to and for the Churches of Christ without their knowledge and consent he will be supposed to speak pertinently which in this matter hitherto he hath not done Let us consider if there be ought more to the purpose in what follows To Acts. 6. 5. he replies 1. That was but one act Answ 1. Who saith it was many Consonant to this one act was the practice of the primitive Church for many years after some prints whereof in the election of the Overseers of the Poor do yet remain amongst us He adds 2. They were not such a particular Church as made up one Congregation that could meet together for all Offices Answ This vanity we have already refelled Sect. of our Reply to Mr. T. his Exceptions against the Preface of S. T. He proceeds and tells us 3dly They did not choose the Deacons upon any conceived power delegated from Christ by vertue of any rulâ— that was to be perpetual in all ages to all Churches Answ 1. This is a meer conjecture of his own without the least tender of proof 2dly 'T is the ready way to banish all the instituted Worship of Christ out of the world 'T is but saying 't is true this or that was done but without any Rule that was to be perpetually binding and the work is effected 3dly 'T is injuriouâ— to the Apostles and the primitive Believers to imagine and indeed ridiculous that they should devise an Office in the Church without authority derived to them from Christ and that so necessary an Office as the experience of above sixteen hundred years manifests the Church of God could not have been without which was not only continued in the Churches afterwards Phil. 1. 1. but Rules laid down for their future election and choice 1 Tim. 3. 8 to 13. with a solemn injunction to Timothy and in him to succeeding Believers to keep that Commandment amongst others without spot unrebukeable until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ chap. 6. 14. So that these are but shifts our reverend Dictator scarce knows what to answer it seems to the Evidence introduced I shall only add Malè res agitur cum tot opus est remediis it is a bad sore that must be wrapped in â—â— many clouts Yet he hath not done He adds 4thly This can be no rulâ— for chusing other Officers there was a peculiar reason why they should choose Deacons whose honesty was to be discern'd and not other Officers whose sufficiency to teach was to be considered of which thâ— multitude of Church-members then and now are rarely competent Judges Answ 1. But we had thought honesty had been as necessary a qualification of a Pastor or Teacher as of a Deacon 2dly The Apostles mention it as the Churches priviledge without the least intimation of any peculiar reason thereof Act. 6. 3. 3dly There is the same reason for the election of one Officer in the Church as another those with whom power is entrusted for the choice of one it is for the choice of all the rest 4thly That the Saints then and now are not competent Judges of the abilities and Orthodoxie of other Officers this Animadverter is desired to prove 1. 'T is derogatory to the Spirit of Christ that indwells in Believers 2. Contrary to the express Testimony of the Spirit of God touching them 3. A meer Petitio principii The question is whether they did elect and choose them the Answer is they were not fit to do so but their fitness is presupposed in that they had liberty or power to do it To the other Scripture Acts 14. 23. he replyes 1. By way of seeming concession The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by Beza They created by Suffrages i. e. when the people by lifting up their hands had testified their consent in the election of them they set them apart to that work An allusion to the custom of the Greeks in the election of their Officers by Suffrages and Votes signified by the stretching out of the hand which was unquestionably the practice of the Church for the first three hundred years Cyprian who lived an 240 often intimates as much Take one instance in the stead of many Propter quod diligenter de traditione divinâ Apostolica observatione observandum est tenendum quod apud nos quoque fere per provincias universas tenetur ut ad ordinationes rite celebrandas ad eam plebem cui Praepositus ordinatur Episcopi ejusdem Provinciae proximi quique conveniant Episcopus delegatur PLEBE PRAESENTE quae singulorum vitam plenessime novit unuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione perspexit Quod apud vos factum videmus in Sabinae collegae nostri ordinatione ut de VNIVERSAE FRATERNITATIS SUFFRAGIO de Episcoporum qui in praesentia convenerant quique de eo ad vos literas fecerant judicio Episcopatus ei deferretur Epist. â—8 2dly By way of Exception he tells us 1. This is but one example not sufficient to infer a perpetual Rule Answ 1. 'T is intended but for one example 2dly We find the thing practised afterwards Elders are ordained Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 5. 22. That they should so suddenly vary from the practice of the Apostles here no intimation thereof being given but rather the contrary 2 Tim. 1. 14. 3. 10. Tit. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that thou mayest set streight or according to the liâ—e or rule that thou hast learned of us the things that are wanting and ordain viz. according to that rule Elders in every City is not probable That they did not do so for some hundreds of years after Mr. T. grants and we have proved Which is a sufficient Answer to his Exception about constituting Elders without the mention of any such election of the People Tit. 1. 5. 3dly In the election of other Officers as an Apostle we find the people concerned 1. Out of an hundred and twenty persons they chose and presented two v. 23. out of which two one being câ—osen by lot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was counted amongst the Apostles by the common Suffrages of them all v 26. And this very Scripture amongst others is used by Cyprian to confirm the power of the people in châ—sing or refusing their Ministers Epist 4. l. 1. Deacons as was said was so chosen Act. 6. 3 5 6. Put all together and you have as full an evidence of the truth of the Assertion as can be desired But our Animadverter 2dly acquaints us from Dr. Field c. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed to other creating then by Suffrages as Acts 10. 41. Answ 'T is granted it sometimes is so applyed but the proper and most usual signification of the word is to elect by Suffrages as Mr. T. knows That because it 's once or twice it may be used in a metaphorical sense
already answered We add 9thly The Popish Priests wait not the Churches call to the Ministry but make suit to some Prelate to be ordained Priest and giving money for their Letters of Ordination so the Priests of England Mr. T. replies To offer a person's self for ordination is in some case a duty 1 Tim. 3. 1. Isa 6. 8. Answ 1. The Scriptures produced prove not his assertion Isa 6. 8. is sufficiently remote from any such thing there 's not the least mention of Ordination therein it s only a testimony of Isaiah's readiness to obey the voice of the Lord in going forth to bear a testimony for him against an untoward rebellious people 1 Tim. 3. 1. only tels us that he that desires the office of a Bishop desires a good work i. e. as say our Annotators is inwardly moved by the Spirit of the Lord thereunto which he may do and yet I hope wait the Churches call thereunto Besides 2ly Should this be granted it signifies little till he prove that it 's the duty of any with the neglect of the Churches call to this Office to seek ordination thereunto from an unscriptural Prelate which is that we charge upon them which Mr. T. knows they do He tells us 2dly Giving money for their Letters of Ordination is only Wages to the Register for writing Answ 1. Be it so that they give money for their Letters of Ordination is all that is asserted by us which Mr. T. grants they do 2. 'T is well if there be no Simony as it 's call'd found amongst them 3. If provision be made against the Registers exacting over-much by the Canons of the Church of England he informs us that the same provision is made by the Popish Trent-Council The Parallel in this particular holds good We say 10thly The Popish Priests are ordained to their Office though they have no Flock to attend upon So the Priests of England Mr. T. replies The Priests of England are not to be ordained without some title according to Can. 33. even the Trent-Council hath made some provision thereabout Answ 1. Mr. T. doth well to consociate the Canons of the Church of England and the Church of Rome in the Trent-Council together they are in not a few things near of kin 2. However I cannot but stand astonished at his confidence in telling us that the Priests of England are not to be ordained without some title according to Can. 33. when that Canon saith expresly That they may if a Fellow or in right as a Fellow or to be a Chaplain in some Colledge in Oxford or Cambridg if a Master of Arts of five years standing that liveth of his own charge in either of the Universities if to be shortly admitted either to some Benefice or Curatship then void or if the Bishop do after his admission into the said office keep and maintain him with all things necessary till he prefer him to some Ecclesiastical Living 3. But it may be the Animadverter by title means some one of those things mentioned To which I shall only say that if so he doth openly prevaricate pretends to answer to what he speaks not one word such Titles are supposed to be without a Flock to attend upon What he adds of Ministers being necessary for Armies c. is nothing to the purpose This proves not that they may be ordained Ministers without a Flock to attend upon which they may have and by them be sent forth for the works mentioned for a season We know it hath been the practice of the Churches so to do 2. Privâ—te Brethren may act for the supply of the services mentioned and frequently have done so nor indeed do I conceive how any can act therein in any other capacity Which is not incongruous to Acts 23. 2. as this Animadverter suggests which speaks not a tittle of their ordination to the Office of Ministry which they had before but only a solemn commending of them by Fasting and Prayer to the Blessing of the Lord by the Church in the Service they were now setting upon in which they testified their consent by the laying on their hands as say our Annotators To the 11th Parallel viz. That the Priests of England must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary as the Priests of Rome Mr. T. only saith That 't is true at their institution into Benefices they do so but it is so bounded that it is not intolerable 't is nothing like that which is required of the Papists Answ 1. The Parallel herein betwixt the English and the Popish Priests is acknowledged which is all we affirm 2. That the Oath is tolerable that 't is nothing like the Oath of Canonical Obedience tendred to the Popish Priests is only affirmed by Mr. T. without proof that was the copy and pattern of this as he cannot be ignorant The 12th Parallel touching their leaving their Benefices for advantage-sake without consent of the People The 13th touching their special Licence to preach without which they must not from â—he Prelates though thereunto before ordained The 14th touching their subjection to be silenced by the Prelates betwixt the Ministers of England and Rome he grants to be true nor saith he any thing by way of reply that deserves the taking notice of To the 15th viz. the Popish Priests are not of like and equal power degree and authority amongst themselves but are some of them inferiour to others herein as Pastors to Archdeacons Archdeacons to Lord-Bishops Lord-Bishops to Arch-Bishops so the Priests of England Our Animadverter replies 1. Inequality is judged to be in the Elders of the Primitive Churches by the inscription of the seven Epistles to the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia Answ But this rather proves there equality to each is a several Epistle directed whereas had there been one Arch-Bishp or Superintendent over them one Epistle had been sufficient and had been no doubt directed to him He adds 2dly It hath been in some sort in all well-ordered Churches and is necessary to setled order Answ These are his dictates which he is not at leasure to prove The Church of Rome in the Apostles dayes of Corinth Ephesus were as I remember well-ordered Churches yet cannot be manifest any inequality amongst their Elders No Superintendent lord-Lord-Bishop or Arch-Bishop as I read of 2dly What thinks he of the Church of the Waldenses were they well-ordered Churches They were from the beginning without this Superiority of Elders one above the other The like may be said of most or all the Reformed-Churches The Churches of Helvetia reckoning up the degrees of arch-Arch-Bishops Suffragans Metropolitans Deans Subdeans tell us plainly they are not sollicitous about them That the Apostles Doctrine touching Ministers is sufficient for them cap. Confes. Helvet poster c. 18. And afterward there is one and the same equal Power and Function in all the Ministers of the Church and though in process of time one was chosen from amongst the rest to preside in
which yet they do but rarely if at all is not the Succession pleaded for by our Prelates They care not for Preaching hinder oppose it many of them dreading it as the Engine in the hand of the Spirit that would shake their Kingdom and utterly overturn and demolish it so they may have their Lordships Pleasures and Pallaces 'T is not indeed Antichristian for me to confess the Apostles Creed because it is conveyed to our hands through the Papacy for however it cannot be so called because the Apostles were the Formers of it which they were not yet the matter thereof being except in one Article bottom'd upon the Scriptures I ought to confess it But this is remote from what he is pleading for viz. A personal succession of Bishops through the Papacy receiving their Power and Authority from the man of Sin which I say still whilst the Bishops pretend to they do therein proclaim their shame and yeeld the matter in controversie though their Advocate shamefully prevaricates that he may with a multitude of words cover their nakedness omitting the consideration of what was incumbent upon him especially to have removed out of the way viz. The Arguments produced to evince That the Apostles as Apostles had no successor in that their Office Which if it remain good the present Bishops most assuredly cannot be their Successorâ— as Apostles He adds 5thly That Bishops as a Superior order or degree above Presbyters were not dreamt of in the world for several hundreds of years after Christ he thinks can hardly be made good but he wisely reâ—reats with a Protestation that he will not enter the lists with respect to that point The truth is he knows it hath been proved and that with that strength of evidence that he cannot bear up against That Clemens his not takeing notice of them as distinct from Presbyters is ballanced by the passages in Ignatius his Epistles which I am perswaded he rejects as spurious and counterfeit I am sure it were easie to manifest them to be so it is already done by others is such a pitiful covert that a man would never fly to but in case of extreme necessity when he knows not what to say Lombards words import he grants that the order of Bishops above Presbyters was not known till after the Apostles dayes and if so they are no order of divine institution in which he once more perfectly yeelds the cause they are not of the institution of Christ in the Scripture Though he cannot prove that by the primitive Church Lombard means the Churches in the dayes of the Apostles his words seem to import somewhat more And Bellarmins himself acknowledgeth that the name of Elders was given in common to Bishops and Elders And Eusebius lib. 5. c. 24. calls Victor Anicetus Pius Telesphorus Xistus who was almost three hundred years after Christ Bishops of Rome Elders And the learned Whitaker ingenuously confesseth That betwixt an Elder and a Bishop there was of old no difference That such Bishops as are now in the Roman Church in the English Church we may as truly say were from the beginning is most false and can never be proved There were then more Bishops i. e. Pastors of one Church Act. 20. 17. contr 2. q. 5. c. 6. p. 284. But Mr. T. tells us 'T is enough for his purpose if the office be found in Scripture though not their Superiority Answ And is this your pleading for your Clients Seriously Sir you would discourage any person in the world from entertaining you as his Advocate when you are exposing your Client thus to ruin by your own pleadings at every turn The question is whether the office of Lord-Bishops which as such consists in there Superiority jurisdiction over the Priests and Ministers of England be of the institution of Christ Saith Mr. T. their Superiority is not Very good what needed so many words to no purpose 't is well however he will be so ingenuous as to confess at last that the juridicial office of Lord-Bishop is not of Christs institution The words of Dr. Hammond he grants to be as we recite them but thinks we misapply them But certainly if as the Dr. saith a Primary Metropolitical seat was constituted over Episcopal Seats and Churches viz. such as are Diocesan that their state and frame may be accommodated to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations in the Empire he that hath but half an eye will see that hence it follows that the Primacy and Supremacy of the Bishops over these Churches was the result of the designs of men to accommodate the state and frame of the Church to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations But the truth of this Assertion depends not upon the Doctors concession it s notoriously known and acknowledged by several others The distribution of Churches ordinarily followed the destribution of the Common-wealth so that when some Regions were subjected to the Civil jurisdiction in any City the same were ordinarily subjected also to the Ecclesiastical and as they were reckoned to be of the same Province in respect of the Civil so were they of the same Church or Diocess in respect of the Spiritual Government saith Rainoldes Confer with Hart. And the Council of Constantinople decreed That if any new City by the Authority of the Emperor was erected that the order of Ecclesiastical things should follow the Civil and Publick form Hence by the same Council Constantinople receives the Primacy because it was New Rome Can. 5. which before Old Rome enjoyed for that very reason But that you may understand how the Pope incroached on Bishops by degrees untill of an Equal he became a Soveraign first over a few next over many at last over all I must fetch the matter of Bishops Metropolitans and arch-Arch-Bishops somewhat higher and shew how Christian Cities Provinces and Diocesses were alotted to them First therefore when Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church Act. 14. 23. through every City Tit. 1. 5. to feed the flock of Christ whereof the Holy Ghost had made them overseers Act. 20. 28. They to the intent they might the better do it by common councel and consent did use to assemble themselves and meet together In which meetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they chose one amongst them to be the President of their Company and Moderator of their actions And this is he whom afterward in the Primitive Church the â—athers called Bishop i. e. the President of the Presbyters who was thâ— Bishop of the chiefest City whom they called the Metropolitane For a Province as they termed it was the same with them that a Shire is with us And the Shire-town as you would say of the Province was called Metropolis i. e. the Mother-City In which as the Judges and Justices with us do hear at certain times the causes of the whole Shire So the Ruler of the
afterwards and here and in his Roman discussed asserts that 't is not tyrannical Dominion but the Dominion of one Apostle over another that is interdicted So that the same thing is doubtful and not doubtful with Mr. T. in the writing a few lines And this he proves by no fewer than ten reasons in his Rom. discussed 2dly Here he tels us that 't is an affectation of the Rule which a person may have and lawfully exercise that is forbidden there that the Dominion or Rule it self is interdicted which he would do well to reconcile and answer his Arguments he there produceth for its confirmation The sum whereof is Christ would have none amongst them superiour but all equal he forbids not only tyrannical Dominion but also any Dominion at all over one another which is saith he apparent 1. From the occasion of the words Christ forbids what they sought for but they sought for chief Dignity Seniority and priority of Order as do the Bishops of England 2dly From the Subjects whose Dominion is forbidden viz. Kings that had lawfull Authority and therefore such Rule is forbidden as the best Rulers used amongst the Nations 3dly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although sometimes meant of meer lordly forcible Rule against the will and good of the person ruled yet here it cannot be so meant sith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use Dominion at all and to have power at all over one another is forbidden Luke 22. 25. 4thly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used still of Rule without abuse is forbidden 5thly It is forbidden to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to affect that title which implies one to be under another and to be beholden one to another as persons that could gratifie one another which doth imply superiority in some sort 6thly The additional speech of Christ commanding in the stead of Dominion Mat. 20. 26 27. rather Ministry and Service shews he would have none among them superiour but all equal 7ly Christ's propounding himself as their example only in service 8â—y He requires such a mutual debasement as takes away the taking to themselves priority of order or place or rule over one anotheâ— Mat. 20. 26 27. Mark 10. 43 44. Luke 22. 26. 9ly This is confirmed by other places upon a like occasion Mat. 18. 1 2 3 4. Mark 9. 33. Luke 9. 46. In which Christ resolves them that they should be as a little child that assumes not Empire but is humble and accounts others as equal to him 10ly From Luke 22. 28. that Christ having forbidden superiority in any of them among themselves promises them a Kingdom afterward in recompence of their abiding with him in his temptations All which manifest 1. a Superiority interdicted 2. That the Superiority interdicted is not interdicted to all Christians as he would in his Theodulia bear us in hand for then Christians should be forbidden to exercise Civil Dominion and Power as Mr. T. his ten Arguments manifest But 3. a Superiority of order over one another as the Bishops of England exercise over their fellow-Ministers That the Apostles exercised any such Superiority over the Church of God or Ministers of a lower order as the Bishops of England exeâ—cise over them this Animadverter will never prove And if he were able so to do this would not justifie the Bishops in their exercise of such Superiority who are invested with no Apostolical Power that I know of 'T is true a rule over the Faith of Saints is disclaimed by the Apostle 2 Cor. 1. 24. but that this is not the whole of what is interdicted in the places before-cited he hath himself proved by ten Arguments but now repeated by us As for 1 Pet. 5. 3. he tells us what the Assembly in their Annotations say on the place viz. that is not imperiously commanding your own inventions in the stead of the Doctrine of the Gospel not carrying hemselves insolently and magisteriously towards Gods People 3 Joh. 9. Answ 1. All this is known to be practised by the present Bishops They command imperiously their own inventions to which the preaching of the Gospel must give place when there is not time for both as in the case of Liturgy-worship is known to be true How insolently and magisterially they carry it towards the people of the Lord the whole Nation is witness 2. The Elders being interdicted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to exercise Lordly Rule over the Heritage of God is certainly an interdiction of the introduction of any such Officer into the Churcâ— of God as against the will of the Lord's People should by vertue of an Office-power exercise a Lordly jurisdiction over them and their Ministers as a superiour order of Priesthood and certainly more forbidden than the office of an Elder Jurisdiction is not an abuse of our Prelates Office as is known though they too often abuse it by exercising it exorbitantly even contrary to their own Canons but a great a chief part of it wherein they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise dominion over the People of God and that against their will by fore and violence to their utter undoing and that in execution of that office they have received and exercise according to their Canon Laws in their Courts Ecclesiastical We further prove in S. T. That the office of Lord-Bishops is Antichristian because derived from and only to be found in the Papacy none of the Reformed Churches have retained it the Woman in her flight into the Wilderness carried it not along with her it 's rejected by the true Spouse and Witnesses of Christ in all ages We instance in several as Hierom the Churches of Helvetia c. To this Mr. T. replies 1. Though the latter Popes viz. from the time of Boniface the third about the year 606. be the head of Antichrist yet it doth not follow that the office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian there having been bad Officers perhaps derived from good Popes and continued only in the Church of Rome Answ 1. That the Popes of Rome were not the head of Antichrist till the time of Boniface the third this Animadverter will never prove 2dly Should it be granted him what good Popes he will find from the time of Sylvester about the year 320 I know not nor what Officers were derived from them Lord-Bishops there were none till afterwards When Constantine coming to the Throne the Man of Sin began by little and little according to the prophesie of Paul touching him 2 Thess 2. 7. to shew himself in the following Popes The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Letter viz. the Roman Pagan Emperours being removed out of the way about which time many report a Voice was heard Hodie Venenum c. This day Poyson is poured forth into the Church of Christ And from this time the noble and renowned
Epistl 1. ep 4. Soperemini inquit Dominus a taberuaculis hominum istorum durissimorum nolite tangere ea qua ad eos pertinent ne simul pereat is in peccatis eorum Propter quod plebs obsequens praeceptis Domini Deum meturus à peccato praepofitó seperare se debet nec se ad Sacrilegi Sacerdotis Sacrificia misare quando ipsa defectu sidelis Magistratus maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel recusandi indignos Thus far he in open defiance of his present undertaking But to proceed in Sect. 2. and afterwards we have an account notwithstanding his late discouragement in writing why he still follows that employment and in particular of his engaging in the confutation of the Treatise under consideration which may be reduced to these heads 1. The expectation of hâ—â— giving account of the Talents committed to him by hâ—s â—ord and Master which being restrained from publick preaching he thinks he ought to make use of this way Answ That a strict account must be given to the Lord for the improvement of Talents received is undeniable The Parable Mat. 25. 14 to 31. evâ—nceth as much The consideration whereof should quicken us to our duty the most exact and diligent performance of it imaginable that we have not at the last the most direful judgment of the wicked and slothful Servant ver 26 28 30. past upon us But every use of our Talent is not a faithful improvement of it for God Wisdom parts c. are Talents given by him many have used them against him and smitten him if I may so say with his own weapons nor had they been in a capacity of doing so much against him had they not received so much from him Whether Mr. T. hath in his present undertaking been improving his Talent according to the mind of Christ I humbly beg him in his more retired thoughts to consider That none can so improve their Talents without the blessed supplies of the Spirit of Christ this Animadverter will not deny 'T is impossible any duty or service should be accepted of God without these 'T is one end for which he is sent from the Father and the Son to in-dwell in the hearts of Believers to enable them hereunto Rom. 8. 26. How little of the Spirit of the Lord in those Magisterial and Dictator-like expressions manifesting too much of a spirit of pride and self-fulâ—ess with an horrible contempt of what is opposit to the mind of this Animadv together with those reproachful biting passionate words that without any just cause given do ever and anon drop from him he will upon a review be able to discern I am not able to foresee We are â—oo apt to judge partially in our own causes and of our own actions but the day will declare it Should I muster up the many expressions of this nature scattered almost from the one end of this Book to â—he other and represent them at once possibly it might somewhat startle this Animadverter of his being restâ—ained from publick preaching I have nothing to say but only this That if Mr. Tombs supposeth himself to be called forth by the Lord to the work of preaching the Gospel I see not now at least whilst not under corporal restraint he can answer the obligation is upon him by such a call by a total neglect of that duty either publickly or privately notwithstanding the interdiction of any Our retreat in such cases to the old Apostolical Maxime Act. 5. 29. Whether it be lawful to obey God or man judge ye being suitable and warrantable Nor is it I believe justifiable to improve Talents given in one work or duty with the neglect of another to which we are as equally obliged by the reception of them He adds as a second Reason of this undertaking his meeting with the Book under consideration and another entituled Prelatical Preachers none of Christ's Teachers which manifesting that the seeds of most rigid Separation were sown and spread themselves amongst many out of the greatness of his love and design to do them good and for the publick peace of the Nation he conceiv'd himself bound to pluck up such roots of bitterness and the rather because some that had known him to be for Believers Baptism have been ready to think him for Separation also Answ That he met with the Book under consideration I readily yeeld him being informed that in some heat of spirit about two years before the publishing his Theodulia he threatned the Refutation thereof But that the seeds of Separation are roots of bitterness is as warmly said as weakly proved in his following Treatise The word though it sounds ill in the ears of the world is of a middle signification denoting neither that which is evil nor good in it self as Mr. T. well knows A twofold Separation we read of in the Scripture 1. A wicked and unlawful Separation which is a causless departure from the People and Appointments of Christ as not able to bear their spirituality strictness purity and glory in contempt of Christ's Institution and meerly for the satisfying their lusts Jude 19. This is the Separation that is condemned in the Scripture Do either of the Tracts mentioned undertake the defence or vindication of it Are there not Principles laid down and asserted therein wholly opposite hereunto 2dly A warrantable lawful Separation enjoyned by Jesus Christ which is a peaceable departure from a Church or People not rightly constituted according to the mind of Christ the pattern exhibited by him or degenerated therefrom beyond a possibility of recovering their first state purely for the enjoyment of the Ordinances of God in power and purity This is the Separation no other pleaded for in the Papers mentioned Which â—â—ch poor worms as we are apt to think there is ground enough in the Scriptures for 1. 'T is of old prophesied of Num. 23. 9. Isa 52. 11 12. 62. 10. 2dly Commanded by the Lord Prov. 4. 14. 9. 6. 14. 7. Eph. 5. 11. 2 Cor. 6. 16. Act. 2. 39. Psa 45. 10. 2 Tim. 3. 5. Rev. 18. 4. 3dly Practised by the Saints not to mention them of old Gen. 4. 26. Exod. 19. 5. Deut. 7. 6. 33. 28. Numb 33. 52. Exod. 24. 12 15. John 15. 19. Rev. 19. 7 8 9. which the Epistles of the Apostles to the Churches justifie who writ to them as Saints separated from the World and the Worship thereof What the Animadverter hath done in order to the plucking up the seeds of this Separation is afterwards considered He that is successfull in such an undertaking oâ— desires to be so had need do more than â—ent his passion in some biting satyrical expressions against the men of his contest or dictate to them as if Wisdom only rested with him and all others were to hang on his lips for Indoctrination whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without controul were to be submitted But Christ's School knows
v. 10. And the children of Israel i. e. some of the chief amongst them in the name of the whole as say our Annotators shall put their hands upon the Levites by which sign saith Ainsworth they put the charge and service of the Church upon them and consecrated them to God in their name wherein they figured the Church of Christ called the General Assembly of the First-born from whence in the very next verse they are called the Offering or Wave-Offering of the children of Israel which Aaron is said to offer or wave for them v. 11. and are said v. 14. to be thus separated from amongst the children of Israel i. e. according to the Rites before-mentioned in allusion to which some think the same word is used Acts 13. 2. and Paul Rom. 1. 1. saith of himself that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 separated to the Gospel of God If it be objected that it is said ver 14. Thus shalt thou separate as if it were Moses his act alone the whole context confutes that vanity in which there is an apparent distinction betwixt the act of Moses Aaron and the People But here he is said to separate them because the whole of this affair was managed according to the directions given by him from the Lord to them And vers 16. to be wholly given to the Lord viz. by the People Given of the sons of Israel unto God i. e. for his Service faith Chazkum After all which they enter upon the work of the Lord to which they were thus solemnly deputed and set apart v. 11 15. This Animadverter saith indeed that the reason of the laying on of the hands of the children of Israel upon the Levites was to signifie their obedient yeelding them in their stead to God c. If he mean that it was one reason whereof it 's granted no act of worship which we perform but we thereby signifie our subjection and obedience to God If the formal and only reason his Assertion is void of truth it being as was shewed to set them apart to the office of Ministry or Service of God that they laid their hands on them nor is there the least print in v. 19 the only proof of this Assertion of any such thing 'T is true the choice i. e. the first-choice or appointment of them to this Ministry was God's the presentment of them to the Congregation Moses his act the yeelding of them or rather the solemn deputation of them to the work of the Lord not the act of the first-born meerly but of the Congregation who were called together for this purpose The Assembly in their Annotations speak clearly hereunto Numb 8. 10. The Children meaning some of the chief among them in the name of the whole Their hands the imposition of hands was used in Benedictions and Ordinations not only in the Old-Testament as Gen. 48. 17 20. Numb 27. 23. but in the New See Acts 6. 6. 13. 3. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. The Peoples putting their hands upon the Levites was partly to testifie that they gave up all carnal and worldly respects and interests in them and bequeathed them wholly to God and that they did approve of their office in the behalf of themselves in whose stead they stood in the performance of many of their ministrations But Mr. T. hath found out a grievous mistake which he again takes notice of Sect. 8. which if true enervates all that we have asserted and that is that these were not Priests they were distinct from the Levites viz. Aaron and his sons who were called of God Heb. 5. 4. without the Peoples laying on of hands But 1. Aaron and his sons were Levites Exod. 4. 14 16 18 20. 2dly Calling of God and Consent and Ordination of the People are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that though Aaron wâ—s called of God he might also be set apart by the People unto that work who were not altogether therein unconcerned as is evident Exo. 29. 4. Lev. 8. 2 3 4. This Animadverter is not ignorant of the saying of Cyprian upon that action of Moses Num. 20. 26. Sicâ—t in Numeris c. As in the book of Numbers God commanded Moses saying Take Aaron thy brother and Eleazer his son and set them before all the Synagogue God commands him to be constituted Priest before all the Synagogue whereby he instructeth and sheweth that Sacerdotal Ordinations ought not to be managed without the knowledge of the People who are to assist therein c. And Piscator upon Heb. 5. 4. saith Ministerio Ecclesiae c. i. e. None ought to exercise the Ministerial Function except he who is thereunto called of God Now this vocation is either immediate or mediate The Prophets Apostles and Christ the Prince of them were immediately called Mediately were the PRIESTS of old and Evangelists called as are at this day Pastors Teachers Governors and Deacons each of whose vocation is by the Church And Josephus tells us plainly Lib. 3. cap. 9. that all the People approved the election of Aaron to the Priesthood which God had made And l. 4. c. 2. introduceth Moses speaking to the People upon the occasion of Korah's Rebellion thus Although by the loss of that honour viz. of the Priesthood which he Aaron hath received from your own election And 't is most certain that a long time after Zadok was anointed to the office of High-Priest by the People 1 Chron. 29. 22. But the Levites were not Priests Answ 1. That they were not such Priests as Aaron and his sons is granted Priests to offer Sacrifice or burn Incense they were not nor do I any where assert them so to be Priests and Levites are sometimes in Scripture distinguished I also grant but then Priests are taken for the Sacrificing-Priests viz. Aaron and his sons to whose assistance in their ministry and service they were appointed by the Lord. Yet 2dly That the word Priests is of various acceptions in the Scripture Mr. T. cannot deny 1. The People of Israel all of them are called a Kingdom of Priests Exod. 19. 6. 2dly Persons of note eminency power and authority Gen. 41. 45. Exod. 2. 16. pass under the same denomination 3dly The first-born of the male-children Exod. 19. 22. with 13. 2. are say some so called As â—s 4thly Christ Heb. 7. 17. 5thly The Saints 1 Pet. 2. 5. The word is 6thly usually taken for Church-officers that were solemnly set apart as Ministers of the Sanctuary for the solemn management of the publick Worship and Service of God And of these with the leave of Mr. T. I would take the confidence to assert that amongst others there were of these three sorts 1. The Chief or High-Priest who alone might once in the year enter into the most Holy but not withouâ— Blood Heb. 9. 7. 2dly The inferiour and ordinary Priests who approached to the Altar of Burnt-Incense offered Sacrifices c. 3. The Levites who were a
such thing 1 Cor. 12. 28. speaks not a tittle to it For 1. The Church vers 28. is the Body of Christ vers 27. This Paul tells them the Church of Corinth they were and every Saint in the Church a Member in particular 2. 'T is such a Church amongst whom a Schism might be vers 25. as in the Church of Corinth there actually was which was the occasion of Pauls writing to them That there should be no schism in the Body But Schism is entirely in one Church amongst the members of one particular Society saith that learned man J. O. in his Treatise of Schism Besides 3. It will be hard to prove that in the Church catholick-visible as such Officers are set and placed as 't is vers 28 29. These were in the Church of Corinth which was founded by Paul Acts 18. 8 9 10. Probably Peter had been there for he intimâ—tes That at least some of them had gloried overmuch in him 1 Cor. 3. 21 22. Cephas i. e. Peter Prâ—â—hets Teachers Miracles Gifts of heaâ—ing Helps Governments diversities of Tongues were found amongst them as is known Some of these there is no question but they relate to a particular Church That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Teachers here are the same who are elsewhere called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters Elders and Overseers Mr. T. will not I presume deny Arguments lie near at hand for the demonstration thereof were it needful These are placed of God in particular Churches relate to them as such Acts 14. 23. 15. 2 4 6 22 23 16. 4. 20. 17. 21. 18. Tit. 1. 5. Jam. 5. 14. Act. 20. 28. Nor am I singular in the application of this Scripture to the particular Church of Corinth Pareus hath these words upon the place Et quia c. And because he had said that the Church of the Corinthians was the Body of Christ c. manifesting his consent and harmony with us herein that Paul is not treating of the Church-Catholick-visible but of a particular Church of Christ viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church of God that was in Corinth Nor can this Scripture be meant of the invisible Church of Christ for in it God hath placed no Officers that I know of nor will the Animadverter say he hath 2dly If by the Universal Church-visible he mean the Elect of God redeemed sanctified justified by the spirit of the Lord and the blood of Jesus These are indeed called by the name of the Church in Heb. 12. 23. Eph. 1. 22. To which we may add Mat. 16. 28. Eph. 5. 25 26. That the word Church 1 Cor. 15. 9. is taken for the visible Church indefinitely I cannot subscribe to Possible by the Church of God he means First The Churches of God by an usual Figure there being in those dayes few or no Believers but were added to one Church or other as might easily be demonstrated Acts 2. 41 42. and Acts 4. 32. The multitude of Believers is a Paraphrastical description of the Church Acts 5. 11. The great care of the Apostles was to reduce them that embraced and believed the Gospel into a Church-state or that Order of the Gospel which however oppugned by Mr. T. will be found to be of the Institution of Christ As is evident from the Churches in Jerusalem Acts 7. Samaria chap. 8. Antioch Chap. 14 15. In Syria Cilicia Acts 15. 41. Phrygia Galatia Acts 16. 5 6. Macedonia Chap. 16. Thessalonica Chap. 17. Achaia Chap. 18. Ephesus Chap. 19. Asia Rev. 1. and 2. and 3. Rome Rom. 1. c. planted by them notwithstanding the utmost attempts of the power of darkness or great Red Dragon in the Roman Pagan Empire and of the Children of the Kingdom or the chief Priests Scribes Pharisees Rulers multitudes of People especially of the baser sort fit for any desperate design contradicting blaspheming opposing them herein When once we read of the Gospel preached and mingled with Faith in them that hear it the next news we frequently hear is that these Believers embody together for the worshiping God in the same numerical Ordinances the enjoyment of those priviledges and mutual performance of those duties which in a scattered individual state and capacity they were not capable of Though Secondly By way of eminency he might in that expression and no doubt he did so I persecuted the Church of God have his eye upon that famous Church of Jerusalem in the persecution and dispersion whereof he had it seems no mean hand Acts 7. 58. and 8. 3 4. As for Saul he made havock of Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he laid waste the Church entering into every house halling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by force and violence dragging them along the ground both men and women he committed them to Prison And the very truth is this is the most considerable instance if not the only one of Sauls Persecuting the Church of God 'T is true Acts 9. 1. 't is said And Saul breathing out threatnings and slaughters against the Disciples of the Lord but that only imports the wrath and fury that was in his spirit against them and resolution to persecute imprison waste and destroy them the usual issue of blind zeal for the Tradition of their Fathers in other places as he had already done at Jerusalem For which end he procures Letters to Damascus to bring men and women disciples bound to Jerusalem that he should find of this Heresie there But Oh the wonder of Love Before he arrive thither Christ way-layes him speakes from Heaven to him converts him and sets him upon preaching up that very way and truth he was thus violently persecuting and setting himself against So that not the visible Church indifinitely taken but some particular Churches of Jesus Christ and in especial and by way of eminency that famous Church at Jerusalem is intended 1 Cor. 15. 9. That which Mr. T. mentions in the 5 th place That the word Church is taken for the Church Topical i. e. A particular Church of Christ or a company of Believers dwelling in this or that place giving no themselves to the Lord and one another according to his will walking to gether in the fellowship of the Gospel and meeting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place for the worshiping God in the same numerical Ordinances according to the prescription will and institution of Christ Acts 8. 1. 1 Cor. 1. 1. Ephes 1. 1. and many other places Of which Chap. 4. of S. T. we assent to as true But that we should ever subscribe 6thly To that dictate of the Animadverter That Church in Scripture is taken for a Church of a Country or Nation and then it is put in the Plural Number as the Churches of Asia Galatia Judaea being so dissonant to truth and contrary to the express language of the Spirit of the Lord he could never imagine For the Churches of Asia Christ tells us expresly they were Seven
and what is his satisfaction to the removal of the offence given to the Church 4. The Parisian Doctors say truly Ecclesiam nunquam c. The Church cannot be taken for one person nor be govern'd by one Of which the Learned Chamier gives his reason How can it be that the Bishop should be the Church according to whose Ecclesiastical Authority things should be determined Mat. 18. when a long time after the Bishop himself by humane authority had his original of which Ambrose complains And as soon as the Lord had said tell the Church he speaks in the plural number all along afterward Verily I say unto you Whatsoever Ye shall bind on Earth c. Whence it plainly appears that the Church is not taken for one person but for many congregated together Pol. Eccles Yea Sutcliffe when disputing against Bellarmine saith Christ did not constitute the chief Tribunal in the hands of Peter but of the Church for not those who refused to hear Peter but those who refused to hear the Church were to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans De Pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 5 6. Besides in matters of controversie Peter himself was subject to the Tribunal of the Church But a superiour cannot be judged by an inferiour If any controversie happened amongst the Apostles that could not be defined by particular persons but a Council of the Church was to be congregated This we see done Acts 15. Now one would think our present Bishops should not be so arrogant as to assume that power to themselves which when disputing with the Papists they will not allow to Peter 2dly In the judgment of our Brethren of the Presbyterian way Tell the Church is tell the Presbytery But they are I humbly conceive somewhat wide of the mark too My Reasons are 1. The Church is sometimes put for the Congregation as distinct from the Presbytery or Elders and Officers Acts 14. 23. 15. 22. never for these as distinct from the Congregation throughout the New-Testament 2. The Presbytery may be the party offending and then you must tell the Church that the Church offendeth i. e. go tell themselves But the Scripture is express that after private dealing with the offenders themselves upon non-amendment the Church as distinct from them is to be acquainted with it 3. What if the Presbytery themselves be offended whom shall they tell must they tell themselves If they are the Church they can go no further 4. Besides we find 1 Cor. 5. not the Presbytery alone but the whole Church concerned in the matter of Excommunication of which our Brethren confess Christ here treateth This Animadverter manifests his good will to interpret it of an Assembly of the Jews in their Synedrium or if extended as a direction to Christian Brethren whether to refer it to their Assembly under an Ecclesiastical consideration or Political i. e. the Christian Magistrate he seems to demur with an apparent inclination to the latter To the first of these Mr. Cotton answers †Treat of the Keys p. 40 An. 3. It is not credible that Christ would send his Disciples to make complaint of their offences to the Jewish Synagogues for is it likely he would send his Lambs and Sheep for right and healing unto Wolves and Tygres Both their Sanhedrim and most of their Synagogues were no better And if here and there some Elders of their Synagogues were better affected yet how may it appear that so it was where any of themselves dwelt And if that might appear too yet had not the Jews already agreed that if any man did confess Christ he should be cast out of the Synagogues Joh. 9. 22. To which we add 2dly Christ knew that within a little while the Synedrim and whole Church-Policy of the Jews would be at an end And 3dly in the mean while charges his Disciples to have nothing to do with them Mat. 15. 14. Tell them that they would persecute kill them and think in doing so they did God good service As it fell out afterwards accordingly So that it cannot with the least shew of reason be imagined that Christ should direct them to appeal to them and stand to their final determination 2dly The second desires not a reply Go tell the Church i. e. go tell the Magistrate is so wild an interpretation that the bare naming it is the giving it too much honour 1. The Magistrate is no where called the Church 2dly The Magistrate quâ talis hath nothing to do in the stating and determining Church-Controversies 3dly Sometimes and for the most part they have ever since been for above three hundred years afterward they undoubtedly were no members of the Church but enemies to it destroyers of it Mr. T. adds that he can find no Institution by preception or command of a Church i. e. there is no such thing as an instituted Church of Christ under the Gospel but 't is left to the prudence of men c. to determine whether they shall be Domestick Congregational Parochial Classical Diocesan Provincial Patriarchal or Oecumenical which how derogatory to the Honour and Sovereign Authority of Jesus Christ to his love and tenderness to his Children to his Faithfulness with respect to the obligation that lay upon him as Mediator to reveal the whole will of the Father to them others will judge For my part I am fully of his mind who some while since said That there were particular Churches instituted by the Authority of Jesus Christ ordained and approved by him that Officers for them were of his appointment and furnished with gifts from him for the execution of their employment That Rules Cautions and Instructions for the due settlement of those Churches were given by him that these Churches were made the only seat of that Worship which in particular he expressed his will to have continued until he came is of so much light in Scripture that he must wink hard that will not see it Which is as much as we need to say to this Animadverter in this matter what he saith herein being meer dictates of his own without proof which when he shall be able to evince that Christ hath not the Government of his Churches upon his shoulders that he is not sole King and Lord over them or having so hath not given them Rules to walk by of his own but left them to the liberty of their own wills or which is worse the wills of such as by Providence are permited to ascend the Throne though such as whilst they profess to know God in works deny him being abominable and disobedient and to every good work reprobate he will be supposed to say something in way of confirmation But of this more in Sect. 15. 'T is true de facto Parochial Classical Diocesan Provincial Patriarchical and Oecumenical Churches by the prudence of men c. have had and yet have their being it the World and the Animadverter deals ingenuously in acknowledging that their original
is not from Heaven but the issue of humane pâ—udence c. So that to them or their Rulers and Officers as such we owe no tribute or respect by vertue of any Institution of Christ which they are as he acknowledgeth and that truly destitute of ' Tweâ—e easie to fill many pages with citations of Authors speaking to this matter Whereas originally there was a small uncertain number of Presbyters at Roms they were brought to a certain number and order by Cletuâ— and Evaristus Popes of Rome First Cletus reduced the Presbytery of Rome to the number of twenty five Afterwards Evaristus about the year of Christ 100 appointed and prescribed a several Parish to every one of these Presbyters which Parishes were afterwards â—nlarged and had their bounds and limits more perfectly and more exactly prescribed to them by Pope Dyonisius as was said about the year of Christ 260 After which time Marcâ—llus about the year of Christ 305 limited the number of those titles which anciently were first given to the Presbyters by Evaristus and did by Decree constitute That there should be in Rome 25 as it were so many Diocesses for the more convenient baptizing of such Gentiles as were daily converted to Christian Religion Onuphrius Panvinius de praecipuis urbis Romae Basiliciâ— And Selden in his History of Tythes chap. 6. Sect. 3. writes thus For Parish Churches it is plain that as Metropolitan See's Patriaâ—chats Exarchates in the Eastern Church Bishopricks these greater dignities were most usually at first ordained and limited according to the distinction of Seats of Government and inferiour Cities that had been assigned to the Substitutes or Vicarii of the Praefect Pratorio or Vice-Roys of the East and Western-Empire So were Parishes appointed and divided to several Ministers within the Ecclesiastical rule of these dignities according to the conveniences of Country-Towns and Villages one or more or less of such as being but small Territories might not by the Canons be Bishopricks to a Parish The word Parish at first denoting a whole Bishoprick which is but as a great Parish and signifies no other â—han Diocesâ— but afterwards being confined to what our common language restrains it The Curats of these Parishes were such as the Bishops appointed under him to have cure of souls in them and were called Presbyterii Parochiani i. e. Parish-Presbyters But thus far of this matter As touching what Mr. T. adds that there is no precept about the defining how many should go to a Church or be accounted to belong to one Church c. We answer 1. That 't is very impertinently produced by him tending not at all to the matter in hand such a visible non-sequitur as he will never be able to make good How many should go to a Church we have no precept of Christ directing and enjoyning us Ergo no Institution of a Church by preception or command But 2dly That we are in this matter wholly destitute of Law or Rule is a mistake of this Animadverter First Mat. 18. 20. manifests that the Church cannot well consist of fewer than seven For 1. there is the Brother offending 2dly Two or three reproving this offending Brother And 3dly the Church before whom the matter is to be brought for final determination which cannot be supposed to be fewer if so few as the persons bringing it before them Secondly That they be no more than can conveniently meet together in one place and so that they may hear and be edified which is the great end of Church-communion the Scripture plainly intimates 1 Cor. 14. 23. If therefore the whole Church be come together in one place ver 26. let all things be done unto edifying But if all cannot hear they cannot be edified So wide off the mark of Truth is his Assertion that neither Christ nor his Apostles have given us any Rule or Law of bounding or modelling Churches which though how many members may be added to a Church be not expresly prescribed he hath done That Text Mat. 18. 17. seems much to perplex this Animadverter what is meant by Church there he cannot tell 'T is uncertain he saith whether the Christian Civil Judicatory or Ecclesiastical Consistory or Congregational Assembly of Believers or some select Arbitrators be meant Of the three first of these we have spoken already and manifested that not the Jewish Synedrium but the Christian Church not the Christian Civil Judicatory or Ecclesiastical Consistory is intended by the Church here That select Arbitrators should be meant is the first-born of improbabilities 1. They are no where called a Church in the Scripture 2. The Church in the Text are such a company to whom the party or parties aggrieved may presently have their recourse which to select Arbitrators they cannot have they must first be chosen of which notwithstanding there is not the least tittle in the Text. 3. Here is no mention of the consent of the party offending in the election of the Arbitrators which of right ought in such cases to be 4. From the Church here there seems to lye no appeal 5. The Sentence pronounced by the Church is a Sentence confirmed in Heaven ver 18. which Mr. T. upon second thoughts will not say can be affirmed of the Sentence of his select Arbitrators Yea 6ly if the party offending will not hear the Church he is to be accounted as an Heathen i. e. they are to hold no religious communion with him and Publican i. â— withholding from them familiar civil communion but I much question whether it be my duty to carry it so to a Brother that shall refuse to submit to the sentence of Mr. Tombs his select Arbitrators especially if he had no hand in their election never referr'd his affairs to their arbitrement testifies his willingness to hearken to the Church and stand to their determination therein But 't is time we attend the reasons this Animadverter gives of his opinion The first whereof is The offence is private that might be remitted by the party offended Answ 1. If by private he mean such an offence as was only known to them two it 's granted The words are a direction from Christ to Brethren how to carry it each to other in case of secret and private scandals and offences for when the fact is open publick and notorious there needs not this private admonition another way of procedure is directed to and established 1 Tim. 5. 20. Those that sin viz. cum scandalo Ecclesia saith Piscator rebuke before all that others also may fear And the Church of Corinth without any such previous process was bound the fact being publick and notorious to excommunicate and purge out from amongst them that wicked person 1 Cor. 5. 2 4 5 7. but it follows not that because the offence in his sense is privâ—te that therefore by Church must be meant not a particular instituted Church but select Arbitrators But 't is more than probable by private he means such a particular
and they also which pierced him and all kindreds of the Earth shall wail because of him And Mat. 24. 30. Then shall appear the Sign of the Son of Man either per Synechdochen the great signs of Glory and Majesty which then shall compass him round about or the Son of Man himself as the sign of Circumcision is nothing else but Circumcision it self in Heaven And then shall all the Tribes of the Earth mourn and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the Clouds of Heaven viz. in Majesty and great glory The sight whereof shall be the meaâ—s of their miraculous Conversion Accordingly you have here in Isa 66. vers 5. The appearing of the Lord. The issue whereof is 1 The ruine of his enemies vers 6 14 15 16 where you have Christs appearance largely discoursed of Rev. 19. 2 The Conversion and Restauration of the Jews vers 7 8 9. 3 The concomitant Glory in the new Heaven and new Earth state or the time of the restitution of all things vers 10 11 12 13 14 22 23. All which considered I humbly conceive I had ground enough to assert That Isa 66. 8. is a Prophesie expresly relating to the Jews and their miraculous Conversion That because t is said Rom. 11. 25 26. When the fullness of the Gentiles is come in all Israel shall be saved Therefore I may find something of a National Church consisting of several Parish Churches bounded by old Customs Laws Constitutions c. in subordination to Diocesan Metropolitan Churches with their several Officers of Priests Arch-Deacons Bishops Arch-Bishops on the head of them which is the National Church we are enquiring after in Isa 66. 8. is a Consequence I shall never see Mr. T. make good That he should do so is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the number of those things that are impossible And once for all I desire him when he writes next not to think so highly of himself as to conceit that his dictates must pass without controle but to remember he is as well as other men obliged to give us a reason of them else we shall not think our selves bound to take any further notice of them then to reject them as sayings of no weight or value Sect. 15. Of National Ministers Peter Paul Titus no National Ministers Ephes 4. 11 12 13 explained The Body of Christ there not the Church-Catholick visible but a particular Church of Christ proved Pastors and Teachers are only belonging to one particular Congregation If a man be a Minister by the appointment of Christ of a Church-Catholick visible he cannot be a Minister of Christ of a National Church The Ministers of Christ are either Extraordinary or Ordinary Of Saints Interest in each 1 Cor. 3. 22 23 expounded THE second Querie in the S. T. is 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 To this Mr. T. pretends to answer Sect. 16. And after conjectures of what I mean by National Ministers he gives us such a description of them as he could not sure think any man besides himself would subscribe to but it served his design he thought By National Ministers I mean such as are members of a National Church related to it as the Ministers thereof as such Ordained and set apart by National Officers bound up by its Canons and Laws in their Ministrations who when Mr. T. shall prove to be Ministers of Christ he will be supposed to say something in answer to the Querie which as yet he hath not done His ensuing Arguments speak not a word for such National Ministers himself being Judge 1st Peter though he had the Apostleship of Circumcision and Paul of the Gentiles were not National Ministers 2dly Nor Titus though left in Crete to set in order things that were wanting and to ordain Elders in every City Tit. 1. 5. Fâ—r they were First No members of a National Church Secondly Not related to it as the Ministers thereof Thirdly Not Ordained or set apart to their Office by Natinnal Officers Fourthly Not bounded and circumscribed in their Mâ—nistrations by any devised Institutions or Canons thereof None of which were then in being as is known He goes on and tells us 3dly They that may be Ministers of Christ though they be Ministers for the Body of Christ and all the Members thereof maâ— be Ministers of Christ though National But Pastors and Teachers are given for the edifying of the Body of Christ Therefore c. Answ 1. If by the Body of Christ Mr. T. means the Church-Catholick visible The Apostle Eph. 4. 11 12 13. speaks not a word of it not the Body of Professors or multitude of persons professing Faith in Christ is there intended but some particular Instituted Church of Christ Which we prove 1. The Body of Christ Eph. 4. 11 12 13. is the same with the Body and Church of Christ 1 Cor. 12. 27 28. as by the serious perusal of both places comparing the one with the other will to the sober and judicious be evident That there it signifies a particular Church of Christ we have demonstrated Sect. 13. therefore here it also so signifies 2. Here Pastors and Teachers are said to be given for the edifying of the Body of Christ i. e. particular instituted Churches of Christ and accordingly we find them ordained in every Church Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. and the whole of their charge limited to particular Churches Acts 20. 17 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Col. 4. 17. who are commanded to obey them in the Lord 1 Thess 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. from whom they might not upon every occasion nor without â—he consent of the Congregation upon any pretext whatsoever remove See Calv. Institut l. 4. c. 3. s 7. of which Mr. Paul Bains speaks in his Exposition on the Ephesians chap. 2. 3. p. 350 351. As the Lord doth give a Calling and Grace so a People towards whom it is especially blessed It is true the Apostle had a more large Flock the care of all Churches was upon him but wheresoever God giveth a Calling there he giveth a People of whom the Minister may say Toward you Grace is given me of God Acts 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. God hath assigned every ordinary Minister a portion of his People for this is the difference between extraordinary as the Apostles Evangelists the seventy Disciples and our ordinary Pastors The Apostles had an Universal Commission and the Evangelists were Delegates of the Apostles The Seventy if not Evangelists which some of the Ancients encline to yet they were illimited helpers and fellow-labourers in the work of the Lord. But ordinary Ministers the Lord commanded to fasten them to certain places Tit. 1. 5. Ordain Elders City by City And in the Council of Chalcedon chap. 6. Let none be ordained at large lest he prove a wandring
Jonathan Every Minister must be 1. Seperated 2. Authorized 3. have allotted to him a certain portion of people which may be instructed by him which the diminutive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may seem to insinuate Now as God doth give every Pastor his several Flock so he will that we travel in leading of them we must not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must not be Bishops in other mens Diocesses lest God say Who hath required this at your hands When the Lord lighteth Candles he doth find Candlesticks on which to set them c. The sum is 1. The Body of Christ Eph. 4. 11 12. is a particular Church of Christ for the edification of which Pastors and Teachers are given 2ly Ordinary Officers are limited to particular Churches From whence the vanity of this Animadverter's Argument is conspicuous to every eye If by Body of Christ he understand in his first Proposition the Universal Catholick Church 1. His Argument is naught consisting of four terms for we have manifested that the Body of Christ in the Minor which is the Apostles is a particular Church of Christ 2. Hiâ— Major is invalid It doth not follow that if men may be Ministers of Christ though they be Ministers for the Body of Christ and all the members thereof that they may be Ministers of Christ though National If he think Ministers for the Body of Christ and all the members thereof and national Ministers are aequipollent upon second thoughts he will be so ingenious as to acknowledge he was mistaken Nay 3dly The very truth is 't is so far from being true that upon supposition a man may be a Minister of the Body of Christ and yet the Minister of Christ i. e. by the appointment of Christ a Minister for his Body and all the Membeâ—â— Churches thereof That therefore he may be the Minister of Christ though National that ejus contrarium est verum A man cannot be a Minister of Christ if a National Minister or Minister of a National Church upon supposition that Christ hath instituted and appointed his Ministers to be Ministers for his Body i. e. his Church-Catholick-visible which is not sure confined within the narrow circumference of one Nation A mans residence wherein will be accounâ—ed but a pittiful discharge of his Ministry upon the supposition aforesaid But 4thly By the Body of Christ Ephes 4. we have proved a particular Church of Christ to be intended That there is any shew of reason in the Animadverters proposition They that may be Ministers of Christ though they may be Ministers of the Body of Christ i. e. a particular Church of Christ and all the Members thereof which by the appointment of Christ they are may be Ministers of Christ though National which none are but by the devisings of man and appointment of Antichrist he himself will not have the confidence to aver There are these things incumbent upon him to prove if he ever reinforce this Argument First That by Body of Christ Ephes 4. is not meant a particular Instituted Church of Christ Secondly That ordinary Church Officers for to run into a discourse of what was done by the Apostles extraordinary Officers who were not fixt any where nor could be whilest they made conscience of their Commission Mat. 28. 19. which was to Preach the Gospel to every Creature In which Office none are their Successors as we prove Chap. 4. is such a pittiful fig-leaf to cover ones nakedness with that every eye will see through are not limited to or fixed in a particular Congregation Thirdly Manifest the truth of this proposition shoulâ— it be granted him for disputes sake that by Body Ephes 4. is meant the Church-Catholick-visible They that may be Ministers of Christ though they may be Ministers of the Body of Christ i. e. the Church-Catholick-visible and all the members thereof may be Ministers of Christ though National The Bottom or Basis upon which it is built I must acknowledge my short-sightedness to be such that I cannot ken nor it may be a wiser man than either of us His Fourth Argument is like the rest 't is thus formed If any of the Saints as well as one particular Congregation have an Inâ—erest in all the Ministers of Christ so as that they are truly theirs then Ministers of Christ may be National But 1 Cor. 3. 22 23 Paul and Cephas and Apollos were all the Corinthians and all others who were Christ's Therefore Answ En cor Zenodoti en jecur cratetis What is most admirable in this Argument I know not A few things will manifest its nakedness to all 1st The Ministers of Christ are either such as were called extraordinary as were immediately sent by Christ or assumed to themselves by them who were so sent to be coadjutors or fellow-workers with them in that service and employment to preach the Gospel throughout the world and were fixed no where related as Pastors or Teachers to no one particular Congregation more than another or such as were mediately sent by Christ ordained in and set apart for particular Congregations Of the former sort were the Apostles c. Of the latter Pastors Teachers as we but now proved 2dly The having an interest in Ministers is either the having an interest in their gifts and abilities God hath given them or in their persons as Ministers appointed by the Lord to oversee instruct and watch over their souls as such that must give an account Heb. 13. 17. Now let him take Ministers in either sence for extraordinary or ordinary Ministers and an interest in them for an interest in their gifts or in them as Ministers appointed by the Lord to watch over and instruct them the consequence of his first proposition is most weak and invalid Though all the Saints in the world might claim an interest in Paul c. it doth not follow that they were National Ministers which 't was impossible they should be there being no such thing as a National Church from whence a National Minister hath his denomination And Mr. T. may as well surmise a King without Subjects a Father without Children or a Husband without a Wife as to surmise Paul c. to be National Ministers when there was no such thing in being as a National Church The like may be said of Pastors and Teachers in that day But 3dly If he take Ministers for ordinary Ministers as he must do if he speak to purpose extraordinary Ministers being ceased with the Apostles and their interest in them for their interest in them as Ministers to oversee and instruct them in the Lord by virtue of Office-power there is nothing more false than this that every Saint hath an interest in them as such none but that particular Congregation having in that sense an interest in them to which they are related as Ministers Nor doth the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 22 23. say that every Saint hath 1. All is yours is no more
as is made by marriage joyn our selves to the Lord c. so Isa 2. 3. Mich. 4. 2. Isa 44. 5. Zech. 8. 21 22 23. 2dly Accordingly we have the Churches of Christ in the New-Testament practising and commended for their so doing as acting therein according to the will of God Acts 2. 41 42. 2 Cor. 8. 5. 3dly The several names and titâ—es given unto particular Churches evince as much Every such Church is called 1. A Body 1 Cor. 12. 27. Col. 3. 15. Rom. 14. 4 5. Eph. 5. 30 32. Col. 1. 18 21. Now 't is not the multitude or number of members whether many or few that constitute or make a Body We say not if we come into a Field where a Battel hath been fought and find an Arm in one place a Leg in another an Hand in a third c. though we meet with as many members scattered up and down as are in the body yea though thrown together in heaps that here is a body no no 't is Rudis indigestaque moles Their union each with other and coalescency in one is that which gives them that denomination Particular Saints scattered here and there or casually coming together are not nor can they be called the Body of Christ their union each with other by their free and mutual consent is that which denominates them so to be 2. An House or Temple Heb. 3. 6. Ephes 2. 21 22. 1 Tim. 3. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Mr. T. knows who have thought the world was made by the casual confluence of Atoms he doth not sure think that a casual concurrence of people professing the Name of the Lord without more ado are or can become an House or Temple for him 3. A City a Kingdom Eph. 2. 19. Mat. 21. 43. Heb. 12. 28. Joh. 18. 36. That a man should be any way a member of these but by his free consent cannot be asserted with the least shew of reason 4. A Fraternity or Brotherhood Zech. 11. 14. 1 Pet. 2. 17. compared with chap. 5. 2 13. 5. A Candlestick in allusion to Moses his Candlesticks Exod. 25. 31. wherein though there were many shafts yet they did all coalesce in one Rev. 1. 11 12 20. All which as they import Aggregation or a solemn union so they clearly evince that this cannot be but by free and mutual consent 4. Besides we find Christ promising his Presence to his Church and People thus aggregated or gathered an Argument of his well-pleasedness therein Mat. 18. 20. which accordingly he makes good to the Churches of Asia as to the rest Rev. 1. 13. which we have proved to be particular Congregational Churches That they were separated from the World and its Worship gathered together by their own free consent for the worshipping God Mr. T. cannot deny There were no Laws to compel them hereunto but the contrary So that 3dly we may righteously retort this Animadverters Argument upon himself There cannot be a true Church where those things essential to a true Church cannot be found But in National Churches in general in the Church of England in particular those things that are essential to a true Church cannot be found Therefore The Major is Mr. T 's The Minor we prove Right matter and form is of the essence of a true Church both wanting in the Church of England 1. The right matter Mr. T. denies not to be visible Saints visible Drunkards Swearers Whoremongers covetous persons are not such yet of such as these is the Church of England mostly composed 2dly The form of a true Church we have manifested to consist in separation from Worldly Formal Antichristian Worshippers gathering together by free consent into a Church-state or particular Societies for the Worship and Service of God neither of which can be asserted of the Church of England Much of the Worship of the Nations of Antichrist at least their rites and modes of Service is retained in it And into that Church-state such as it is in which they are fixed did they never enter by their free and voluntary consent but by the Laws of the Kingdom were they at first I speak of their National-Church-state that the Gospel was early whether by Joseph of Arimathea or some one of the Apostles is not material preached in England that then a true Church or Churches were here planted I grant but this is nothing to their present frame as a Church-National compell'd thereunto and by severe Laws retained therein to this day From which as from the Lordly Prelacy the most sober People of the Nation do every-where groaning being burdened long to be delivered What follows will receive a speedy dispatch 1. 'T is true the defect of outward order i. e. of every outward order though of the institution of Christ doth not nullifie the Church but want of that order which is of the essence of the Church as we have evinced to be the case of the Church of England doth so 2dly Mr. T 's instances of the disorders in the Church of Corinth yet a true Church are so evidently impertinent that the bare mentioning them is confutation sufficient The Church of Corinth was a rightly constituted Church made up of visible Saints 1 Cor. 1. 1. gathered together into a particular body 1 Cor. 12. 27. meeting together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place for the Worship of God 1 Cor. 11. 20. 14. 23. Some disorders found amongst this Church did not nullifie it Ergo the defect of that Order that is instituted by Christ ad esse to the very existence and being of a Gospel-Church as is the case of National Churches doth not nullifie them will not in hast be made good When Mr. T. proves the sameness of constitution betwixt the particular Church of Corinth and the National Church of England his instance of disorders amongst the Corinthians will be acknowledged pertinent but till then he will not himself upon second thoughts say it is so The having of Natioâ—al Rulers Ecclesiastical either single persons or in a Synod or Convocation make not a false Church saith the Animadverter Answ 1. But should this be granted it would not follow that a National Church is not a false Church which it may be upon other accounts though upon the account hereof it should be acqâ—itted But 2ly National Officers or Rulers Ecclesiastical in whom all Church-power is stated as Arch-Bishop and from thence derived to Diocesan Bishops and by them communicated in part to the ordinary Parish-Priests as is the case of the National Ecclesiastical Officers of England are false and Antichristian Officers and Ministers we prove chap. 3. of the S. T. That a National Church so denominated from their subjection to these should be a true Church is beyond the reach of my understanding What he addeth touching Synods owned and submitted unto by those of the Congregational way and Churches of a greater number and at a greater distance than could meet in one place every Lord's day is
seeth to lye in his way which in sum is this The first Church of Christ under the Oeconomy of the Gospel was undoubtedly formed according to the mind of Christ But this was a particular instituted Church which though numerous was not so numerous but that they might meet together in the same place Therefore not a National Church but a particular Church of Christ is of his institution c. The first Proposition is easily demonstrated It was formed by the Apostles men of integrity and faithfulness who would not durst not innovate in the things of Christ who had but lately received charge from him to teach Believers to observe and do all things whatsoever he had commanded them and had promised thereupon his presence with them To whom also after his Resurrection he opened his heart or plainly spoke of things pertaining to the Kingdom of God or Gospel Church-state Acts 1. 3. Accordingly 'tis said of them That they revealed the Counsel of God not their own but his Acts 20. 27. delivered to them what they had received of the Lord Christ 1 Cor. 11. 23. To have done otherwise had been an establishment of Will-worship which they condemn Col. 2. 13. The Minor Proposition is manifest The first Church of Christ under the Oeconomy of the Gospel was the Church at Jerusalem This was a particular Church of Christ 'T is said of them Chap. 2. 46. That they continued daily with one accord in the Temple Vers 47. Such as we converted are said to be added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that Church viz. which was at Jerusalem See Chap. 4. 23 24 29. and 5. 12. and 8. 1 3. and 11. 22. and 12. 5. and 15. 4 22. 'T is strange to me that when the Spirit of the Lord whenever he makes mention of this Church at Jerusalem speaks of it as one particular instituted Church of Christ any persons of sobriety should dare to assert that it was not such lifting up themselves against his dictates and Testimony Let 's consider what the Animadverter replies hereunto He tells us 1. That in Luke in many places the word multitude with an universal sign is not taken for every one not one exempted as Luke 8. 37. Acts 25. 24. 6. 2. 16. 12 30. 21. 22. To which briefly 1st 'T is granted though what he produceth Acts 16. 12 30 to evince I cannot tell I am sure 't is hugely impertinent to the matter in hand Nor 2dly Is it at all material whether in the places instanced in by us where that expression is used it be taken for every one none exempted or not This only is incumbent on us to prove First That the Church at Jerusalem was a particular Church of Christ And 2dly Such a particular Church as did meet all of them when not providentially hindred might do so notwithstanding their multitude for the Worship of God There was no impossibility in rei natura of their so doing which he must wink hard that doth not see shining forth in its brightness in the fore-mentioned Scriptures which when Mr. T. offers one Argument to evert it shall be considered His 't is not likely will not pass for demonstration amongst persons that look for proof of that which is asserted The Spirit of the Lord assuring us that the multitude of the Disciples were called together 't is not only likely but most certain that they were so Nor is it likely that those whose particular duty and concern lay in what was to be managed theâ—e would willingly absent themselves Mr. T. himself tells us in his Antipaedobaptism or the 3d part p. 340. that all the Church did come together Act. 5. 11 12. were gathered together Act. 14. 27. and that they were not parts of the Church who did not come together c. His second Reply is scarce worth the mentioning If it be granted that they then met for that business yet there is no likelihood that they met for Ordinances And why so I pray why 't is said Act. 2. 46. that they did break bread from house to house Ans 1. But that because they sometimes celebrated that Ordinance more privately it should necessarily follow that they never did it all of them together that they were not in a capacity were in an utter impossibility of so doing as is the case of a National Church is beyond the verge of any mans understanding but Mr. T. And 't is desired he would at his next leizure make good that consequence I am informed and doubt not the truth of it that Mr. T. after he had been in hearing of the Parish-Priest at Lempster not long since got as many of the Church to whom he once owned himself related as their Pastor together as he could and brake bread privately with them yet may it not thence rationally be concluded that he never celebrated that Ordinance with them more publickly or that he never intends to do so much less that the Congregation he still it seems holds communion with is so numerous that they cannot break bread together in the same place Such pittiful Sophisms as these will never pass for proof amongst persons that have the exercise of their understanding or reason Yet 2dly The Animadverter's Concession is a grant of the verity of that he sets himself to oppose If Act. 6. 2. the Church did meet in one Congregation for that business as Mr. T. saith 't is evident they were not so numerous but they might meet together in one Assembly which is the matter in controversie betwixt us He adds 3dly The Church of Jerusalem cannot be said to be the pattern of all Churches Answ 1. Nor is it necessary that we assert it so to be The discovery of the Will of Christ the Laws and Rules he hath given forth touching the aggregation of his Children into a Gospel-Church-state are the pattern of all the Churches of Christ in the World and whatever Church is not constituted according to this pattern is none of his nor will ever by him be owned so to be Yet 2dly This Church at Jerusalem being planted by the Apostles according to the mind of Christ may with reference thereunto be said to be the pattern of all rightly constituted Churches What hath our Animadverter to excepâ— against this He tells us this cannot be because 1. There was no distribution of Believers under particular Offâ—cers Answ 1. But what doth Mr. T. mean by the distribution of Believers under particular Officers doth he mean that they were not distributed into several Congregations under their particular Pastors no one saith they were we assert them to be one Church They are no less a pattern of particular Churches than if they had been so distributed so long as we find them in a possibility of meeting in the same place 2dly Doth he mean that they had no Pastors amongst them This is more than he will in hast make good For 1. They had Apostles 2dly They had fixed
they were oblieged to fashion their building is not from hence proved 'T was of old prophesied of Christ That he should build his spiritual House or Temple and bear the glory Zac. 6. 13. which accordingly 't is said he did in which he was faithful Heb. 3. 3 5. How either the one or other can be affirmed of Christ if he not at all concerned himself with the figure or quantity of his House but left this to the prudence of men I am not able to conceive Certainly if there be any glory in the Structure 't is to be ascribed according to this Animadverters principles to the dreg and net of humane prudence and policy Man must bear the glory thereof not Christ which whether it be not plainly to justle Christ out of the Throne of his Glory and set up a Man of clay there a very Idol in his room let the judicious Reader determine 2dly Where any besides Christ is called The Foundation of this Building as this Animadverter asserts I know not I remember full well that the Apostle speaks of him as the alone Foundation 1 Cor. 3. 10 11. an expression wholly destructive of Mr. T. his Assertion 'T is true Eph. 2. 20. the Apostle tells the Ephesians They were built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles i. e. on Christ the Foundation upon which they and all Believers that ever were in the world were built But he no where saith That these were the Churches Foundation And yet were this yeelded him it would be short of an evident demonstration of what our Animadverter introduceth it to evince viz. That many things appertaining to the outward figure and quantity of the Church were left to them to order and determine in and by their own private spirit What they did in this matter they had instructions from Christ to do were infallibly guided by the Spirit of the Lord in Yet were it further granted him That the distribution of Churches was in a great measure left to the Apostles doth it thence follow That others of the Children of Men Antichrist the Son of Perdition may distribute and figure them as they please and that in direct opposition to the figure and quantity of them exhibited by the Apostles in the first Institution of Churches in the world What more frivolous The worthy Parker proceeds The Material Temple had its breadth and its measure described most accurately by God shall not the Spiritual have its Wherefore then was that Reed given to John Wherefore a Command to measure the Temple Rev. 11. 1 To which Mr. T. 1st By way of Concession Each Congregational Church is the Temple of God The true Christian Church is shadowed by the Type of the Old Temple the several parts of which were of old most accurately described and measured by the command of God that men might know that this House was made by God that it is not of humane Structure God hath by his providence described the Spiritual Temple as well as the Material 2dly By way of Negation God hath not given us any such description of the outward fashion and order the breadth and measure i. e. the number c. of the Spiritual Temple as he did to Moses c. of the material Temple And afterwards God hath not determined the distribution and order of particular Churches so but that he hath left many things therein to humane prudence Answ And this Mr. T. calls an Answer to the forementioned Argument that any person not bereft of his understanding besides himself will deem it to be so he must not imagine The Question is Whether the Form of Churches be of Divine Institution Mr. T. deries it The learned Parker proves it is Because the Form of the Temple which was a Type of the Gospel Churches was so and God cannot be supposed to take less care of his Spiritual than he did of his material Temple What is our Animadverters reply Why the Form of Churches is not of Divine Institution He persists in his opinion without taking the least notice of the Argument advanced against it But seriously Sir persons of judgment and sobriety will either smile at your folly or pitty you for your self-conceit in such replies as these In my shallow judgement would he have removed this Argument out of his way he should either have proved that the material Temple of old was not typical of Gospel-Churches or that the figure and model of it was not of divine Institution or that though both these are true which he grants the consequence is not valid that therefore God hath instituted the form of his New-Testament-Churches which when he shall be able to prove that the Antitype must not correspond with the Type or that Gods care was more about his material than his Spiritual Temple he will be supposed to say someting but till then though he cry till his Lungs crack falleris Parkere falleris though he may amuse the simple with his noise of words the intelligent Reader will discern his weakness and nakedness 2dly Gods describing the Spiritual Temple as well as the Corporal by his providence is a certain kind of Gibberish I understand not he describes both in his Word To that Question Wherefore then was the Reed given to John Wherefore a Command to measure the Temple Rev. 11. 1. Our An madverter Replies It was not that he should set down the figure or quaâ—tity of each particular Church or the number of Persons that are to belong to it c. but his measuring the Temple was his understanding the the extent of it i. e how large and how narrow the Church should be in after-times in what estate of Peace or Persecution c. Answ But these are his wonted dictates without any tender of proof 1. The Temple of God was typical of the New Testament Churches who are therefore here represented under the notion and similitude of the Temple 2. These had hitherto during the first ten Persecutions remained in some measure of Purity and consonancy to the first Institution 3. But now they were to contest with another an Antichristian Beast therefore measure them saith the Angel to John with a Reed Let them look to it that they mend what is already amiss in and amongst them by and that they swerve not from the measuring Reed or Rule for therein will lie their safety as we know it hath done from Antichristian defilements 4. The Golden Reed is the Word of God which though in it self precious and excellent as Gold to the men of the world and the carnal Antichristian Church it 's accounted and used as a Reed a mean and contemptible thing though it is indeed like unto a Rod the Rod of Christ's strength it is by which he ruleth in the midst of his enemies That there should be a Command given forth to measure the Temple the Churches by this Reed if their Form were not instituted and appointed therein is not to
be imagined upon that supposition a measure of them by it were impossible to be taken 5. The measured Court saith the learned Mede setteth forth the primitive state of the Christian Church conformable to the Rule of Gods Word The measuring is an allusion to Ezek. 43. 7 to 10. or to building viz. That what the drawing of the Platform is to Builders the same is Measuring to God in the language of the Prophets i. e. the state of the Church figured thereby is God's workmanship 6. The measuring is as was said a clear allusion to Ezek. 43. 10. but that measuring was in order to the shewing the form of the House Let them measure the pattern ver 11. Shew them the form of the House and the fashion thereof therefore the measuring here must be for the same end too Mr. Parker further argues If God when the Church of the Jews is call'd to the Faith designs the quantity longitude latitude thereof it cannot be imagined that he hath left the dimension of the Gentile Churches to humane pleasure But when the Church of the Jews is called to the Faith he designs the quantity c. thereof Therefore Mr. T. replies 1. That the Holy City is the visible Church of the Jews c. Or that the measuring it was to design the quantity of particular Churches is not probable Answ But this is more than probable that the Holy City be it what it will is exactly formed and figured by the Lord as the measuting the City the Gates the Walls thereof doth abundantly evince If you take it for the converted Jews as some learned men do or the Gentile Churches after the fall and ruine of Antichrist to which it may be Mr. T. rather enclines 't is not probable that God should then take such exact care about the forming and figuring of the Church-societies of these and in the mean while leave his present Churches to the good pleasure of the children of men and those none of the best neither 2dly He tells us Inasmuch as the Apostle Rom. 11. 25. asserts that all Israel shall be saved he might better argue for a National Church of Christ's Institution from the visible Church-state of the Jews at their future calling than for a Congregational Church Answ 1. But then he must argue that some Church-form is of divine institution which would overturn his present structure 2. He must first prove that the Jews Church-state upon their conversion will be National which the Apostle's words all Israel shall be saved do not evince for so they may be though formed up into particular societies as some learned men think they shall 3. God's designing more diligently the quantity c. of the Jewish Church at their calling hereafter and leaving the dimension of ours to humane choice may be done Mr. T. tells us out of more special love to them Answ 1. But pag. 39. he tells us That God's leaving things appertaining to the New-Testament-Churches to be set down by man more than he did to the Jewish-Church is an Argument of greater love and care to the New-Testament-Churches than to them This needs a Reconciler 2. However he neither manifests that God bears greater love to the Jews than Gentiles which to speak properly he cannot do nor that if he did so he should bear so little love to the New-Testament-Churches as to leave them wholly to the forming of the sons of men What he adds fourthly in answer to what is further argued by Mr. Parker that the Church is compared to a City but no City is so negligently administred by man that no regard is had to the bounds and lin its thereof is greatly impertinent for though it may consist with the prâ—dence and care of good Princes to leave many things to the choice of some in the City incorporated as the ordering their Meetings c. â—s shall be found most convenient for them yet to take no more care thereabout than to suffer the City to grow up into the compass of a Shire a Nation would scarce be accounted consistant with that prudence and wisdom which should be in them And thus far of Mr. T. his reply to the famous Parkers Arguments for the Divine Institution of Churches For a close of this Section we shall briefly propose twelve Arguments for the further clearing of the truth That the Form of Churches is of Divine Institution which our Animadverter may answer at his leizure Argum. 1. If the Form of the Church be not of Christ's appointment 't is not so either because it was not needful or because Christ was not careful faithful or sufficient to institute or ordain it But neither of these is true To assert the latter were blasphemous c. That 't is needful is evident 1. There are some duties which cannot well be performed but upon supposition hereof as Mat. 18. 15. 2dly The care of the Apostles to bring such as they converted into Church-order 3dly Their diligent instructing them in their duty as members of particular Bodies and Congregations 4thly Christ's owning them who walked together in such Societies affording them his Presence promising it to them and that in opposition unto Babylonish Assemblies of the formings of man abundantly evince the needfulness thereof Besides 5thly If it be not needful they are bloodily cruel who persecute men to the loss of Estates Liberties Lives and give them up to the Devil by the sentence of Excommunication For no other reason but for refusing communion with their National Church or denying its form and frame to be of the institution of Christ. Arg. 2. If the Form of the Church be not of Christ's appointment then there must be more Lords over the Church besides Christ for the forming or figuring of Churches pro libito is an act of Lordly Authority But there cannot be more Lords over the Church besides Christ Isa 33. 22. 1 Cor. 8. 5. Jam. 4. 12. Therefore Arg. 3. If the Form of Churches be not of Christ's appointment Then is it in the power of man without any precept or authority from Christ to add to or take away from the Body of Christ for so are particular Churches as we have proved But this is contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 18 27. with Rom. 12. 4 8. Therefore Arg. 4. That which the Apostles practised in pursuance of the Commission they received from Christ is undoubtedly an Order and Institution of his But the gathering of Disciples into particular Congregations the Apostles practised in pursuance of the Commission they received from Christ Mat. 28. 19 20. with Acts 2. 41 â—2 43. Therefore Arg. 5. If the Form of Churches be not of Divine Institution Then the Church of Christ is either not his Palace Kingdom or Christ hath not that care over his Palace and Kingdom as the Princes of the world have over theirs But both these are false and highly injurious to Christ Therefore Arg. 6. That Church to which Christ hath enjoyned his
Disciples to appeal in matters of Scandal found upon their Brethren with which he hath promised his Presence to which he hath given the Keys of the Kingdom power of binding and loosing is a Church of his own forming But this is a particular Congregational-Church Mat. 18. 17 18 19. as we have demonstrated Therefore Arg. 7. If the Form of Churches be not of Christ's appointment then there is either no beauty splendour glory therein or Christ bears not cannot bear that glory But both of these are absurd 2 Cor. 3. 7 8 9. Zech. 6. 13. Therefore Arg. 8. If the Form of Churches be not of Christ's appointment Then the Church of Christ may have communion with yeeld obedience to the inventions constitutions ordinances and appointments of men of Antichrist the Man of Sin But that they are charged â—ot to do upon most dreadful penalties Rev. 18. 4 5. 14. 9 10 11. Therefore Arg. 9. If the Form of Churches be not of Christ's appointment Then either Christ hath not left sufficient Laws for the government of the Saints or man may super-add to his Laws But both these are false scandalous and injurious to Christ Gal. 3. 15. 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. Rev. 22. 18 19. Arg. 10. If the Form of Churches be not of Christ's appointment Then the Church is not to be governed as 't is taught for it must be taught only by the Word of God Isa 8. 2. But the Consequence is absurd Therefore Arg. 11. If the placing of Officers in particular Churches be of the appointment of Christ then the Churches themselves are so But the placing of Officers in particular Churches is of the appointment of Christ 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11 12. Therefore Arg. 12. Those Churches which Christ owns for his Candlesticks in allusion to the Candlesticks of the Temple which were purely of divine institution are of the institution of Christ But Christ owns particular Churches for his Candlesticks viz. the Seven Churches of Asia which we have before demonstrated were particular Churches Rev. 1. 20. Therefore Those that desire further satisfaction in this matter may consult a little Treatise lately published entituled A brief Instruction in the Worship of God and Discipline of the Churches of the New Testament p. 93. where they will find it clearly and amply debated Sect. 18. Of National Ministers What meant by Ministry Of extraordinary and ordinary Officers Upon what account the Church of Engl. is asserted to be a false Church Mr. T. his Arguments to prove that in a National Church or a Church irregular in its constitution may be a true Ministry of Christ answered The contrary is demonstrated THE Design of Mr. T. his 18th and 19th Sect. is to answer the second Query in S. T. 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 Before he attempts the Resolution of this Query he considers First What the Ministry is of which it is enquired whether it be true or false And having at large acquainted us with the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he tells us he understands the query to be meant of that part of the Ministry which is by preaching But I must crave leave to tell him he somewhat misseth the white of the Authors intendment who by it intends an Office-Power of Ministry for discharge of that whole work that peculiarly relates to the Ministers of the Gospel to be performed and managed by them according to the Will of Christ Whether it be the Ministry of the Word the Lords Supper c. This as Mr. T. saith rightly is either the Ministry of extraordinary Officers as Apostles c. of which our Question is not or of ordinary Officers as Pastors c. of whom it is queried Whether ordinary National Officers or Ministers are of the Institution of Christ What saith Mr. T He tells us 1. That Paul was a Minister not only to a particular Church but even to the Gentiles Answ That this doth not in the least concern the Question in debate which is of ordinary Church-Officers and Paul as I remember with the rest of the Apostles was an extraordinary one receiving a Commission for the Preaching of the Gospel to all Nations he will be so ingenuous as upon the review to acknowledge Secondly A Church may be said to be false many wayes Answ True it may so but in his discourse there abouts we are little concerned who assert the Church of England to be a false Church because it is destitute of the true Matter visible Saints and the true Form freely giving up themselves unto the Lord and one another to worship him together as a Community according to the revelation of his will But he will prove Thirdly That in a National Church or a Church irregular in its constitution i. e. that hath neither the matter nor form of a true Church of Christ or discipline may be a true Ministry of Christ His first Argument is Arg. 1. If the truth of the Ministry depend upon the truth of the Church or its regularity then where is no true regular Church there is no true Ministry But that is false since there may be a true Ministry where there is no Church at all and therefore no true Church Therefore Answ If by a true regular Church Mr. T. means a Church for matter and form rightly constituted according to the mind of Christ and by a true Ministry the Ministry of ordinary Officers such as Pastors and Teachers as he must do if he speak pertinently we deny his Minor Proposition Where there is no true Church at all in a false Church or Church not regularly constituted according to the mind of Christ as is the case of the National Church of England there cannot be a true Ministry which Mr. T. forgot to attempt the proof of And indeed his abilities seem to lie much in Dogmatizing and 't is great pitty but he were created a Rabbi in the Pithagorean School his accuteness therein being so incomparably excellent 1st That there can be no true ordinary Ministry where there is no Church is manifest First Where ever we read of ordinary Ministers we read of them as appertaining to some one particular Church or other Acts 14. 23. 15. 2 4 22. 20. 17 28. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Phil. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. As good a man may imagine an Husband to be without a Wife or a Major without a Corporation or a Father without Children as a Minister without a Church in which he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to minister according to the will and appointment of Christ Secondly Every lawful Minister is elected and chosen to his Office by the Church or People of God Therefore there can be no true ordinary
lawful Ministry where there is no Church Of this we have spoken at large Chap 4. of S. T. To which multitudes of Testimonies might be added The Churches of Helvetia Harm Confes Sect. 11. de min. Eccl. affirm The Ministers of the Church must be called and chosen by Ecclesiastical and lawful election i. e. they must be religiously elected by the Church or by some from her deputed thereunto So also do they speak Artic. 16. ibid. So the Bohemian Churches Men who are firm and strong in the Faith fearing God having received necessary gifts for the work of the Ministry of an honest and unblamable conversation by People fearing God must be chosen and called to the administration of holy things Harmon Confes Sect 11. cap 9. de min. Eccl. And they expresly tell us That they permit none to discharge the Office of the Ministry without such an Election of the Church as appears ibid. by the antient Canons thereof To the same purpose the Belgick Churches declare ibid. Art 31. But Thirdly Ordinary Officers cannot be before the Church Therefore where there is no Church there can be no lawful ordinary Officers The Antecedent is evident 1. All along the Acts we read first of the Constitution of Churches before the Ordination of Officers 2. The Scripture saith expresly That all Officers are set in the Church 1 Cor. 12. 28. Which setting doth necessarily presuppose a Church in which they are set 2dly A true Ministry cannot be in a false Church false I mean either with respect to its first Constitution or by reason of such an Apostacy as hath destroyed the essence and being of it For first A false Church is no Church of Christ Therefore in it can be no true ordinary Ministry according to the mind of Christ for the reasons before mentioned Secondly Such a Church is intrusted with no Authority from Christ therefore cannot communicate any nor send forth any to act in his Name That Christ hath intrusted his Church with power to elect and choose Officers we manifest Chap. 4. Pag. 32 33 of S. T. That any Church not right in its Constitution as is the Case of National Churches is invested with any such power is the first-born of absurdities and improbabilities 'T is the Queen the Bride the Lambs Wife that hath the Keys at her girdle not the Concubines But Mr. T. hath more to say to evince the contrary Arg. 2. If there be a true Ministry though to or in a National visible Church or Catholick then the extent which is conceived to be inconsistent with a true Gospel-Church makes not the Ministry false But Peter and Pauls Ministry to the Jews or Gentile Churches was a true Ministry though the Church were National or Catholick Therefore Answ 1. 'T is a most sad thing upon more accounts than one to be engaged against Truth such sorry shifts are men put to and driven to the use of Sophisms so puâ—rile that at other times they would be asâ—amed of Thus fares it with this Animadverter who argues so jejunely that considering what I have heard of him for a Disputant I am ready to question whether the Arguments I read be his or no. Though Truth seeks no corners yet it makes its Adversaries frequently to do so The enquiry as Mr. T. saith rightly in p. 34. is of the ministry of ordinary Pastors c. His two first Arguments relate only to extraordinary Officers viz. the Ministry of the Apostles so that we are not concerned to take the least notice of them Many such impertinencies is thâ—s Animadverters Treatise stuft with 2. Besides the Argument is inconclusive of what Mr. T. pretends to prove viz. That in a National Church or a false Church there may be a true Ministry If there be a true Ministry though to or in a National visible Church saith he then the extent which is conceived to be inconsistent with a true Gospel-Church makes not the Ministry false But Sir whether there be a true Ministry in a National Church is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how it comes to be the medium of your Argument I am yet to learn Sure I am such kind of Arguings would deservedly be hissed out of the Schools being in themselves illogical I suppose he would have argued thus If that extent which is conceived to be inconsistâ—nt with a true Gospel-Church makes not the Ministry false Then there may be a true Ministry though to or in a National Church But the extent which is conceived to be inconsistant with a true Gospel-Church makes not the Ministry false for Peter's and Paul's Ministry to the Jews and Gentiles were true Ministries though the Churches were National 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ergo. To the Argument I answer 1. By denying the consequence of the first Proposition For though the extent inconsistant to a true Gospel-Church should not make the Ministry false yet somewhat else may What thinks he of an Antichristian Ordination or a Mission to officiat from the Antichristian Persecuting Beast and Whore though the Church were rightly constituted in and to which a man is a Preacher I conceive his Ministry is false But 2dly I deny his Minor Proposition if by Ministry he understands the Ministry of ordinary Pastors c. which if he doth not he speaks not a word to the question as he himself acknowledgeth pag. 34. the extent of a Church inconstent with a Gospel-Church renders the Church false and indeed no Church i. e. no Gospel-Church Therefore it renders the Ministry false as we before proved Mr. T. his proofs are weak and impertinent 1. Paul and Peter's Ministry was not the Ministry of ordinary Pastors as he grants p. 34. 2dly They were not Ministers in or to a National Church 'T is true they preached to the Jews and Gentiles but for the first their Church-state was virtually terminated at the death of Christ when the Vail of the Temple was rent as for the Gentile Nations they were no National Churches The forming of which ows its original as was said to a latter date So that hitherto Mr. T. hath onely hung out signs of Arguments to prove his Assertion being weighed in the ballances they are found wanting are plainly sophistical It may be in what follows he speaks more pertinently Thus he argues Arg. 3. If Ministry to Churches Hypocritical Schismatical and in some sort Heretical may be a true Ministry much more to a Church National c. those being greater degrees of falshood than this But the Antecedent is before proved from the Epistles to the Corinthians to the Churches of Pergamos Thyatira and Sardis Ergo. Answ No doubt but Mr. T. and his Associates in this work think they have excellently well acquitted themselves in this Argument but the emptiness and invalidity of it will soon appear 1. What if we deny the consequence of the Major Proposition upon supposition that there may be a true Ministry to Churches of such a complexion as that intimated it doth not
at all follow that there may be a true Ministry to and in a Church National Where is Mr. T. proof of his consequence Why these are greater degrees of falshood than are to be found in a National Church Well this is denied also What offers he to make it appear to be so Why you have his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it he saith so But seriouslly Mr. T. is so inconstant to his own words principles and practices that we are afraid if we should assent to what he asserts upon that foundation we should once in seven or eight years if the minds of men in authority over us should in that time be different believe and disbelieve the same positions What if the National Church be as Schismatical Heretical Hypocritical as the Churches instanc'd in this were a facile undertaking to demonstrate I hope then it being false in its constitution which the others instanc'd in were not we may with this Animadverter's leave assert that greater degrees of falshood are not to be found in and upon them than are to be found upon his National Church Besides supposing the Churches instanc'd in to be such as M. T. saith they were they were once true Churches of Christ to whom power was delegated from him foâ— the election and choosing of Officers to act in his Name and Authâ—rity amongst them which cannot be affirmed of any National Church in the World That because a true Ministry may be in a true Church under great degeneracy therefore there may be a true Ministry in a false Church is an Assertion that this Animadverter had need to consult with some body else to help him to make good than his present Adviserâ— But 2. We crave leave to deny his Minor A true Ministry câ—nnot be in Hypocritical Schismatical Heretical Churches If they are such they are no Churches of Christ if known to be so they are not to be owned as such by them that fear him But he hath proved this from the Epistles to the Corinthians to the Churches of Pergamos Thyatira and Sardis Answ What hath he proved that these Churches were Hypocritical Schismatical Heretical nothing less 'T is true 1 Cor. 1. 11 12. Paul tells the Corinthians that he heard there were Contentions amongst them c. that the Church was schismatical he saith not That there are Contentions amongst the members of the Church of England Mr. T. cannot deny that therefore it is to be accounted a Schismatical-Church he will scarce assert 'T is true also that there were some in the Church of Pergamos and Thyatira that held false and erroneous opinions and that the Churches were too much to blame to suffer them as they did for which Christ rebukes them In Sardis the generality of the members were wonderfully declined in their spirits a time of withering decayes deadness was upon them yet was not the one an Heretical nor the other an Hypocritical Church Nor can Mr. T. make good his charge against either of them As for the Church of Pergamos Christ witnesseth of them that although they dwelt where Satan's seat was i. e. where the Roman Governour lived who was Satan's chief instrument for persecuting the Saints yet they hâ—â—d fast his Name and did not deny his Faith which is not a description of an Heretical Church They owned Christ retained cleaved to the Doctâ—ine of the Gospel i. e. the Body of the Church did though some few amongst them held strange Heterodoxies therefore no Heretical-Church The like may be said of the Church of Thyatira doth Christ charge her with Heresie doth he say the whole Body or maâ—or part of the Church was infected with the doctâ—ine of Jezebel nothing less He saith indeed that the Church was too negligent in their duty to put a stop to her seducing his Servants and intimates as if some were led astray by her But withal testifies that there were a considerable number amongst them that had not received her doctrine nor known the depths of Satan they called them depths i. e. deep and wonderful things but they were the depths of Satan Of Sardis Christ also witnesseth that there were some things remaining that he would have her strengthen i. e. some graces that were not quite extinct and dead in them and of some of them expresly that they had not defiled their garments and that they should walk with him in white for they were worthy which cannot be affimed of Hypocrites Rev. 2. 13 19 20 24 25. 3. 2 4. Therefore no Heretical nor Hypocritical Churches And I cannot but wonder at the confidence of this Animadverter to affirm it of them after the testimony Christ gives touching them it being little less than giving him the lie to his face So that of this Argument we shall 't is probable hear no more Of his fourth Argument we need say no more but this that the Ministry therein mentioned is the Ministry of the Apostles which he grants not at all to relate to our present Question If he can make good this Consequence the Apostles who were extraordinary Officers immediately sent forth by Jesus Christ were true Ministers afore the regular constitution and discipline of Churches without their election or mission Therefore Pastors and Teachers who are to be chosen by a Church regularly constituted are true Ministers though not so chosen he will be able to reinforce this Argument else he must never bring it into the field more His fifth Argument in brief is The denomination of true Ministers is from the truth of their Doctrine and no other form denominating them But there may be a Ministration of true Doctrine in a false Church Ergo Answ 1. The Major is most false the denomination of true Ministers is from somewhat else beside the truth of their Doctrine viz. A regular Mission according to the mind of Christ or an entrance in by the Door else they are not true Ministers but Thieves and Robbers What places they are before-mentioned that he saith placeth the truth of Ministry in the Doctrine taught and no other thing I cannot tell and do assure him that when he brings one place to prove it I will be his convert Col. 1. 6 7. saith no such thing Epaphras preacheth the Truth of God to the Colossians and is said to be for them a faithful Minister of Christ therefore the denomination of true Ministers is from the truth of their Doctrine and nothing else is one of those consequences are frequently imposed upon us without the least shadow of proof 2dly That 't is the duty of true Ministers and in some sense their property to preach and promote Truth is most certain Paul tells us 2 Cor. 13. 8. that they could do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth But that the denomination of true Ministers is from the truth of their Doctrine and no other form denominating them is I suppose asserted by our Animadverter in haste and will upon second thoughts be retracted
what though the Jews were in their minority and therefore to be kept under those beggarly elements c. until the time appointed by the Father Gal. 4. 1 2 3 9. Doth it therefore follow that God hath not determined the whole of his Worship now Is the Son because grown up to offer to God what Worship he pleaseth This indeed follows That we are not under those beggarly Elements and to return to them or any like them not of the appointment of Christ is an act of great ingratitude to the Lord for his love and faithfulness manifested to us in the establishment of a more sublime and spiritual Worship under the Gospel As also that it is great wickedness to introduce impose or subject to such beggarly Elements now these stood for the most part in bodily rites in differences of meats and drinks of times places garments c. of which he may do well humbly to inform his good Mother the Church of England that she is too too guilty The like may be said of his 6th Reason The time before Christ was an estate under Moses a Servant the estate of Christians is under Christ the Son Gal. 4. 4 5 6 7. Heb. 3. 5. Therefore we are no longer to be subject to Mosaical appointments had been somewhat tolerable arguing but therefore 't is greater love in the Lord not to determine the whole of his Worship to us now which being the Position he attempts the proof of should have been his Inference is such a pittifull illation that one would never expect from such a learned person as Mr. T. It rather follows Therefore Christ hath determined the whole of his Worship under the New Testament being faithful as a Son when Moses the Servant according to the appointment of the Lord gave forth Laws for the ordering the whole of the affairs of the then House of God especially considering that he was the Prophet like unto Moses whom the Father promised to raise up into whose mouth he said he would put his words and that he should speak unto the Sont of Men whatever he commanded him Deut. 18. 18. Accordingly when he comes into the world 't is said of him He revealed the Father Joh. 1. 18. Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he plainly and delucidly expounded to them the mind and will of the Father that the Father spake to us in or by him Heb. 1. 1. and gives us a charge to hear him Mat. 3. 17. Reas 7. His seventh Reason is like the rest 'T is true had not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or hand-writing of Mosaical Ceromonies been abolished Col. 2. 14. we had not reaped the fruit of Christs death by which they were abolished Ephes 2. 14 15. and so consequently tasted the less of the love of the Lord. But that therefore 't is a greater argument of love in God not to determine the whole of his Worship or that if he haâ— done so we had not reaped the fruit of Christs death is such a sort of nakedness in Mr. T. his arguing that one would not willingly discover did not the vindication of Truth necessitate one hereunto Reas 8. His eighth Reason is if possible more weak and absurd The Apostles judged it a great benefit to the Christian Churches that they were exempt from the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law Acts 15. 28. therefore they accounted it an effect of Gods love that he had not determined the whole of his Worship to us With what affection others will peruse these passages I cannot tell for my part I heartily pitty him that he should ever undertake the defence of a cause so deplorable as to be driven to such pittiful shifts in the managerie thereof which I cannot impute to his want of Abilities which he will one day find he might better have imployed than in his present undertaking but the desperateness of the Cause he endeavours to defend It follows indeed that therefore they accounted it an effect of Gods love that they were delivered from the burden of those external Rites and Ceremonies especially as they appertained to the Covenant of Works and so do we 'T is strange if this Animadverter reckon it to be so that he should plead for the same the like yea worse Ceremonies imposed not by the Lord but by men whose servants we never were nor in these matters ought to be But that they accounted it an effect of love that God had not determined the whole of his New-Testament-Worship is such a câ—imination as their souls abhorred But he proceeds Reas 9. 'T is an effect of greater love to the Gentile Churches that God hath not determined the whole of his Worship because they being of divers Nations and Languages under divers Governments used to divers Customs they could not conveniently if at all practise such an Uniformity of Circumstances as they must have done if God had so determined Answ 1. That their being of divers Nations c. should discapacitate them with respect to their conforming to the will of God even in Circumstantials of Worship as such any more than they are discapacitated in their conforming to that part of Instituted Worship Mr. T. grants to be determined by the Lord is beyond the ken of my shallow understanding 2dly That the Saints must have practised any external Uniformity I suppose he means it with respect to Liturgies falsly called Divine Service in use amongst the Papists and Church of England Vestments called Holy c. if God had determined the whole of his Worship we crave leave to deny he hath so done yet such an Uniformity ought not to be practised 't is wretched and abominable And yet had the Lord seen it meet to have enjoyned any such thing it ought to have been practised nor would it by the Saints have been accounted a less argument of his love to them because thereby they should have been exposed to outward inconveniencies This reason at the best is but carnal and selfish from our conveniencies external or inconveniencies a measure of the Lords love in Divine Appointments is not to be taken But there is yet one Reason behind Reas 10. The Assertion That God hath determined the whole of his Worship in Circumstantials relating to it as such is to infringe our Christian Liberty and to bring us into such bondage as they were in under the Law therefore not agreeable to that love God bears to the New-Testament-Churches Answ 1. That the Lords determining the whole of his Worship should in the least infringe our Christian Liberty is a monstrous assertion it rather establisheth it in the freedom it gives not only from the Jewish Ceremonies but the Inventions and Devices of men with force and violence attempted to be imposed upon us For if God had determined the whole of his New-Testament-Worship it cannot be supposed that we owe the least homage or subjection to these We may not be the servants of men 2dly I never yet thought
men signally pointed out by the Lord for the administration of holy things in his house by the Body of the Church be not now as then their peculiar priviledge What saith Mr. T. hereunto 1. The solemn deputation of Apostles and other Ministers we find not in the New Testament to have been the peculiar priviledge of the Church Answ 1. But our Question is not touching extraordinary Officers such as Apostles but of ordinary ones such as Pastors c. Yet 2dly a man need not go far to find such a deputation even of an Apostle to the work of the Lord by the Body of the Church together with the rest of the Apostles Acts 1. 14 15 16 23 24 26. being an evident proof hereof beyond exception He adds 2. Their Ordination is no where mentioned as done by the Saints or Brethren which were not Officers Answ 1. The Animadverter mistakes Ordination for Imposition of hands which is only one part of Ordination and comprehends the whole act of deputing or setting men apart to the work of the Ministry 2. That Assertion That the Church or Assembly of Believers are nowhere said to have an hand therein must be imputed to Mr. T. his forgetfulness Acts 6. 3. 14. 23. manifestly declare the contrary He grants that in the first ages there are relations of the election of their own Ministers by the Church but the management hereof with Tumults Frays Disorders necessitated an alteration and considering the present temper of the Saints how unquiet injudicious deceitful factious divided they are he thinks it not safe it be again committed to them Answ 1. The first Ages in that matter held fast to the Doctrine of the Gospel and the Priviledge which according to the Institution of Christ his Church and People were invested in 2. Many things are reported of the Saints in the first Ages notoriously false and untrue and it may be the story of their tumults frays c. in electing their own Pastors may be so Contentions I know there were early amongst them about this matter that there were tumults and frays may perhaps be coined by some ambitious spirits that they might the better take an occasion to divest the Saints of that sacred Priviledge 3. The former disorders or present distempers amongst Saints are no warrant for the variation or nullifying an Institution of Christ 4. What strange Saints it may be he means only the Parochians of his Mother the Church of England Mr. T. hath his lot cast amongst I cannot tell Blessed be the Lord there are thousands of Saints and many Churches in England this little point of the World directly of another temper and spirit being peaceable judicious upright serving the Lord with one consent according to the discovery he hath made to them And if any in any thing are of different perswasions praying the Lord to reveal that also unto them And Mr. T. doth not well thus to asperse and blacken the Generation of the Righteous The absurdities that Mr. T. supposeth will ensue upon the asserting the election of Ministers to be the priviledge of the Saints are not worth the mentioning I know not any Law that forbids Women to intermeddle herein whose priviledge reached farther than so 1. There are many Scriptures that seem to assert it as their right and liberty 1. In the choice of Officers they were unquestionably present Act. 1. 15. 6. 2 34. 14. 23. 16. 23. 2. At the deciding of Controversies Act. 15. 22. 21. 22. 1 Cor. 6. 2. 3. At the choice of Men to carry the Benevolence of the Church to the needy Brethren 2 Cor. 8. 19. 1 Cor. 16. 3. 4. At the casting-out of Offenders Mat. 18. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. 5. In their re-admission upon Repentance 2 Cor. 2. 6 to 10. They being part of the Church must necessarily be understood as concern'd in these matters wherein the whole Church are said to be concerned 2. 'T were easie to introduce above a Jury twice told of learned Writers who have written as much as this comes to As Beza Calvin Bucer Bullinger Melancthon Bucan Paraeus Junius Cyprian Trelcutias Sibrandus Rivetus Jerome Augustine Nazianzen Ambrose Chrysostom Theodoret Theophylact So the Magdeburgenses in 2 Cent. c. 7. de Consociatione Ecclesiarum who all assert that Church-affairs should be executed by the consent of the whole Church The Council of Carthage indeed decreed 4. can 99. That a Woman though never so holy and learned should not preach in publick nor baptize can 100. And Tertullian tells us that in his time it was forbid to a Woman to teach in the African Church and baptize but they deny them not liberty to vote consent or dissent in Church-matters Nor do the Scriptures mentioned by this Animadverter in the least advance themselves against what is asserted by us Not 1 Cor. 14. 34 35. 1. 'T is as much more against the practice allowed by his Mother the Church of England In that Church Women have liberty not only to say Amen to say Prayers after the Priest with a loud voice but with the Men to act their parts in Worship the Priest saying one part and they another They have at least they had not long since liberty in case of necessity to baptize which is greater than the Sisters priviledge we plead for Sure this is speaking in the Church But this is clavem clave pellere 2. That Women might be chosen Church-officers is evident from 1 Tim. 5. 9. Phaebe was a Deaconess Rom. 16. 1. Touching the management of their office they ought especially if called upon by them so to do to give an account to the Congregation How they could do this without speaking in the Church I am not able to understand Therefore 3. The sense of the Apostle is that they be not admitted to publick preaching or prophesying ordinarily by vertue of Office-power That they do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 command as the word sometimes signifies or speak so as to usurp authority over the man as the Apostle explains it 1 Tim. 2. 12. But I suffer not a Woman to teach or usurp authority over the Man The latter expression is exegetical of the former i. e. not so to teach as to usurp authority over the man Yea I had ever till now thought that speaking so as to testifie ones consent or dissent to inform the Church of what they knew not of concern to them and the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 2. 12. had been vastly different And indeed see no reason to change my thoughts from any thing this Animadverter offers that these Scriptures make nothing for his purpose As for the second absurdity that Mr. T. supposes would follow upon the asserting the Saints Priviledge in the election of their own Ministers viz. That whom the major part choose the lesser part are not to take for their Minister scarcely deserves to be taken notice of 1. The difference supposed seldom happens
for the Saâ—nts in matters of Instituted Worship to practise what there is no warrant for in the Scripture because so to do 5thly pours out contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament-Churches as if it were less to these than to that under the Law and the Oeconomy of the Gospel as not so compleat as that of old the whole of whose Worship Orders and Ordinances as was said was bottom'd upon pure revelation To this saith Mr. T. 1. This pours out no contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament-Churches as is before proved in answer to the Preface Sect. 20. Answ What Mr. T. there dictates for he proves little we have already considered and removed out of the way in our reply thereunto 2dly He begs of us to yeeld him that Circumstantials of Worship as such are liable to variation are not bottom'd upon pure revelation divine but in many things left to humane prudence Answ 1. But be he never so importunately precaâ—ious herein we cannot yeeld it him but demand his proofs hereof else we judge he speaks injuriously both to Christ and Saints 2dly We cannot but demur a little upon that expression pure revelation divine upon which he saith these circumstantials of Worship are not bottom'd I hope he doth not think his Antagonists own any Revelation but that which is Divine Though as touching the Ceremonies he is under the notion of Circumstantials pleading for they are not indeed built upon Revelation Divine but Diabolical diametrically opposit to that which is Divine The language whereof is that nothing be offered up to God but that which is of his own prescription 3dly In many things he saith these Circumstantials of Worship are left to humane prudence Answ 1. Would he had told us in what things 2. Thought it incumbent upon him to prove his dictate 3. Manifested how we might be able to discern if an exect enumeration of particulars is not to be obtained betwixt those many that are left to humane prudence and the some that are not 4. Discover to us what security we have that if a Protestant-Bishop impose on us some of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome under the notion of Circumstantials and Accidentals of Worship though they are indeed such strange accidentals as were never heard-of in the world before viz. such as without which the Worship must not be performed that if the Papists should ever bear sway which is not impossible his Holiness the Pope shall not impose upon us all the rest that are as yet behind the Curtain upon the same pretentions 4. He tells us 'T is an effect of God's love and care over the New-Testament-Churches that he hath not tied them in so many things to external rites as he did the Jews Answ And we say so too but herein Mr. T. speaks not pertinently The Question is not Whether the Lord 's not tying us in so many things as he did the Jews to external rites be an effect of his care and love or no which we say it is but whether it be consistant with that his care and love in delivering us from these not to determine the whole of our Worship as he did determine the whole of theirs but leave us to the wills lusts and inventions of men to be ordered and ruled by them according as they should think meet and convenient Which when Mr. T. shall think himself able to perswade any but the blind when the Sun shines in its strength that it is not day he may attempt the proof of 5. He adds The Occonomy of the Gospel is not less compleat than that of old for this cause This reasoning if he understands the Apostle Col. 2. 8 9 10. is either the same or very like that of the Philosophical Judaizing-Teacher Answ 1. But Mr. T. his Assertion is no proof If the whole of the Worship of the Jews was compleat without humane additaments being built upon pure Revelation and ours be not compleat without many things that are left to humane prudence to determine relating to Worship as such ours is most assuredly less compleat than theirs 2dly Mr. T. his abilities of understanding I have little to say to Bernardus non videt omnia And he hath a strange faculty of discerning that can see our reasoning to be the same or much like to the reasoning of the Judaizing Teachers Col. 2. 8 9 10. 1st They diâ—puted for Jewish observances we argue as well as we can against them 2dly They asserted that they were not nor could be compleat without them this we oppose and affirm the contrary That neither our Persons or Worship are or can be any whit the more compleated by them or any other Observances in the world not instituted by Christ in the New-Testament Mr. T. indeed asserts that there are some Ceremonies left to be ordered by men according as they shall see convenient Which is somewhat like to the Doctrine of these Judaizing Teachers which the Apostle cautions the Church of Colosse against v. 8. That by the Rudiments of the world is meant Jewish Riâ—es we may grant the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Traditions of men seems to be somewhat else viz. humane Additions to Divine Institutions such as were those amongst the Jews that Christ calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 15. 3 6. which he interprets v. 9. to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Commandments of men Whether our reasoning or the Animadverter's be more like that here of the Philosophical Teachers is left to the judgment of the Judicious to deâ—ermine 3dly How little to Mr. T. his purpose this Scripture-citation is he already may discern how much it makes against the grand Design he is labouring to advance the proposing of one or two Arguments from it will fully evince 1. Those Traditions and Rudiments that are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after Christ i. e. according to the Doctrine and Institution of Christ which only ought to take place in the Church as say our Annotators upon the place are not to be complied with but to be watched warred against as such that do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lead us captive from Christ But the Rudiments Mr. T. pleads for are such as are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the Institution of Christ if they are let Mr. T. produce the place where they are so Therefore 2. If the Church at Colosse was so compleat in Christ that they needed not to subject ought not to do so to the Jewish Rites and Traditions of the Elders then much less need we to subject to the Rudiments of men or any of the accursed Rites and Ceremonies of the Papacy These Rites are much more weak and absurd than the former as never being of the Institution of the Lord but the devising and imposing of his profest enemy Therefore 6thly The Assertion That it 's lawful to practise any thing in Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture we say
act as Ministers of Christ when they prophesie for the edifying the Body of Christ by vertue of any Office-power so that they need not any such Election What follows is a Rhapsody of words that the ingenuous Reader knows proves nothing introduced to cast the â—dium of Irreligion-upon the men of his Contest The best is the Nation knows him to be at least in this matter a false Accuser He tells us 3dly That it may be doubted whether Christ be meant by the Door John 10. 1. Answ But why it should be doubted when Christ expresly tells us v. 9. that He is the Door I cannot tell That the Door v. 1 v. 9. is not the same Door is not probable and less probable that by the Door v. 9. should be meant the Scriptures of the Prophets who although they foretold of Christ yet can in no sense that I know of be said to be the Door through which he entred But this he is unwilling to abide by He adds 4ly That if the door be the same Joh. 10. 1 9. the entering in v. 9 cannot be entring into the Ministry by the lawful election of a particular Church for then it would follow that every one that so enters in shall be saved but that is manifestly false Answ 1. But if by saved he mean everlastingly saved this doth not at all follow he knows right well that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not alwayes to be restrained to such a signification 2ly The whole expression he shall be saved and shall go in and out and find pasture seems to intimate no more than this that he may expect the blessing of God with him the defence of God upon him in his Ministry that thus enters into it according to his mind according to Deut. 28. 6. So the Assembly Beza c. interpret the words which I think is so far from being manifestly false that nothing is more true Of immediate Calls to the Ministry and the wayes whereby men may prove themselves to be so called I shall not now turn aside to speak nor in what sense I asserted that persons receiving Commission immediatly from Christ to preach the Gospel will never be made good without the working of miracles it not being pleaded as I know of that the present Ministers have any such Commission nor do they pretend to it Of Petrus Waldo and other Reformers I think as honourably as this Animadverter They were worthy and eminent witnesses for Christ in their day no small part of their Testimony was against the Abominations pleaded for by Mr. T. in his Theodulia They admited nothing into their Church but what is written in the Bible no Decrees no Epistles Decretals nor the Legends of the Saints nor the traditions of the Church They held that the Preaching of the word of God is free to every man that hath received abilities from the Lord for that work That the Priests Vestments are little worth That no day a man may cease from his labour except the Lords day and not the feasts of of Saints Zanchy introduceth a certain Orthodox man speaking thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and afterwards adds the Churches are to be reformed according to the best form a better from of the Church cannot be invented than that which Christ and his Apostles in the beginning of the Church did constitute and appoint And afterwards all Doctrines of Worship and Discipline are to be examined not by the Lesbian rule of humane judgment but by the Touchstone of the Divine Word Zanch. de ver Eccl. reformand ration Johannes Gerson affirms That the authority of the Primitive Church was greater than now it is for it is not in the power of the Pope or Council or Church to change the Traditions taught by the Evangelists and Paul as some dream de vit Spirit animae Budaeus saith Canonum canities vel caries potius nulli jam usui est sed velut anus delira è foro explosa est de ponte enim jam diu comitiorum paracleti dejecta est disciplina Canonica ut annis sexaginta major atque etiam sexcentis de Translat Heclerismi lib. 2. And afterwards Navis nobis disciplinae à servatorâ— relicta est Ecclesiae conditore quae Cantico Ministerio instrumento miraculisque instructa fuit ab ipso aut ejus auspiciis These were some of the Witnesses of Christ in their day whom we honour as such that bear their Testimony against what Mr. T. thinks good for the present to espouse to himself 5ly This Animadv speaks of the proof of our Assertion that those that receive authority to preach the Gospel mediately from Christ have it from some particular instituted Church of Christ to whom power is solely delegated for the electing their own Officers according to Acts 6. 5. 14. 23. as weak and impertinent He tells us 1. That though this should be granted yet power may be given to others to choose send and ordain Preachers for the unconverted who are and may be heard as Ministers of the Gospel Ans 1. This we deny the Keys being given to the Church by Christ Mat. 16. 19. with 18. 17 18. we cannot conceive how any can legally choose or send forth persons to act by vertue of an Office-power in the preaching of the Gospel but the Church 2dly We never yet understood that Interrogations were sufficient Answers his may not for all this is no evidence that it may He adds Yea may not some others ordain Elders for particular Instituted Churches Answ 1. Without the Churches consent Election c. they may not 'T is true Titus was left by Paul in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Tit. 1. 5. but that he might do this without the choice election and concurrent act of the Church as a Diocesan Bishop as some fondly imagine is a fancy that as it hath over and over been confuted by many Godly Learned so Mr. T. will never be able to make it good 2ly Should it be granted which yet is most false contrary to the practice of those times and many years after that Titus ordained by himself without the knowledg counsel and approbation of the people Elders it doth not in the least follow that any persons may do so now For. 1. He had express warrant and direction from the Apostle to do what he did 2. He was an extraordinary Officer an Evangelist not limited to a certain Church the continuance of which office we have no direction for in the Scripture 3. The officers that were to be continued in the Churches are said to be Elders or Bishops which were not names of distinct officers but of the same Tit. 1. 5 7. to be confined or limited to oâ—e particular Congregation not having or exercising jurisdiction over many Phil. 1. 1. Acts. 14. 23. 20. 17 28. Tit. 1. 5 6 7. so that this instance makes little to his purpose When he proves his suggestion that there are any
where it cannot be otherwise interpreted therefore we must depart from the proper notation of the word where the context of the place doth induce us and the practice of the Church and People of God in after-generations to abide by it is not tolerable arguing His next Exception is 3dly None are said to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Paul and Barnabas and they are said to do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for them viz. tâ—â— Church or Disciples Answ 1. Nor is it necessary that we affirm any other so to do They herein presiding over them and regulating the whole affair according to the instructions received from Christ bear the name of the whole work though the Votes and Suffrages of the Disciples were in it also The Apostles ordained by Suffrages viz. the Suffrages of the Church Elders for them But this proves not that the Vote of the Disciples was excluded it rather evinceth the cantraâ—y Yet 2dly Why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be rendred creating by Suffrages or ordaining for them I do not understand It may every whit as properly be rendred with them viz. with the Church or Disciples For so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently rendred so Mat. 13. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye root up also the Wheat not for but with them Act. 17. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasoâ—ed with them Heb. 8. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for finding fault with them and in many places besides That it should be so rendred here is evident 1. 'T is consonant to the practice of the Saints then and in after-generations as is known 2. How Paul and Barnabas may be said properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ordain by Suffrages alone by themselves every understanding is not able to reach render the word with them i. e. with the Disciples and the câ—se is plain â—nd evident viz. the Apostles with the Church or Congregation of Believers by Suffrages and Votes ordained Elders which is the matter enquired after So that whatever this Animadverter is able to say to the contrary this Scripture proves the power of particular Churches to elect their own Officers and therefore if the present Ministers have not received a Commission from Christ thus mediately by the election of some one or other particular instituted Church of Christ if they pretend not to it have it in derision come barely with a presentation from a Patron Ordination Institution and Induction from a Lord-Bishop things forreign to the Scripture and impose themselves upon the People whether they will or no as it may most truly be affirmed of them they are not Ministers of the Gospel nor may be heard as such But Mr. T. hath somewhat more to adde he tells us 1. That it will be hard for us to prove that the Parish-Churches in England are not particular instituted Churches of Christ Answ 1. Of what is hard or easie for us to do or any man else our Animadverter seems a very incompetent Judge 2dly He is not ignorant that this is already done to our hands by several learned men and 't is sure no difficult task actum agere to do over again what we find done to our hands before He further affirms 2dly It will also be hard to prove that the Ministers of England are imposed on the People whether they will or no. Answ 1. The generality of the People of England will attest the verity hereof who for the most part know not their Minister till he comes to them with his Orders nor is their Consent touching his Reception desired or at all significant with respect to his exercising an Office-power over them 2dly What they do in London and some few particular places where the Inhabitants it may be are the Patrons is not considerable or worth the minding 1. For the most part they are imposed upon the people whether they will or no. 2. Were they chosen by their Parochial Inhabitants they were never the nearer Ministers of Christ Because 1. That their choice hath not the least influence upon their being constituted such 't is the Bishops Ordination that in this matter doth all 2. The Parish-Churches of England are not true Churches of Christ which we demonstrate 1. Where there is not the true matter of a Church there is not a true Church But in the Parish-Churches of England there is not the true matter of a Church Therefore The Minor which alone is capable of a denial is evident That only is fit matter of a Church which corresponds to the matter of the Primitive Churches planted by the Apostles These were Saints Ephes 1. 1. Col. 1. 2. Holy Brethren 1 Thess 5. 27. Such â—â— were not of but called out of the World Joh. 15. 18 19. whom God had received Rom. 14. 3. Such as please Christ and are dearly beloved by him Eph. 5. 29. are built upon the foundation of the Prophets anâ— Apostles Eph. 2. 20. have the Spirit of Christ Eph. 4. 4. are built up together an holy and spiritual House to God 1 Pet. 2. 5. God 's House 1 Tim. 3. 15. Heb. 3. 6. are living Stones a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood an holy Nation a peculiar People v. 9. faithful in Christ Jesus Eph. 1. 1. The sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty 2 Cor. 6. 17 18. Christ is said to be their Husband their Head They his Bride Eph. 5. 23. Col. 1. 18. his Temple 1 Cor. 3. 16. Now he must have a brow of brass that shall affirm that these Characters are applicable to the Parish-Assemblies of England when they themselves will confess they appertain not to them Are Drunkards Swearers Revilers Persecuters of God and Holiness loose prophane scandalous livers of which these Assemblies for the most part are constituted and made up Saints holy Brethren such as are called out of the World c. None will dare to aver it 2dly Where there is not the true form of a Church there is not the true Church But in the Parish-Assemblies of England there is not the true form of a Church Therefore The Minor which is alone liable to exception is evident The form of a Church consists in the free and voluntary embodying together of Saints giving up themselves to the Lord and one another according to his will as we have already proved Now this cannot be asserted of the Parish-Assemblies Those Civil divisions for they are no others were of the institution of man as we have demonstrated And to this day they are held together by penal Statutes and Ordinances such as never came into the heart of Christ to establish 3dly There where there is not the Church-power that of right belongs to a true Church of Christ there is not a true Church of Christ But in the Parish-Churches of England there is not that Church-power nor as such are they capable of it Therefore The Minor which alone is to be proved is perspicuous 1. The power of electing their own Officers
Sacrifice at Jerusalem was so but not elsewhere These things must be performed in the way appointed by him else they cannot be so accounted 2dly 'T is true bound we are to perform the duties they pretend to perform but according to the Institution of the Lord not mans devising as they are performed in the Church of England Isa 29. 13. Mat. 15. 7. 3ly Though it be no sin to joyn in the true Worship of God yet 't is a sin to joyn with false worshippers in a false way of Worship as praying after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book hearing an Antichristian Minister 4thly Believers 't is true might prophesie though unbelievers came in but it doth not therefore follow that ' â—is lawful for Believers to joyn with Unbelievers or forsake the Way and Institutions of Christ to go to the Assemblies of Unbelievers and hear them Prophesie As the worst of Ministers of whom he is discoursing and the generality of Parochial Assemblies undoubtedly are if a Spirit of prophaness visible debauchery an excess of riot bespeak persons to be such And from such he grants we are to separate by command from Christ 2 Cor. 6. 17. to which may be added Eph. 5. 11. 2 Tim. 3. 5. Acts 2. 39 40. But why talks he of our separating from them when they separate as much from us as we do from them we were never no more of them than they were of us Of Rev. 18. 4. we shall hereafter speak For the present we deny that by Babylon there is meant only literal Rome and expect the proof of his dictate The keeping company and eating interdicted 1 Cor. 5. 11. he tells us must be meant of eating Common Bread Because vers 10. That keeping company which is forbidden to such Brethren is allowed in vers 9 10. to the Fornicators of the world which cannot be Gospel-Communion keeping company in eating of the Lords Supper Answ 1. It seems then that with the Fornicators of the world we may not have Gospel-Communion if so then not with the Church of England for with it we cannot have Communion without holding fellowship with such as these 2dly If it be not lawful to have Communion with a Brother one of the same particular Church for of such an one the Apostle speaks that is a Fornicator or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner so far as to common eating and drinking then a fortiori may we argue it is utterly unlawful to have communion with him in the Worship of God and much more unlawful to have fellowship with one we never walked with in the way of the Gospel according to any institution of Christ 3. That 't is lawful to hold Communion in eating the Lords Supper with Railers Drunkards c. I am sorry to find Mr. T. asserting of which we expect his proof The contrary is evident 1. Persons must be in a Church-state before they are capable of the regular enjoyment of that Ordinance which is a Church-Ordinance and part of Instituted Worship but Persons of such a Complexion are not fiâ— matter for a Church as we before proved Therefore 2. Those who ought to be excommunicated out of a Church were they in we may not have Communion with especially when in a false Church-state as is the case of the members of the Church of England But persons of such a character as the Apostle mentions should be excommunicated out of the Church Therefore 3. Those with whom we have Communion in breaking Bread as a Gospel-Ordinance with them we are one Bread 1 Cor. 10. 17. But we may not be one Bread with Drunkards c. Therefore 4. Those with whom we are commanded to have no fellowship with them we may not have fellowship in that Ordinance of breaking Bread But with such as these we are commanded to have no fellowship Eph. 5. 11. That the People of God can scarce ever break Bread with comfort in the best instituted Churches as he tells us from this doctrine is a notoriously false Crimination a meer Calumny His subsequent scoff is such froth and vanity as becomes not his years nor profession we pass it over as beneath us to take further notice of We add in S. T. 3dly That we cannot acknowledge the present Ministers for our Brethren but we must acknowledge the Bishops for our Reverend Fathers for theirs they are but that we cannot do To this Mr. T. adjoyns Sect. 5. 1. They are call'd their Reverend Fathers in respect of their Ordination Answ 1. But we cannot own them as Reverend Fathers with respect hereunto when we assuredly know they are herein usurpers of what doth not appertain to them But 2dly This is not all they own them as such upon the account of their Authority over them and the Parochial-Assemblies in the respective Diocesses who are to give forth Canons and Laws for them to walk by in not a few things relating to Worship as is known Now so we cannot own them as our Reverend Fathers we know no honour or obedience we owe them as such We think the inspection of one Bishop over an hundred Congregations can be proved by no better Arguments than the inspection of the Pope over an hundred thousand That a Diocesan and Oecumenical Bishop are much of the same kind and have their standing on the same foundation We know no Bishop of the institution of Christ but a Pastor of a particular Congregation He that pretends to more must prove his pretensions or we cannot but look upon him as an usurper I would gladly know whether Mr. T. thought it lawful to own them as his Reverend Fathers when he swore to exâ—irpate them with the whole Hierarchy and whether his so doing were an act of filial obedience That they are to be accounted Fathers in respect of their Antichristian Office because the Apostle saith 1 Tim. 5. 1. That an Elder is to be entreated as a Father when they are not Elders but a degree above them not from the Institution of Christ but the Courtesie at the best of Princes he will never prove Of their success in begetting others to Christ I understand nothing Those whom they have begotten may upon the account thereof esteem them as their Reverend Fathers but yet I am apt to think should they not be invested in the Title till then for the most of them at least they would go to their graves without it These are but Figleave-coverings The Animadverter knows they are not upon this bottom so called or accounted but with respect to that Office-power they have in the Church over the rest of the Ministers and Parochial-Assemblies thereof which being a meer incroachment usurpation and innovation we dare not own them as such We further argue in S. T. 4thly We cannot hear them as Brethren because they are if Brethren such as walk disorderly from whom we are bound to separate by express precept Mat 18. 2 Thess 3. 6. That they walk
disorderly we prove Those that walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles and from the Primiâ—ive Church for above 300 years after Christ but according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpet of Rome are such as walk disorderly But the present Ministers walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles but after the traditions of the Whorish Church of Rome Therefore The Major is bottom'd upon the express words of the Apostle in the place instanc'd in and were it not no person of ingenuity would have the confidence to deny it The Minor we prove by particular instances They have no Apostolical written Tradition for Liturgies Surplice Cross in Baptism c. If they have let them produce it and we are satisfied if not they are disorderly walkers and to be seperated from that they are such 2. cannot be denied by such as pretend to Reformation if submitting to ordination or reordination by a Lord-Bishop covenanting and protesting with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scriptures and the best reformed Churches be so In answer to which Mr. T. tells us 1. That it belongs not to him to speak for the present Ministers but to themselves Answ 1. And indeed many sober minded persons think so too It very ill becoms any man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to go about to build again the things he once destroyed But yet 2ly It s not the part of an Advocate thus to desert his Clients in open Court If he undertake their defence it appertains to him to answer for them to what is objected against them However he acquaints us 2ly what he conceives they would say for themselves 1. That they do not covenant and protest with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture and the best reformed Churches Answer The whole of my intendment in that expression was to intimate their renunciation of that Covenant wherein the Reformation intimated was solemnly engaged to be promoted whicâ— what is it less then to protest against the Reformation therein asserted and enjoyned That they did this is evident from their subscription of the declaration or acknowledgement following I A. B. do declare that I do hold there lies no obligation upon me or on any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in it self an unlawful Oath That they did because they judged the matter of the Covenant at least with respect to reformation of the Church by purging it of the Hierarchie to be sinful I do suppose they will not deny nor that they renounce sin without detestation So that the Author of S. T. will in the judgment of sober minded persons be soon acquitted froâ— being in this matter a Calumniator He tels us 2ly He conceivs they would justifie their submitting to Ordination or reordination by a Lord-Bishop their owning and reading a Liturgy in the Church their wearing the Surplice Crossing in Baptism c. Answ 1. No one doubts but they would nor can any other be expected from them who are in the practice of these things But that because they will justifie them therefore they are no disorderly walkeâ—s is not in my poor judgment an argument of the least weight The Papists will justifie their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Image-worship and the rest of their abominable idolatries and bring Scripture to prove it lawful too Gregorius de Valentia tels us there is some worship of Images lawful and proves it from 1 Pet 4. 3. because the Apostle would there deterre them from the unlawful worship of Idols yet I hope Mr. T. will not affirm they are not disorderly walkers and to be separated from as such 2ly We say not that they themselves will confess that they are disorderly walkers but that such as Mr. T. who have covenanted against Bishops and pretended to be for Reformation cannot deny but that they are indeed so with respect to the matters instanced in which he must acknowledge to be true for they are the very things they covenanted against as intolerable disorders and abuses to remove out of the way So that however they might call me an egregious false accuser which yet were but a sorry answer to the charge laid against them yet one would not have expected such language from Mr. T. These things are disorders or they are not If they are not why did this Animadverter Covenant Preach Print against them glory that he was one of the first that in print testified his dissatisfaction touching them If they are most assuredly those that practise them are with respect to them disorderly walkers And is Mr. T. of late grown such a fond Admirer of them that a man cannot speak truth of them but he must call him an egregious false accuser I am afraid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and seriously to review with what spirit he writ such passages as these He adds 3dly These practices except the first are not of such a degree of pravity whether justifiable or sinful as that barely for them they should be reputed in the number of Disorderly walkers and so after due process to be separated from by vertue of positive precept from Christ Mat. 18. 2 Thess 3. 6. For 1. Mat. 18. 15 16. is meant of personal injuries the Separation permitted is a Separation only from civil eating and familiar reception not from Gospel-communion Answ 1. This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath already been fully confuted 2dly He further affirms that the disorderly walking 2 Thess 3. 6. must be understood of sins of greater pravity than the particulars instanced in and charged upon them except the first which they will deny Answ 1. But the first we have proved against them therefore they are disorderly walkers according to this Scripture by Mr. T. his confession and so to be separated from 2. Every sin is a disorderly walking if persons will stand in justifie plead for any sin they are to be separated from by vertue of this Apostolical precept But 3dly If the sins charged upon the present Ministers be too small to constitute the disorderly walking here mentioned what are the greater that do so The gross sins he tells us of of any Brother not a Minister who was bound to work v. 10. such as those 1 Cor. 5. 11. 2 Cor. 12. 20 21. Answ 1. Why the gross sins of a Brother not a Minister Is not the Ordinance of private admonition Church-Censures an Institution of Christ out of the abundance of his love for the good of his Children Is a Minister exempt from it more than others he will not sure say so 2dly Why such gross sins as those mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 11. 2. Cor. 12. 20 21. doth the Apostle charge the Church of Thessalonica with any such evils as those there mentioned nothing less These are instanced in because the Animadverter supposeth at
Synods yet was he not set over others nor endowed with greater power than the rest cap. conf Helvet prior Arti 15. the French Churches say We believe that all true Pastors wheresoever they are placed are endowed with equal authority under that only head high and sole universal Bishop Jesus Christ and therefore it is lawful for no one Church to claim authority and dominion over another cap conf gal Confes. Art 30. So say the Belgick Churches Bely conf Art 31. So that Mr. T. out of his great love and dutifulness to his Mother the Church of England is not sparing to cast dirt in the face of the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves and most or all the Reformed Churches at this day who own no such inequality as he pleads for and therefore were are all of them not well-ordered Churches in comparison at the least to her and the Church of Rome where the Hierarchie is established To the 16th parallel about holy Vestments he is able to object on-thing worth the considering The 17th is The Popish Priests are tyed to a book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man for their Worship and Ministration so are the Ministers of England and that to such a one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis To this Mr. T. replies 1. The Assembly of Westminster prescribed a Directory for Worship Answ 1. Quid hoc ad Rhombum I am not in the least concern'd to justifie all that was done by that Assembly and am apt to think they might in that matter have spared their pains 2dly The same Assembly abhorred the Common-Prayer-Book Service as a most detestable and filthy Idol preached printed against it procured its Abolition 3dly Every one that knows any thing knows that upon various accounts there is no likeness betwixt these two None were compell'd to the use of this or that form of words by the Directory as in the Book of Common-Prayer He adds 2dly Those prayers and portions of Scripture which are holy and good are never the worse because they were in the Popes Portuis no more than the acknowledgement of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God is the worse because the Devil used it Mar. 5. 7. Answ 1. Of the Scriptures and that glorious Truth of Christ's Eternal Deity as the Son of the most High God and the Common-Prayer-Book-Service there is not the same reason They were from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit originally Divine this of man devised upon the prevailing of Apostacy upon the Churches of Christ imposed with threatnings cruelties and slaughters upon the Children of Christ by his professed Enemy abused by a confessed Idolatrous generation of men if there be any such in the world That because the abuse of the Scriptures and the Truths contained in them doth not render them the worse therefore a devised Service that it the best is wicked and abominable in its imposition intolerable used by Idolaters is not the worse I chalenge Mr. T. to make good 2. Though the Scriptures are not the worse because portions of them are read in the Romish Idolatrous Service yet the following the Romish Synagogue in curtailing the Scriptures reading one part of a Chapter at one time another at another and manifestly misapplying them causing them also to give place to the Apochryphal Writings is abominable He goes on 3dly That which is suggested as if the Common-Prayer-Book now in use were little different from the Popes Missal he tells us is untrue Answ 1. The Animadverter is a little mistaken We affirm in S. T. that the Common-Prayer-Book-Service used in King Edward the 6th's dayes and the Popes Missal were not much different And for the proof of that we produced the Testimony of the King and Council which we thought M. T. would never have questioned That the Common-Prayer-Book now in use and that then used is not much different every body knows 2dly 'T is true all that is in the Pope 's Missal is not in the Common-Prayer-Book nor did any one ever assert this but the most that is in the Common-Prayer-Book is stolen out of the Popes Missal The Epistles and Gospels the Prayers or Collects the rites and usages therein joyned are so and this Mr. T. denyes not I had thought to have represented the truth of this to the eye of the Reader by exhibiting our English and the Popes Latine Masse at one view to him which I have by me faithfully collected and compared together But the swelling of this Treatise unexpectedly and the difficulty of printing any thing of this nature that is voluminous through the tyranny of the Prelates makes me wholly to lay aside that intendment to a fitter season if need be The summe of what we have been offering in this matter we say in S. T. is this 1. Those Ministers that in their names office admission into their offices are not to be found in the Scripture are not Ministers of Christ act not by vertue of an Authority Office-power Calling received from him 2. Those Ministers that in their names office admission into their office are at a perfect agreement with the Ministers of Antichrist such are the Popish Priests acknowledged to be are not the Ministers of Christ But such as have been abundantly demonstrated are the present Ministers of England Therefore The Minor Mr. T. saith is manifestly false he hath said nothing to prove it in the main Answ This is soon said had he proved it manifestly false be had done somewhat Whether any thing considerable hath been offered by us for the proof of the Minor others besides Mr. T. and I will now judge Sect. 4. The present Ministers of Engl. proved Antichristian They act from a Power Office and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop whose Office is Antichristian The opinion of the Learned touching them Their Office is not to be found in the Scripture Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Tim. 3. 12. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5 7. Acts 20. 28. know them not They were not known in the Church for some hundreds of years after The Office of Lord-Bishops wherein it consists Of Diotrephes his asserting Supremacy Our Bishops neither Evangelists nor Pastors nor Teachers nor Apostles proved Mat. 28. 19. explained Of the Rise of Episcopacy The Testimonies of Dr. Hammond Whitaker Reynolds Eusebius c. touching it WE further prove in S. T. The present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichrâ—stan Power Office and Calling Because 2dly That they act from a Power Office and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop whose Office is Antichristian This the summe To which Mr. T. replies That neither himself nor any sober Writer judged them Antichristian Answ 1. Whether he once so judged of them his taking the Covenant to extirpate them wherein they are condemned as Antichristian will evince 2. What he or I judge them is not material that no sober Writer or considerate man that
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
Miracles by the Apostle there had been no need to have assembled the Church but it was necessary that to the doing of this act the Church be assembled vers 4 5. 5thly He is to be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved which is not likely to be effected by Satans Ministry 6thly 'T is more than probable the Church did what the Apostle commanded them to do Now this is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the publick rebuke inflicted by many which many cannot signifie the Apostle but the Church of Corinth all which evince that it was a Church-act and no more than what is practised by the Churches of Christ at this day Though 't is true it is more than the ordinary Excommunication of the Church of England by a Chancellour or Proctor several miles from the Parish-Church to which the person is related and it may be unknown to them an argument they own not this Institution of Christ We add in S. T. as another Institution of Christ 4. That the Officers of his appointment are only such as these Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons Widows or Helpers who as they are in one particular Congregation so they have not any Lordly authority over each other Ephes 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7. and 16. 1. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. Acts 6. 5. and 15. 2. and 20. 17. and 28. 21 28. 1 Tim. 3. chapt and 5. 9 10 17. This Law of Christ they subject not we say unto set up other Officers and Offices To which Mr. T. 1st There were other Officers given by Chrst besides these mentioned viz. Apostles therefore these are not the only Officers of his appointment Answ 1. Had he said therefore These were not the only Officers of his appointment he had spoken more properly Apostles were of his appointment are not now as we have proved 2. We are speaking of ordinary fixed Officers in the particular Churches of Christ which the Apostles were not so that his instancing these and inference thereupon is frivoâ—ous and impertinent If these had Superiority over others it will not advantage the Animadverter except he can prove the Bishops in respect of Office to be their Successors which he will never be able to do That because the Elders mentioned 1 Tim. 5. 17. must be accounted worthy of double honour therefore they were of a Superiour order of Ministry to lord it over the rest is one of Mr. T. his Consequences that a youth of half a years stâ—nding in the University would be ashamed of Besides Sir the double honour is due to the working Presbyter not the lording loytering Bishop as is the custom of England The person mentioned 2 Cor. 8. 19. was chosen by the Churches for the present expedition was no standing fixed Officer amongst them therefore appertains not to our present disquisition He adds Whether all the Officers and Offices be rightly ordered in the Church of England is not our present inquiry Answ But this is no small part of our present enquiry for if they are not rightly ordered they are not Officers of Christ if they are not such 't is evident they reject this Institution of his set up other Officers and Offices What he tells us is notoriously false viz. That the present Ministers of England have neither Name nor thing required by Christ in this Law is manifestly true Their Parish Ministers are called Priests not Pastors or Teachers 'T is true they have those are called Doctors which signifies Teachers but that is a School not a Church-Title they are call'd so with respect to an Academick degree not with relation to any particular Church or Churches in whom they are placed They have those thaâ— are called Deacons but they are not such Officers as Christ calls so those that come nearest to these are those they call Church-wardens oâ— Overseers of the Poor But they have the thing the Office of preachâ—ng the Gospel continues with them Answ 1. 'T were well if it could be said of many of them that they preached the Gospel Alas they understand it not 2dly However they have not the Office as we prove whilest he suggests the contrary he doth but beg the Question Whether the Assertion That they set up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of Christs Authority be very unrighteously said others will judge I am sure as was said in S. T. They are such of which it may righteously be said he did at no time command them neither did it ever enter into his heart so to do And I challenge Mr. T. to give an instance of the contrary We remark a 5th Institution of Christ in S. T. viz. That these Officers be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ according to Acts 1. 15 23 26. and 6. 1 2 3 5. and 14. 23. and 9. 26. which we find the Church in the practise of for some Centuries of Years As the Epistle of Clemens to the Church of Corinth Martin Luther Cyprian Lambard Peter Martyr Bullinger Gualter Zanchy Calvin Beza the united Brethren of Bohemia manifest Of which at large we there treat This Institution of Christ we say the present Ministers conform not to Mr. T. replies 1. He finds not this to be an Appointment of Christ in the Scriptures mentioned Answ Whether it be or not let the Reader judge the impertinency of his Answer to the three first we have already shewed Acts 9. 26 27. proves thus much That 't is in the Churches power to reject any one or refuse to receive him as a Preacher amongst them till they have received satisfaction touching him which doth not a little demonstrate the power of Election of their own Officers to be seated in them For he assayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to joyn himself to the Disciples as a Brother in the fellowship of the Gospel as the word signifies Acts 5. 13. 1 Cor. 6. 16 17. but they would not suffer him so to do till better informed of him and then he comes in and goes out at Jerusalem ver 28. i. e. is owned received by them What follows is a repetition of what he had before said Sect. 22. in answer to the Preface to which we have there spoken Clemens speaks fully to our purpose Ministers must be appointed by famous and discreet men with the good liking and consent of ALL the Church without which it seems they could not be constituted In that which follows in Clemens his Epistle touching a readiness in the Elder or Pastor to depart or return according as the multitude of Believers should determine We have sure a proof that the choice or rejection of a Pastor is seated in them That Luther Bullinger meant no more than the not obtruding unable Ministers on the Churches of Christ is Mr. T. his mistake They both assert the Churches priviledge in the choice of their own Pastors Their voice saith
and I would be more phrenetical for the Interest of my dear Lord Sorne think these expressions might have been spared though for our parts Contenti sumus hoc Catonâ— 3dly What Interpreters he hath met with I know not The Assembly in their Annotations upon the place are of our mind Their setting of their thresholds by my thresholds i. e. adding their Traditions to my Precepts Isa 29. 13. So is Mr. Greenhill c. We further propose in S. T. an Objection to consideration viz. That though these Canons and Constitutions owned by the Ministers of England be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ in so many words yet by consequence they may rationally be deduced from thence As where it is commanded that all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14. 40. which 'tis the duty of the Church to make Rules and Constitutions about which when it hath done it is the duty of every Son thereof to own or subject to them without questioning its Authority To this Mr. T. Sect. 3. subjoyns 1. He asserts not that the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England may rationally be deduced from Scripture Answ Goodly Constitutions surely that cannot rationally be deduced from Scripture but have their Original singly from the bloody Canon-Law of the Papacy and worthy to be submitted to by such as profess themselves Ministers of the Gospel what greater contempt any one could pour forth upon them I know not But 2dly Whilst Mr. T. refuseth to assert this he plainly relinquisheth his concern in the Objection proposed by us and tells us He will not stand up in its defence However 2. This he asserts in the room thereof That Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Divine Worship and Church-Government may be made by Governours if not opposite to such Rules as are in Scripture about Gods Worship and the Rule of his Church and be indeed subservient and conducible to the well-ordering of such Worship and Rule which 't is the duty of the Members of such a Church to obey Answ 1. But I would be informed whether by Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Divine Worship he means only Canons touching the spreading the Table at the Communion with a linnen Cloth the Sermons beginning at the Reading of the Text at which rate he speaks in Sect. 4. Or whether he means Canons and Laws for the Institution of considerable parts of Worship together with such accidentals as he calls them that must be submitted to by such as are admitted to the publick managery of Worship without which they shall not be permitted so to do If the first he doth but trifle we have not been taking notice of things of such an inferiour allay If the latter I desire to be satisfied by what Law any Rulers or Governours do assume to themselves such an Authority which when Mr. T. shall be pleased to shew us we shall further consider it Heb. 13. 17. speaks not a tittle thereunto Of the vanity of its Application to the Governours of the Church of England we have already spoken The Reasons of his Assertion are these 1. Without such Regulations Church-Societies cannot be continued by reason of the difference of miâ—ds Answ 1. The contrary is manifest before ever such constitutions as those he speaks of were in the World Church-Societies were continued One of the first open breaches amongst them was because of them as he knows fell out betwixt Victor Bishop of Rome and the Eastern-Churches about the observation of Easter All the confusion differences breaches that have been in the Churches so called is for the most part to be charged upon their Impositions 2dly The Animadverter supposeth That without such Constitutions the Churches should be wholly destitute of Regulation but falsly 'T is derogatory to Christ the Scriptures perfection a pitiful begging the thing in question As Christ hath a Church in the world he hath Laws with respect to external politie by which he rules it needs not be beholding to Antichrist for his 'T is impious scandalous to conceive endite such dictates He further adds 2dly All sorts of Churches have had their Synods to this end Answ 1. To what end To make Laws and Constitutions for an Order of Ministry that Christ never established to impose a Lyâ—urgical Worship upon his Churches to set up an unpreaching Ministry in his House Mr. T. knows that these things are false and untrue If he mean not these I would advise him to speak pertinently in hâ—s next These are the Institutions we charge the present Ministers wâ—th submitting to 2. That all sorts of Churches have found it necessary to have Synods is more than Mr. T. can prove The Learned Whitaker tells us That they are not simply and absolutely necessary De Concil q. 1. p. 22. and I am sure they may be well enough without them Licinius interdicts them Euseb de Vit. Constant l. 1. c. 44. yet the Câ—urches continued aâ—d in a flourishing sttate 3dly That few or no Synods that ever were yet in the World have had a right Constitution were a facile undertaking to demonstrate The Synod so called of the Câ—urch of England by which the Laws we mention were out of the Popes Canon-Law collected was not so A right Synod is constituted of the Messengers of the Churches upon the account whereof they are said to be the Churches Representatives sent by them with Instructions from them touching matters to be debated in that Convention This cannot be affirmed of the aforesaid Synod nor of any Synod that ever was in the World since the Apostles fell asleep So that whilst our Animadverter is discoursing of them as necessary he is talking of the necessity of â— Non-ens a meer Chimaera 4thly The Churches of Christ had a perfect Discipline before ever the Synods he speaks of had a being in the World Nor 5thly had these ever from Jesus Christ any Authority and what they have not from him is not Obligatory to impose any thing upon the Churches to be observed by them by virtue of an Authoritative power seated in themselves 'T is a Yoke not to be endured by the free-born Subjects of Christ that any of the Children of men should impose upon them in the matters of their God The Synod of Jerusalem did not do so as we have proved His third Reason is down-right begging the thing in question Christ hath left nothing relating to the Worship and Government of his House as such undetermined against which I advise him not to talk so confidently in his next till he hath proved the contrary The Texts mentioned by him 1 Cor. 14. 40. Heb. 13. 17. prove no such thing as the lawfulness of additional Institutions in matters of Church-Polity as a part thereof to the Institutions of Christ 1 Cor. 14. 40. is afterward in S. T. Heb. 13. 17. hath already been considered That because Paul gives direction in some
Kneeling at the Sacrament is wisely done and had he wav'd the whole Controversie some think it had been no argument of his indiscretion but his so doing is no Answer He that will justifie the present Ministry and Worship of the Church of England persons of such dull capacities as our selves conceive must justifie these too They being made so necessary a part of their Worship that the Worship it self must rather be omitted than these devices of their Prelates or rather the Arch-Priest of Rome a Minister though never so able must not Preach if he will not wear the Surplice nor Baptize if he will not Cross nor may any either administer the Communion or receive it without Kneeling In which things if they transgress they are liable to be presented suspended excommunicated I have no power to compel Mr. T. to plead for any thing that he hath no mind to plead for In due time for ought I know he may as fast draw off from the tents of these men as he hath of late been advancing towards them He will not plead for their Canons nor for their Ceremonies at least some of them he tells us p. 54. It may be the next step may be nor for their Ministry To what purpose Mr. T. disputes for the power of Governors to Institute Rules for Church-Polity when he will not plead for those they Institute I know not We manifested in S. T. the invalidity of this Argument The Apostle by an infallible Spirit adviseth the Church of Corinth That all things de done decently and in order and discovers to them wherein that Decency and Order lay therefore persons that pretend not to such a Spirit may of their own head bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the Service of God To this Mr. T. replies He conceives none would thus unadvisedly conclude Answ And I believe so too but if they will argue rightly from this Scripture thus must they argue as we have demonstrated But he will yet prove the power of Governours in this matter from 1 Cor. 14 40. thus That which belonging to Decency and Order is commanded in general but not in the particularities determined is in respect of Communities left to be determined by their Rulers But so is the Apostles command 1 Cor. 14. 40. Therefore Answ 1. Both Propositions are liable to exception 1. Upon supposition that what in the Worship of Christ belongs to Decency and Order is left undetermined it doth not follow that it belongs to the Rules of the Church to determine thereof which is to make the Rulers Lords over Gods Heritage to introduce insupportable Tyranny into the Churches of Christ They are the Churches Servants not Lords that are her Ministers 2dly The Minor Proposition is notoriously false and untrue the Apostle is debating the business of Prophesying touching this he lays down particular rules for Decency and Order which he requires them to conform to Let any sober Christian peruse the Chapter he will see this shining therein in brightness So Ambrose Aquinas c. inform us Decently and in Order that no unseemliness or tumult arise But this prescription of the Apostle is not to be applied to any Episcopal Traditions but the Apostles own viz. such as he had delivered to the Churches saith a learned man Thus the heat of this contest is allayed Pulveris exigui jactu We further reply in S. T. But let this be granted suppose that 't is the Priviledge and Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of men in matters of Decency and Order this Church herein is bounded by the Scripture or 't is not If it be then when it hath no prescription therein for its commands it 's not to be obeyed and so we are where we were before That Decency and Order is to be determined by the Scripture If it be not bounded thereby then whatever Ceremonies it introduceth not directly contrary thereunto they must be subjected to which how fair an inlet it is to the whole Farrago of Popish Inventions who sees not To this Mr. T. adjoyns That he doth not plead that it is the Priviledge and Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of men in matters of Decency and Order Answ Very good The Church of England Mr. T. thinks hath no such Power Priviledge or Authority granted unto them by the Lord Jesus Then have they whilst they have so done invaded his Throne and Kingly Authority The Parish Priests whilst they own abet and subscribe to what they have done in this matter are Co-partners with them in their iniquity are really guilty of opposing the King-ship of Christ which was the matter we have been all this while contesting about and is now in effect granted by our wary Antagonist We argue thus Those that assume power to make Laws and impose the reception of them upon the People of a Nation beside those and without any Priviledge or grant to them by such given in whom the Soveraign Power of Ruledom resides are guilty of Rebellion against such their Rulers and Governours Those that abet them herein are guilty of the same Rebellion But this the Church of England with respect to Jesus Christ the onely Soveraign Lord and Ruler of his Churches hath done her Ministers have abetted her herein Therefore The Major cannot be denied The Minor is evident 1. That the Church of England hath made Constitutions for the binding thâ— Consciences of men in the maters of Decency and Order their Book of Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical evince that they have no authority from Christ so to do Mr. T. grants So that in what follows we are little concerned partly because he hath already yeelded the cause and partly because the particularities he speaks of be they what they will are only he tells us of Decency and Order not determined in the Scripture Now we deny any such particularities undetermined we think it a most fearful undervaluing of the Wisdom of Christ to assert That mans ' Devices can add Beauty Order or Decency to Christ's Institutions i. e. They are not Orderly or Decent without Humane Impositions Nor see we how these can be prescribed by Canons Ecclesiastical to be obeyed because enjoyned by the Rulers of the Church to whom we are saith Mr. T. in Conscience bound to submit if it be not the Priviledge nor Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding the Consciences of men in matters of this nature and think that the latter part of his Answer is in contention with the former Besides we are yet â—o seek for a proof of this matter That we are obliged to obey Rulers Ecclesiastical commanding us any thing in the Worship of God as such under the notion of Decency and Order and believe this very assertion is contrary to the Law of Nature and right Reason which teacheth us That God
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
account the Apostles or Elders were Heads of the Church that in respect of ministration and government they were so as our Dictator speaks is notoriously false 1. There is not the least intimation of any such thing in the N. T. Nor 2. any Language or Speech of any Headship over the Church but Christs till the rise of that man of sin who prophaned the Crown of our Lord by casting it to the ground 3. We find not the Apostles talking of themselves at this lofty rate they confess themselves to be the Brethren of the Saints their Servants for Christs sake 4. Why talks he of Heads of the Church Doth the Scripture mention any more than one Is this the Language of Christ or Antichrist Will he make the Church a two-headed Monster but Quô passim sequerer corvum I am sorry and ashamed that so learned a Person as Mr. T. should suffer such trifles to drop from his Pen. We proceed in S. T. and say 5thly If any be Head of the Church beside Christ they either have their Headship from an original right seated in themselves or by donation from Christ To assert the first were no less than blasphemy if the second let them shew when and where and how they came to be invested in such a right and this controversie will be at an end To which our Animadverter answers Their Headship is by donation from Christ in the places often alleadged He means Rom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 17. That they refuse to afford shelter to this dying Cause we have already manifested We add 6thly He that is asserted in Scripture to be Head of the Church is said to govern feed and nourish it to eternal Life is he◠Husband 2 Cor. 11. 2. In which sense none of the Sons of men can be the Head thereof and yet of any other Head the Scripture is wholly silent But of this matter thus far It cannot by any sober person be denied but an owning a visible Head over the Church having power of making Laws with respect to Worship such an Headship not being of the institution of Christ must needs be a denyal of his Sovereign Authority and Power To which Mr. T. replies None can be said to be the Husband of the Church as Christ is or to govern feed and nourish as he by the influence of his Spirit yet the Apostles and such as convert and build up Souls may in a qualified sense be said so to do as 1 Thes 2. 7 11. the Apostle saith of himself Answ 1. This is a meer Dictate without proof and so fit to be rejected the Apostle saith not any such thing 1 Thes 2. 7 11. 2. He tells us not in what qualified sense they may be said so to do Nor 3. doth he shew us where any one is said to be the Husband of the Church beside Christ nor indeed can he so that the Argument abides firm He that is in the Scripture said to be the Head of the Church is also said to be her Husband to govern feed and nourish her to eternal Life but Christ alone is and doth so Therefore We add That the present Ministers do own such an Headship is undeniable witness their Subscription Oath Conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads-of the Church which are not onely forreign to but lift up themselves against the Royal Institutions of Christ This being matter of fact the individuals charged herewith must prove themselves not guilty or manifest that what they do is lawful The former being notoriously known to be true the latter must be insisted on Mr. T. answers Sect. 12. 1. He cannot justifie all the present Ministers do in their subscription and conformity Answ 'T is good to be ingenuous we know he cannot Longa dies citior brumali tempore noxque Tardior Hyberna solstitialis erit Nor is there any one will compel him to more than he hath a will to He adds 2. The Ministers may own Laws given forth by men as the Governors and Heads of the Church that lift up themselves in opposition against the Institutions of Christ and yet not deny his Kingly Office Because 1. this may be done out of weakness or error Answ This is already removed out of the way 2dly A man may subscribe yeeld subjection to the commands of a Usurper as some did to Richard the Third who acknowledged him not to be King of right and some do to the Decrees of the Trent Council or the Popes Edicts and yet not own his power Answ 1. This is such a legerdemain so like to those Jesuitical equivocations condemned by our Protestant Writers that I understand not nor desire to be acquainted with 2. By my subscription to the Laws mentioned and promising obedience to some of the formers of them as my Reverend Fathers in God I avowedly own their power except I have learned Fallere mille modis nec non intexere fraudes to use such hard dissimulation and treachery as an Heathen would abhor 3. Will Mr. T. stand by this plea will he undertake the Ministers of England shall do so If not Why doth he multiply words to deceive the Reader if he will he egregiously scandalizeth the King and Bishops supposing them to be Usurpers Though he hath taken the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy he hath not thereby manifested his loyalty in acknowledging him to be King of right but onely hath submitted for peace-sake to what though he owns not to be just or right he cannot remedy If the Laws of Trent Council or the Popes Edicts should be established amongst us which God forbid Mr. T. can it seems subscribe to them without owning them as just or the power imposing them he seems well acquainted with the cursed carnal Machiavellian principle of self-interest and preservation Cum fueris Romae Romano vivito more No need of taking up the Cross daily to follow Christ to subscribe to what is uppermost which we may do without owning it or the Authority by which it is established is better and safer We proceed in S. T. to the answering of some Objections that lay in our way as 1. That the Headship owned by them is an Headship under Christ To which we Answer 1. But this Headship is either of Christs appointment or 't is not if it be let it be shewen where it was instituted by him If it be not the assertion and owning of such an Headship is a denyal of Christ's Authority To this Mr. T. replies Sect. 13. The tearm Head of the Church is not used in the Oath of Supremacy this we have already answered in this Sect. and need not say more but Supream Governour And this is agreeable to Rom. 13. 1. 2 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Answ By Supream Governour over the Church of Christ is meant one that hath power seated in him for the prescribing Rules in things undetermined as Mr. T. grants the establishing
of Laws Institutions not of the appointment of Christ contrary thereunto who is the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Church-Politie That Mr. T. sees such a Supream Governour to be agreeable to the Scriptures produced by him must be imputed to that acuteness of his whereby he may be supposed to tâ—anscend the rest of his Neighbours Ille solus sapiens reliqui velut umbra vagantur Of Rom. 13. 1. we have already spoken Though the Church be comprized under every soul yet it doth not follow that Magistrates are the Heads or such Supream Governours of the Church as are invested with power for the establishing and instituting of parts of Worship or commanding them in any thing relating to Worship as such of which the Apostle speaks not a tittle in that place Civil subjection as subjects of the Empire is the utmost can rationally from thence be argued for Those that were then Rulers and Governours were such as Nero Domitian who persecuted the Church design'd to root the Worship of Christ out of the world were Idolaters establisheâ— by force and violence an Heathenish Idolatrous Worship whom Christ never intended to intrust with any such power which is a sufficient answer to 1 Pet. 2. 13. which is exponed by our Annotat. Of Civil Government 1 Tim. 2. 2. is impertinently cited That because the Apostle there exhorts that Prayers be made for Kings therefore they have Ecclesiastical Power and Soveraignty committed to them over the Churches of Christ is a consequence that the very reciting of is confutation sufficient When I ascribe as he talks as much power to the Church as he doth to the King and Bishops I know not That I should make the Church the Head of the Church which is downright nonsense is not probable For the present I must crave leave to tell him he is utterly mistaken I ascribe no power of inventing Rites and Ceremonies devising Laws and Constitutions of their own relating to Worship as such to any one Church or Churches in the World I challenge him to make good his assertion I dispute against it as well as I can in S. T. Chap. 5. pag. 41 42. Whatever power I ascribe to the Church 't is only such as Christ hath entrusted her with that this should be as much a denial of Christ's Kingly Office as the ascription of a power over the Churches of Christ to any to whom he hath not committed such a power Mr. T. will not in hast be able to prove We further reply in S. T. 2dly The Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other viz. than a Head-ship under Christ To this Mr. T. 1. I grant the Church of Rome pleads for no other Headship But 2. They usurpe a power in some respects superiour to Christ in their dispensing with the keeping of lawful Oaths allowing of Incestuous Marriages Answ And the same may be said of the Heads of the Church of England I suppose this Animadverter may be yet of the mind that the Oath of the Solemn League and Covenant was a lawful Oath yet that can be dispensed with Marriages prohibited are not seldom allowed of by their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction We add 3dly 'T is not so as is pretended they own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a Law-making and a Law-giving Power touching Institutions of Worship that never came into his heart are flatly against his appointments as hath been proved We add in S. T. 4thly One Head in subordination to another doth as really make the Body a Monster as two Heads conjoyned To this Mr. T. The terms Head and Body being used only Metaphorically there 's no more Monstrosity in making a Head under a Head than in making a Governour under a Governour Answ 1. Should it be granted there were no Monstrosity in the thing it self yet there is in the expression in the Title an argument it was never from the Spirit of the Lord. 2. Bernard is of another mind Thou makest a Monster saith he if removing the hand thou makest the Finger to hang on the Head Thou makest the Body of Christ a Monster if thou placest the Members of his Body otherwise than he hath placed them in the Church Lib. 3. cap. 10. Con. ad Eugen. Much more to take a Beast a Lion or Bear as wicked and graceless men are whom yet Mr. T. seeâ—s to allow for Heads in the Churches of Christ and place them not only as Members in but as Heads over though under Christ the Church of God 3. The making of a Governour under a Governour in the Common-weale hath no Monstrosity in it because agreeable to the Will of God Principles of State-polity which a Head under a Head in the Church hath because dissonant contrary to the Law and Soveraignty of Christ its Supream Independant and alone Head A second Objection is in S. T. thus proposed by us That the Kings of Israel were the Heads succesively of the then Church and therefore a visible Headship over the Churches of Christ in the New Testament is lawful To which we Answer 1. That betwixt the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel there is a vast disproportion many things were of old lawful which now to practice were no less than a denial of Christ come in the flesh 2. The Kings of Israel were Types of Christ which notwithstanding Mr. T. dictates that it is falsly and vainly asserted Sect. 14. till he prove the contrary we take for truths What he speaks with reference to the Kings of Israel and England we are unconcerned in That the Rulers of the Jews or any other Nations had de jure any such Dominion or Power over their Subjects as to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship and compel them by force and violence to subject thereunto Mr. T. hath not proved Isa 44. 28. Is a Prophesie of the Liberty the Jews should obtain under Cyrus to go up to Jerusalem to build the Temple of the fulfilling whereof you have an account Ezra 1. 1 2 3. But not a tittle of his Dominion about things sacred or introducing Constitutions relating to their Worship as such or compelling any to go up to Jerusalem is there mentioned He only removes the Babylonian yoke that was upon them and sets them at liberty to build the Temple of the Lord which the Kings before him would not grant them to do and Worship him according to his own appointments Isa 45. 1. is impertinently alledged relating only to the Victories and Conquests the Lord would afford unto Cyrus over the Cities and Nations of the World Jonah 3. 7 8. gives us an account of a Decree published by order of the King for a solemnization of a Fast and to turn from â—mpiety but this comes short of the proof of the Headship argued for which is an Headship having power of making and giving forth Laws touching Institutions of Worship Orders Rites
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
express ones self in variety and suitableness of expressions to the Children of men is a gift given by the Lord and that not to every one that to be able so to do to God should not be a gift of his is absurd Rom. 8. 26. speaks not solely of the gift but of the grace Prayer which sometimes meet in the same subject but are distinct There may be the gift where there is not the grace of Prayer and on the contrary I say not p. 62. That the gift of prayer is the donation of the Spirit as if I thought this could not be where the Spirit did not indwell though indeed none but such can be in the acceptable exercise of that gift I account not the gift of Prayer to be a gift proper to Ministers i. e. exclusively to others but affirm that all Christs Ministers have the gift of Prayer and ought to use it which the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship shuts out of doors as unnecessary and therefore is not of Christs appointment To this our Animadverter replies 1. That Ephes 4. expresses not Ministerial gifts Answ This is evidently his mistake they are expresly mentioned v. 7 8. He adds 2dly If they are implied it 's questionable whether they are ordinary or extraordinary Answ They are ordinary for they are such as are to continue with the Ministry to the perfecting the Body of Christ 3dly If ordinary whether the gift of Prayer as he means were one Answ This must be one if the exercise of the duty be for the edification of the Body of Christ v. â— 11 12. To imagine that Christ doth not continue to dispense this gift unto his Gospel-Ministers for the foresaid end is injurious to his faithfulness to love and care of his Children to conceit that better provision can be made than he makes by the bestowment of his gifts for that end and such as shall exclude the exercise of them is derogatory to his Wisdom and blasphemous He adds 4thly That though the Apostles said Acts 6. 4. We will give our selves continually to prayer and Paul 1 Tim. 2. 1. Exhorts that prayers be made for all men yet we read not that it 's made the Ministers work to express the necessities of the Church in the publick Auditory Answ 1. But this is not to the question whoever they are that are called forth to this work they are to do it according to the abilities the Lord hath given them But 2dly if it be not the Ministers work whose is it whence is it that they who repute themselves such exclude all others and monopolize this work unto themselves 3ly2 Christ and his Apostles used no forms of prayer before or after their preaching he grants and I am sure there is not the least tittle of direction touching the composing and imposing any for the future hence it follows not that either way of praying I conceive he means by stinted prescribed forms or otherwise is lawful but that devâ—sed and imposed forms of prayer are utterly unlawful for who shall dare to prescribe where Christ is silent upon his free-born Subjects What he further adds That the one way of Worship he must mean that of imposed stinted Liturgies if he speak pertinently shuts not out of doors the other is notoriously false But 4ly Christ hath given to his Ministers gifts for the edification of his Body amongst the rest the gift of Prayer which they are bound to improve when ever call'd to the discharge of that duty as we prove from 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Cor. 12. 7. Ephes 4. 11. Prov. 17. 16. Luke 19. 20. The exercise whereof is shut out by the Common-Prayer-Book-Service This Mr. T. should have disproved The reading of a Prayer cannot possibly by a man of the least understanding in the things of God be supposed to be the exercise of this gift Reading is not praying nor any where so called in the Scripture As for Women we assert if they have the gift of Prayer when ever call'd forth to the performance of that duty they are bound to the exercise of that gift which is a sufficient Answer to what follows though persons are not bound to be alway in the actual exercise of this gift yet when call'd to the performance of the duty of prayer for which it is eminently given of God they are obliged to be improving it their not being so is a napkening up of their Talent and Mr. T. may prove the contrary when he is able 'T is added in S. T. That it will not in the least take off the weight of the Argument to say That liberty is granted for the exercise of this gift before and after Sermon For 1. the whole Worship of God may according to these mens Principles be discharged without any Sermon at all and is requently in most of the Assemblies of England 2. Those their prayers are also bounded and limited by the 55. Canon and that both in words and matter for they are enjoyn'd to pray in that form or to that effect as briefly as conveniently they may which will by all sober persons be accounted a boundary notwithstanding Mr. T. his confident Dictate to the contrary 3. We had alwayes thought that Christ having given gifts unto Men did require the use of those gifts whenever persons were called to the performance of that service to which they were designedly given by him by virtue of the forementioned precepts When Christ hath given a gift of Prayer unto his Children and charged them to stirr up the gift given them and not to napkin their Talent we had verily thought that whenever they had been called forth to the performance of that duty he did really intend and expect that they should be found in the exercise of the Gift given To the first and last of these Mr. T. is wholly silent what he saith to the second we have already removed but of the way Mr. T. adds yet further The Common-Prayer-Book-Worship may further the duty of exercising the gift of Prayer and therefore may lawfully be used Which he proves thus That form may be lawfully used for Worship which may be a means to further any positive Duty charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints But such may be the Forms of Prayer in the Liturgy of the Church of England Therefore The Major he proves thus That which requires a Duty requires the Means conducing thereto The Minor thus The Common-Prayer-Book directs what things are to be prayed for by reason of the brevity of the Colects the Responds the frequent use the plain expressions help the memory and cloqution wherein the gift of Prayer consists Answ 1. A Papist may say as much and as truly for their Books of Devotion their Whippings Pilgrimages Mr. T. knows they do so They are means they tell us tending to the furtherance of positive duties To which our Divines answer as we do Mr. T. That only those things are to be accounted a means of furthering any positive
duty that God not man hath appointed as such thereunto And in this sense is the Rule given by them about the Decalogue That which requires the duty requires the means conducing thereunto And except means be taken by him in this sense we deny his Major No Form may lawfully be used in Worship but that which is a means of the appointment of God to further a positive Duty If he prove his Common-Prayer-Book-Service to be such a Form he doth somewhat but till then Rapiunt conamina Venti Hebeats the air 2ly Why speaks he so faintly in his Minor Such May be the Forms Why speaks he not out and plainly as one that believes he speaks Truth Such Are the Forms of Prayer in the Common-Prayer-Book Now this we also deny not only 1. Because they are not means appointed by the Lord for that end But also because 2. The gift of Prayer consists in somwhat else than memory and eloqution viz. In an ability of mind to form words expressive of the desires of our hearts wherein these Forms are not pleaded to be helpful And yet 3. However it comes to pass we find not the most devout Liturgists to excel either in memory or eloqution And 4. Our own experience and the experience of the whole Nation tells us the contrary to what Mr. T. affirms The Common-Prayer-Book-Priests are of all persons the most dull unapt and heavy in that duty of Prayer who must have a prayeâ— penn'd for them for every occasion or they can say nothing Now Mr. T. hath not produced one convincing Argument to prove that a man must believe contrary to what he sees and knows We add in S. T. 3dly The Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is a Worship of which we find no foot-steps in the Scripture as hath already been demonstrated Whence it follows that 't is a Worship of pure humane invention which is not only not of Christs appointment but contrary to the very nature of instituted Worship as is proved in our first Argument and to very many precepts of the Lord in the Scripture Exod. 20. 4 5. Deut. 4. 2. 13. 32. Prov. 30. 16. Jer. 7. 31. Mat. 15. 9 13. Mar. 7. 7 8. Rev. 22. 18. The mind of God in which Scriptures we have exemplified Lev. 10. 1 2 3 4. Jos 22. 10. Judg. 8. 2. 2 Kings 16. 11. 1 Chr. 15. 3. What Mr. T. answers hereunto Sect. 6. is 1st No more than what he hath often said and hath been as often answered 2dly He hath culd out five or six Scriptures from the rest â—hich he yet wrests to another purpose than they were produced for We do not introduce them to prove the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is an Humane Invention which we demonstrate it to be because not founded upon the Scriptures but that the Introduction of Humane Inventions into the Worship of God is interdicted in them The verity wheâ—eof the Reader will evidently see proved by a sober perusal of them 3dly He absurdly asserts that a Worship not founded in the Scriptures is not of pure Humane Invention I confess it may be Diabolical and is call'd Devillism or worshiping the Devil Psal 106. 37. But Divine it is not whilst not built upon that Basis 4. He yeelds the whole cause whilst he grants that all Inveâ—tions of Men whereby our Worship of God is signified are unlawful if made necessary when the Worship of God is placed in them or their use which all know to be the case of our Liturgical forms Of Jos 22. 10. we have at large treated chap. 2. We say further in S. T. 4thly That Worship which is not necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel is not of the institution of Christ but such is the Worship of the Common-Prayer-Book Therefore The major is evident the particulars instanced in were the great aim and end of Christ in all Gospel-Administrations Ephes 4. 7 10 15. Col. 2. 19. Acts 9. 31. Rom. 14. 14 15. 1 Cor. 10. 23. 14. 3 4 5 12 26. 2 Cor. 12. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 4. The minor is proved by this that the Churches of Christ for the first four Centuries of years and more knew not any thing of such a Worship yet they enjoyed the ends of Gospel-Administrations mentioned To which Mr. T. Sect. 7. 1. Insinuates that the Scriptures produced are abusively wrested as proving nothing of Christs aim in his Institutions Answ 1. Let this be considered Ephes 4. 7 8. Ye have an account of the ascention of Christ and his giving gifts unto men as Apostles v. 11. For what end and purpose v. 12. For the perfecting of the Saints for the edifying of the Body of Christ Col. 2. 19. speaks of the Churches increase as a Body through the nourishment ministred in the Administration of the Gospel or through the Golden Pipes of Gospel-Institutions by which Acts 9. 31. it 's said The Churches were edified Rom. 14. 19 20. It 's pressed as the duty of Saints in Gospel-fellowship to follow after things wherewith one may edifie another and 1 Cor. 10. 23 24. tells us That some things in themselves lawful are to be forborn amongst Saints in Church-Communion because they edifie not Ch. 14. 3 4. c. 26. tells us That the end for which the gift of prophesying was given was the edification of the Saints which Paul professeth 2 Cor. 12. 19. to be the aim of his Soul and charges Timothy 1 Tim. 1. 4. to mind this as the great thing in his Ministry An evident demonstration that this was the main end of Christ in these Gospel-Institutions and that the Separatists as Mr. T. talks multiply not Texts impertinently bâ—t he needlesly cavils against what is from Scripture-evidence asserted and egregiously abuseth the unwary Reader 2. Doth he denie the things mentioned to be the aim and end of Christ in Gospel-Administrations Doth he prove that the Common-Prayer-Book-Service is necessary for the obtainment of these ends nor at all He tells us indeed That Prayers Praisâ—s c. are so Which if meant of such as are of his appointment managed according to his will in his own way by his own Spirit we grant to be true but he forgets to prove that the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is so That we confound the form or mode of the Worship with the Worship is not true they themselves make these forms such a necessary part of Worship by their imposition that without them we may not pray to or praise God at all Whilst he grants Liturgical forms are not necessary for the ends mentioned he throws down the master Pillar upon which it stands upright in the thoughts of some the preservation of union amongst the people necessarily requires such an uniformity say the Masters of Ceremonies His retortion of the Argument is ridiculous We say not That that Worship which in respect of the mode or form of performing it is not necessary for the edification of the Saints in
their parish-Parish-Churches in the Marian dayes was that which scandalized the Magistrate disturbed as was said the Government excited the Magistrate against others as disobedient to his Laws whereby many persons were as to their Families and Estates undone they themselves lost their lives yet were they not to scandalize the Saints by adhering to the foresaid abominations 2. The Minor understood of a just ground of scandal is not true i. e. the Magistrate hath no real or just ground to be scandalized by persons not coming to hear the present Ministers nor is the Government disturbed thereby nor hath he as we know of any Scripture-Warrant to exert his power against the Non-conformists to their and their Families ruine and if he do so 't is better to suffer than sin to hazard the loss of all than debauch our Consciences and sin against God Sect. 2. Of Scandal taken and given Wherein the nature of it consists Of offening the World Hearing the present Ministers a scandal given 1 Cor. 8. 10. explained Of sitting in the Idols Temple Some of the Corinthians thought they might be present at the Sacrifice of Idols Of having fellowship with Devils 1 Cor. 10. 20. exponed The Judgment of the Learned Paraeus thereupon The offended Brother had not greater reason to be offended at persons eating the Idolothyte nor so great as we have at persons hearing the present Ministers Of the Scandalizing Mat. 18. 6. Rom. 14. 3. explained Of offence by forbearing to go to hear Mat. 17. 27. 1 Thes 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. John 10. 27. Mark 4. 23. opened THE next attempt in S. T. is to answer Objections that might be made against what was in the foregoing Discourse in the matter of scandal argued by us The first is this Object 1. There is a two-fold scandal 1. A scandal or offence taken 2. A scandal or offence given In respect of the former possibly many may be offended at persons hearing the present Ministers that there is any just offence given by them herein is denied To this we answer 1. That as we admit of the distinction so no doubt there is a truth in what is suggested thereupon That whatever I do some one or other will be offended at it there are a Generation of men whom the doing my duty will offend and cause to blaspheme these are not to be minded but to be pittied To which Mr. T. replies Sect. 4. That there is any Generation of men whose offence is not to be minded is not the Doctrine of the Aposile but contrary to it 1 Cor. 10. 32 33. 9. 19 20 21 22 23. Answ Nor is it any doctrine delivered by us We say not That in matters of liberty we are not bound to heed giving offence to the World we believe the contrary But this we affirm thaâ— such persons as will be offended at me and blaspheme because I do my duty for so are the words are not to be heeded i. e. I am not to surcease what God requires me to do because they are offended and blaspheme which what is cited by Mr. T. doth not contradict That which follows touching hearing the Ministers of England being avowedly asserted upon this Foundation that it is lawful so to do we pass by as what we are not in the least concern'd to take notice of though there is indeed upon that supposition nothing of Argument in it We add in S. T. 2dly But 't is not yet proved nor like to be that the scandal treated of is a scandal taken and not given the very nature of scandal given as is confest by all and evident beyond exception from the Apostleâ— discourse 1 Cor. 8. 10. lying in the doing of what is judged by me to be my liberty but other Saints account my sin and from thence have occasion of grief and stumbling administred to them This was the very case of the Church of Corinth upon the occasion whereof Paul writes to them some of them judged it their liberty to sit at Meat in the Idols Temple others not being fully perswaded hereof were scandalized many wayes at this their practice which the Apostle therefore condemns as unlawful To which Mr. T. 1. 'T is not confest by all that the nature of scandal given lies in the doing what is judged by me to be my liberty which other Saints are ready to conclude to be my sin and from thence have occasion of grief and stumbling administred unto them Dr. Hammond Mâ— Jeans are otherwise minded Answ But Mr. T. abuseth us and his Reader we say not that scandal given lies in angring our Brother but evidently assert that there are two things that constitute it 1. It must be a matter that the giver of it judgeth to be his liberty and the receiver accounts his sin 2. It must administer occasion of stumbling grief and sorrow unto the scandalized i. e. he is either grieved troubled at it or by it influenced to sin against God And this I say is confest by all Nor do the Authors cited by him or he himself contradict this notion of scandal given so that the heat of this velication is allayed Pulveris exigni jactu He adds 2dly This Authors notion about the nature of scandal given is not evident beyond exceptions from the Apostles discourse 1 Cor. 8. 10. Answ 1. That the Apostle speaks there of scandal given Mr. T. will not deny 2. That the nature of the scandal lay in this the Corinthians eating the Idolothyte or sitting at meat in the Idols Temple wherewith others were scandalized many wayes 't was an occasion of causing them to eat the Idolothyte with a doubting Conscience or being wounded grieved discouraged in the way of Christianity 1 Cor. 8. 9. which he more plainly if possible expresseth Rom. 14. 13 15 20 21. which if it consort not with our notion of scandal given I know not what doth As for what follows we are little concern'd whilst he attempts not the confutation of what is asserted by us touching the nature of scandal given He tells us We are mistaken in these things 1. That the offending person judg'd it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple Answ But this is Mr. T. his mistake not mine 1 Cor. 8. 10. In the house of Idols saith the Arabick And the Learned Paraeus in 1 Cor. 10. 21. tells us That some of the Corinthians were of this Opinion That they might be present at the Sacrifices of the Idols Yea but saith our Animadverter this is ill applied however to the case of hearing for the sitting at meat in the Idols Temple was having fellowship with Devils 1 Cor. 10. 20. But this is the Service of the living God the hearers of the present Ministers judge it not only their liberty but their duty so to do Answ 1. If they judge it to be their duty they are able to produce some Scripture to evince it so to be let them do that and take the Cause 2. Many
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
were wont to receive Tythes they were not Levites neither for to them were Tythes paid Neh. 10. 37. 13. 12. Heb. 7. 5. Numb 18. 31. And if neither Priests nor Levites lawful Officers or Expounders of the Law by virtue of Office-power committed to them by the Lord they could not be for to these only by virtue thereof did the Exposition of the Lay appertain as is known 2. He seems to grant that they were such ordinary Magistrates as were in the Jewish Synedrion which is as much as we need plead for From an attendment upon the Synedrion of the Jews determining in cases of Judgment and Justice a lawful attendment on the preseâ—t Ministers will never be proved He himself afterwards grants Thaâ— the Scribes and Pharisees were many of them Rulers of the Jews but very learnedly tells us not as Scribes and Pharisees which none ever thought they were being as he acknowledgeth particular Sects among the Jews That these here mentioned were not such he is not able to demonstrate They sate in Moses Seat as Magistrates though their jurisdiction or power was not so great as his He adds That what we say some observe that these Scribes and Pharisees are especially charged with the omission of Judgement and Mercy things most nearly relating to the Office of Magistracy to whom it doth especially appertain to look thereunto is frivolous Answ But others think not so nor hath Mr. T. said any thing to encline them to think so That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judgment is any where taken for right ordering the conversation towards God and man he cannot prove in Mat. 12. 18. 't is not so taken 'T is rather taken for the Ruledom and Government of God Christ was to publish true Religion among the Gentiles and to cast out Superstition which thing where ever it is done the Lord is said to Reign and Judge there And Mr. T. cannot be ignorant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judgment is the act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oâ— the Judge or Magistrate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which passeth sentence or judgeth and that this is the proper notation of the word which its being joyned with Mercy and Faith Luke 11. 42 doth not disprove except he will suppose that these are not to be regarded by Governours in the Administration of Justice which they eminently are Faith or faithfulness in the discharge of the trust committed to them by the Lord with the exercise of Mercy and bowels towards the Body and Souls of men is what especially becomes a Ruler so that the observation wants not iâ—s weight For disputations sake we suppose in S. T. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees to be Teachers and Expounders of the Law at that day But if such they were lawful Church-Officers of the appointment of the Lord which we have proved the present Ministers of England are not and therefore a lawfulness to hear these from a lawfulness to hear them cannot be pleaded except we grant they were meer intruders into the Ministry which upon supposition that they were Ministers we cannot yeeld for these Reasons 1. The Pharisees are expresly said to be Priests and Levites John 1. 19 24. which were the ordinary lawful Ministers of that day To which Mr. T. Sect. 3. This onely proves that some of the Pharisees were Priests and Levites not that all were so Answ True but the Scripture testifying there were some Pharisees that were Priests and Levites when it speaketh of their doing what peculiarly and by way of office did belong to the Priests and Levites 't is but rational to interpret it of them and not of any others He adds 2dly But if they were Priests it doth not follow that they were the lawful Ministers of that day 1. Christs Apostles were the lawful Ministers of that day Answ 1. 'T is true they were so but not of the Jewish Church exclusively to others so that this Allegation is impertinent 2dly It 's certain that the Priests of those times got their places by bribing the Roman Deputy as Josephus reports the high Priest did Answ Grant the high Priest did so it doth not follow that the inferior Priests should so do nor doth any Historian report so of them We add in S. T. 2. These of all others were most apt to question the Authority of such as taught the People So when John appears Preaching and Baptizing and professes to them that he was not the Christ they immediately question his Authority John 1. 25. which they could not be supposed to have the face to do if they themselves of all others had been the greatest intruders To which our Animadverter saith That they did so is no wonder for they were puft off with conceits of their Authority and Righteousness Answ This is no reason of his Assertion they had great Authority amongst the people their outward conversation was Righteous and blameless as saith Josephus Jewish Antiq. l. 18. c. 2. so that in this matter they had whereof to glory We add 3dly When they question Christ himself about his Authority he asks not them from whence they had theirs which doubtless upon that occasion he would have done had they not been lawfully seated in the Seat they did possess but from whence John had his who was esteemed as a Prophet To which our Animadverter Though Christ did not then yet he doth afterwards calling them a Generation of Vipers blind Guids and his charging them with affectation and ambitious seeking the chief Seats and to be called Rabbi What is it but an evidence that they did unlawfully climb into Moses his Seat Answ A marvelous evidence indeed which no one in the World would have 't is likely lighted on if it had not been Mr. T. his hap to have stumbled on it nor he himself if he could else have told how handsomly to have salved up the matter 2. Christ calls them Generation of Vipers therefore he seems to charge them that they did unlawfully climb into Moses his Seat of which he speakâ— not one word is such an absurd consequence as he will not be able easily to make good As if a man should say such a one is a Drunkard therefore he saith he is a Thief or such a one affects the title of Batchelor of Divinity therefore he usurps it which every one wouâ—d smile at as inconclusive We say further in S. T. 4thly We have the Lord Jesus many times crying out above all others against the Pharisees condemning them of pride hypocrisie avarice but not the least tittle of the usurpation of Moses his Seat is by him charged upon them or in the least intimated which doubtless would have been had they been guilty thereof Mr. T. replies 1. 'T is no wonder that Christs charging them herewith is not in express tearms related sith their instigation of Herod to take away John Baptists life related by Josephus is not related as impuâ—ed to them by him Answ 1. 'T is very uncertain
the hearing the present Ministers to be are not to be subjected to Acts 4. 19 20. 5. 29. Dan. 3. 16 17. 6. 10. We remark the Testimony of August de Verâ— Dom. Ser. 6. in this matter who was fully of the same mind with us Sed timeo inquies He tells us plainly That such as fear to offend â—heir superiours should much more fear to offend God who is greater than all The Emperors and Monarchs of the World threaten us with a Prison if we disobey them The Lord threatens us with Hell upon our disobâ—dience to him To which Mr. T. answers not at all The 9th Objection in S. T. is The Ministers of England are true Gospel Ministers for they convert souls which the Apostle makes the Sâ—al of his Ministry or Apostleship Therefore its lawful to hear them To which we say That the conversion of Souls proves not â— lawful Ministry 1. Paul makes it not 1 Cor 9. 2. singly a sufficient demonstration of his Apostleship 2. Many have converted souls that were not Apostles as ordinary Ministers yea Brethren Women remarkable Providences yet who will say that these last are Apostles or Ministers of the Lord Jesus 3. Should it be granted that Conversion of souls is an Argument of a lawful Ministry Where are the Churches nay where are the particular persons converted by them In answer to which Mr. T. grants That Conversion of souls is no certain sign of a true Gospel Minister whereby he hath discharged this Argument as insufficient from further attendance upon this service In what follows there is nothing but what hath already been replied to in this Sect. that requires our stay The last Objection proposed and answered in S. T. is Our Ministers are removed and we know not where to go to hear would you havâ— us sit at home idle Answ 1. Though we are not against any Ordinance of Christ yet we are afraid that those that know not how to spend the Lords â—ay without hearing do too much Idolize that Ordinance and never knew what 't was to spend that day with him Mr. T. adjoyns That such persons conceive they cannot spend â—he Lords day without hearing is not out of any Idolizing that Ordinance of God but because it is one duty of sanctifying the Lords day not only to exercise themselves in Reading and Prayer at home for that is every days duty but also to frequent the publick Assemblies where God is worshipped Heb. 10. 25. Exod. 20. 8. Acts 20. 7. Rev. 1. 10. 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. Joh. 20. 26 29. Answ 1. If by Publick Assemblies he mean the Assemblies of Swearers Drunkards Adulterers Idolaters called Christians where God is worshipped in a way of mans devising by an Antichristian Formal Superstitious and it may be Drunken Priest in opposition to the Private Meetings and Assemblies of the Saints The frequenting such Assemblies is so far from being that wherein the sanctifying the Lords Day doth consist that it is a profanation thereof being rebellion against that solemn Institution of our Lord Jesus enjoyning persons to separate from such Assemblies The Scriptures produced by him totally evert his Figment the most of them preaching forth the duty and practice of the Saints in opposition to such Assemblies And Rev. 1. 10. John was alone on the Lords Day and yet I hope sanctified it according to the will of God 2. I cannot but wonder that People especially men of learning reading should talk so much of Publick Assemblies and Publick Ordinances when they cannot but know that ever since Christianity had a being in the world for the most part the Assemblies of Pagans and Antichristians with their Ordinances and Worship were publick and the Assemblies of the true Church and Worship of Christ retired and private Whence in Rev. 12. 6. when you have the Beast and Whore in their Ruffe and Gallantry the whole World wondering after them Rev. 13. 3. you have the poor Witnesses of Christ prophesying in sackcloth Rev. 11. and the Church flying into the Wilderness a state of solitariness and retirement Rev. 12. 6 14. Might not the Papists in the Marian dayes have pleaded thus against the Protestants Such Publick Assemblies as Mr. Cotton spake of viz. The Assemblies of Believers in a particular Church-State we say are not carelesly or willfully to be neglected or forsaken But what 's this to the Parochial Assemblies of England who are not such Mr. Crofton's Argument cited by him is easily answered 'T is this Communion with the Church-visible in Gods solemn Worship is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath an indispensible duty But Communion with the English Church in the Worship by her celebrated is Communion with the Church-visible in Gods solemn Worship Therefore Answ 1. By the Church-visible he must understand a particular instituted Church for with the Universal-Church-Visible of which some talk as such I cannot have Communion in the celebration of Ordinances of the appointment of Christ by Goâ—'s solemn Worship Worship appointed instituted by him to be managed and performed according to his will for otherwise it is not his Worship Iâ— which sense we grant his Major Communion with the Church-visible i. e. a particular instituted Church of Christ in Gods solemn Worship i. e. Worship of his own appointment celebrated in his own way is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath an indispensible duty with this limitation when and where there is any such Church with whom I may meet But then the Minor is most notoriously false and untrue because the Church of England is no such particular instituted Church as we have proved the Worship celebrated by her is not Worship of the appointment of God managed in his own way but of mans devising performed by Antichristian Officers as we have demonstrated We say further in S. T. 2dly You need not sit at home idle you may soon hear of some or other of the Assemblies of the Saints whither you may repair to wait upon the Lord with them Mr. T. is mistaken that such Assemblies as these are not in many places to be found Through the grace of the Lord 't is for the most part far otherwise than he intimates We add 3dly Were it or should it be otherwise yet better be idle than do worse better do nothing than sin against God encourage others in their evil deeds Which he confesseth to be true upon supposition that publick hearing is a sin 't were better be idle than do that Whether we have manifested it to be so let the indifferent Reader judge We add 4thly There is no necessity of being idle if thou knowest not where to hear on that day If thou hast a sight of thy interest in God thou mayst spend thy time in admiring magnifying the rich love of the Lord to thee if not in getting thy interest cleared up unto thee in studying thine own heart getting sin mortified grace quickened strengthened reaching after
may put Mr. T. to the blush upon the review thereof He argues further Arg. 25. Schismatical and arrogant conceits that the VVord of God is from them as the only right Teachers or confined to them as the only persons to whom it was communicated and from whom it might be received is condemned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. 36. But such conceits and inclosures they have and make who deny the present Ministers to be heard conceiving the separated Churches and Ministers the only right Churches and Ministers to be heard Therefore Answ 1. We deny the Minor we make no such inclosures as the Apostle condemns which are not what are mentioned by this Animadverter There were no Churches of Christ in the world at that day so much as in Name and pretence but such as were separated these were the right Churches and no other no ordinary Ministers but such as were related to and Ministers of such separated Churches This the Apostle cannot be supposed to condemn But if this be not that he condemns What is it Briefly 2. The Church of Corinth was one of the most famous Churches of Christ upon the account of what is mentioned by the Apostle Chap. 12. at that day in the world by reasoâ— whereof they were apt enough to be sweld puft up against other Churches that were as equally the Churches of Christ as they who had not the excellency of gifts they had This the Apostle condemnes in them and gives them to understand that the Word of God came not out from them they were not the first Church to whom it was communicated and from whom it was transmitted unto others nor came it unto them only i. e. other Churches had received embraced it as well as they therefore they ought not to carry it proudly towards them which what it makes against the inclosure our Animadverter mentions I know not The Apostle condemns one Congregational Church for being puft up against another therefore to assert Congregational Churches and Ministers to be the only right Churches and Ministers is condemn'd by him is such a strange consequence as will never readily be imbraced But 3. we make not such inclosures I believe there are hundreds in England that are not of that way who have the Spirit of God and are deservedly to be attended in their Ministration of the Word of Truth That because we deny it lawful to hear the present Ministers we must be necessitated to deny the hearing of all others but men of Congregational Principles is a supposition as monstrously false and absurd as the former We give some special and peculiar grounds of our not hearing those that can be applied to no other He adds Arg. 26. The Apostle Phil. 3. 15 16. presseth such as were perfect or well instructed in the Christian Doctrine of liberty from the Mosaical Laws not to separate from but hold Communion with such as were weak in the Faith and otherwise minded that thought Mosaical Laws were yet obligatory Therefore we may not separate from Christians and Ministers by reason of diversity of judgement about Church-Government and Liturgy and different practice about Conformity and Non-conformity to them which are of less moment than those differences about Meats and Dayes Answ 1. We deny his Consequence That because it was the duty of Saints to hold Communion in a true Church-State without altercations about Meats or Drinks therefore 't is our duty to hold Communion with a false Church and a false Ministry our Animadverter can never prove 2. That the business of Church-Government wherein the Kingship of Christ in a great measure lies is of no more moment than the eating or not eating about which the contests among the primitive Believers in the dawning of the Day of the Gospel did in a great measure lie he will not easily demonstrate 3. That the retention for a while of Mosaical Ceremonies whilst the Temple was yet standing to which they were affixed should be a greater ground of separation from a true Church of Christ then the reception imbracement of the Liturgy and Ceremonies of Antichrist in and by a false Church and Ministry from it is as absurd an assertion as ever dropped from the mouth or pen of so learned a person And yet fail he in the proof hereof this Argument is of no moment We attend his next Arg. 27. The holy Ghost hath recorded the prophesie of Balaam Num. 24. 3 4. Of Caiaphas Joh. 11. 51 52. Yea the sayings of Infidel Iâ—olatrous Poets Acts 17. 28. 1 Cor. 15. 33. Tit. 3. 12. Therefore it 's lawful to hear the present Ministers Answ Now I confess if he be able to make good this Argument it will follow that we may not attend the Ministry of the present Ministers of England only but the very vilest and worst of men Yeâ— I think we may righteously deny his Consequence and expect his proof thereof before we credit it The reading of Poets or citation of them is no part of instituted Worship as I remember which we have proved hearing the present Ministers to be He proceeds Arg. 28. The Apostle 1 Thes 5. 20 21. requires Christians not to despise prophesyings but to prove all things and hold fast that which is good And the Apostle 1 John 4. Believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God They make it not sin meerly to hear them that are erroneous if they try them they may hear pretenders prophesying if they prove it much more those Ministers who preach truth Answ 1. Prophesyings are not to be despised all things are to be proved the Spirits to be tried whether they are of God buâ— all this must be done in his own way For persons from hence to take liberty to go to Mass hear the Jesuites frequent the meetings of Ranters is dangerous and a plain tempting of God 2. Why he should accommodate 1 Thes 5. 20. to the preaching of the present Ministers and impose it upon us as our duty not to despise prophesyings who tells us pag. 136. l. 30. That he knows not of any at this day that have the gift of prophesie I understand not 3. 'T is abominable wickedness to violate other commands of Christ upon the pretext of these Scriptures and a plain irrision of Christ when he hath charged us as we have pâ—oved to have nothing to do with such a generation for us upon pretence of trying all things to attend their Ministry and Worship is abominable prophaness not to be justified 4. There are some things so visibly opposite to Christ and his wayes that they need no trial in order to a discovery Whether drunken ignorant Priests the shame and contempt of the Nation be Ministers of the Gospel Whether a formal sapless self-devised Worship and Ministry from the Pope and Bawd of Rome be the Worship and Ministry of Christ are things so palpably and noâ—oriously foreign to the Scriptures that a man need not put them to the
odious with Ministers and People whereby they were necessitated to joyn in Communion by themselves Praecurs Sect. 12. p. 48. Because it is manifest from Acts 2. 41. 46. 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 3. 12. 13. Persons were Baptized before they brake bread together therefore the taking any without Baptism to the Lords Supper will but strengthen men in their opinion that their Infant Sprinkling is sufficient Therefore he sees a nececessity of desisting from that enterprâ—se of admitting persons of different perswasions touching Baptism into their communion ibid. p. 49. The Christian-Church-constitution of Volunteers is better ibid. Sect. 11. pag. 431. In the Worship of God it was wont to be accounted a certain Rule that Gods Worship should be observed according to his appointment and no otherwise ib. Sect. 16. p. 66. My opposing the Bishops began with the soonest And for my non conformity Reasons were given with some of the first I justifie not the Ceremonies ibid. Sect. 21. p. 89. It is true our English Prelatical Divines do account Baptism sufficiently administred that is so done yea though it were by a Popish Priest or a Midwife ibid. p. 91. However for the Tenet of the Peoples governing by Vote I know no reason why they he speaks of those called Independants should be called a Sect rather than their opposites The Excommunication which â—he Scripture speaks of is no where made a part of Government or of the Elders Office any more than the Peoples In Antiquity its apparent out of Cyprian That the People had a great hand in Elections Excommunications Absolutions ibid. p. 93. No one Country City or Tribe together were gathered by the Apostles or other Preachers into the Christian visible Church but so many of all as the Lord vouchsafed to call by his Word and Spirit 1 Cor. 1. 26. Not many wise men Ergo Not the whole Nation And afterward to Mr. B. Question Hath he not commanded to disciple Nations He answers Yes to make Disciples of all Nations by preaching the Gospel to every creature but no where by Civil Authority to gather a whole City Country or Tribe and to draw them into a National and City-Covenant together â—bid Sect. 22. p. 97. Jeroboams Sacrificing and keeping a Feast at another time thâ—n God appointed Ahaz his forming an Altar after the pattern of that of Damascus Nadab and Abihu their offering strange fire keeping Holy Dayes to Saints he condemns as Will-worship Full Review of the Dispute conceâ— Infant-Baptism p. 3. 1 Pet. 2. 9. Which are meant only of the Elect and true Believers of every Nation are applied to a National Church consisting of a great part of either ignorant persons that know little or nothing of Christianity or persecutors of Godliness profanely despising the Word and hating the Godly ibid. pag. 27. God forbad Infants under eight dayes old to be circumcised in that he appointed the eighth day to be Circumcised Now if this be a forbidding to Circumcise before as I acknowledge it is and so do many Protestant Divines as Paraeus Com. in Gen. 17. 11. then that is forbidden which is otherwise than God appointed ibid. p. 81. And p. 180. He reckons the Cross in Baptism amongst Popish usuages such as Bell Baptism Baptizing of Dead persons I said it is a carnal imagination that the Church of God is like to civil Corporations if persons were admitted to it by birth nor is it to the purpose to prove the contrary that Mr. M. tells me the Jewish Church was in the like civil Corporations for I grant it was the whole Nation whereas the Christian Church hath another constitution ibid p. 265 266. If Christ did say to Judas that his Body was broken for him and his Blood shed it will be hard to avoid thence the proof of Universal Redemption I think it the safe stand most likely tenent that Judas went out afore the Lords Supper p. 291. ibid. Christ is the Head of the visible Church in giving them Officers outward order direction ibid. p. 294. But all these are alterd now the Church is not National no one High-Priest Temple Sanhedrim ibid p. 334. I know that our Army hath done so much for the setling the Church as that the Anti-Prelatists Congregations had been either none or much oppressed if they had not broken the force of the opposite party Nor dare I be so unthankful to God or them as not to acknowledge the great Mercy and benefit we at this day enjoy thereby however Mr. B. fret at our Liberty and jibe at the Instruments ibid. p. 383. A not commanding is a plain forbidding Mr. Collings provoc pro. ch 5. Nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what we have precept or president for which whoso denies opens a door to all Idolatry and Superstition and Wil-worship in the world which Mr. T. approves of ibid p. 408. Of divine Institution there is no reason can be right but what is from Gods own appointment though it may seem right to us it should be so In things positive our reason is deceivable and Gods appointment is only to be attended ibid p. 461. And now Sir though I might to these Collections which are diametrically opposite to the main principles of your Theodulia the very basis upon which that Fabrick stands have added many more as you well know yet am I willing to spare you not knowing but the Lord may give you to see and bemoan your evill in gladding the hearts of the Wicked sadning the Righteous or confirming them in crooked paths who have turn'd aside thereunto which notwithstanding your natural temper and heâ—ght of spirit with which we are sufficiently acquainted that will pâ—oâ—pt you to say something in a way of self-justification is not impossible for God to do If you write in Answer to our Reply and to the purpose you shall receive a Return 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a spirit of meekness and christianity If we meet therein wiâ—h meer dictates without tender of proof impertinent citations of Scriptures without the least attempt to minifest their congruity with the assertion they are introduced to prove and a parcel of passionate railing expressions in the stead of the words which the Wisdom that is from above and the Spirit of our dear Lord teacheth which we too often meet with in your Theodulia you have your Answer Farewell FINIS
than all is and shall be for your good 2. He speaks to the particular Church of Corinth of which neither Paul nor Apollos nor Gephas were Pastors or Teachers 3. He is condemning them upon the account of their crying up and preferring one before another upon the supposition of the excellency of gifts some thought they saw in one others in the other which caused them to side and tumultuate the one against the other To allay which amongst other things he tells them All is theirs whether Paul c. i. e. the gifts of the one and the other were for their use â—nd emolument as the Lord was pleased in his providence to cast them amongst them 4. He speaks of extraordinary unlimited Officers tâ—at were to continue but for a season and whilst they were fixed and â—etled in no particular Church so that the Corinthians might lay as much claim to them upon that account as any other Therefore National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ is this Animadverter's Logick whâ—ch when I purpose ludicrè sophisticare I may imitate him in What follows viz. That a man may be a Commissioner for approbation of Publick Preachers throughout a Nation as Mr. T. was when that was in fashion and so a National Minister or an Itinerant Preacher and yet be a Minister of Christ is not at all to the purpose 1. If Mr. T. look'd upon himself as such an one when he sate at White-Hall amongst the Tryers I know many of theâ— that then sate there did not And in the sense I speak of National Ministers as explained in the beginning of this Section he could not be one 2dly Some at least of the then Tryers were so far from being National Ministers that to my knowledge they were not Ministers at all but private Gentlemen whom the then Powers thought fit to entrust with the management of that affair Sect. 16. No National Church under the Oeconomy of the Gospel The National Church of England destitute of what Mr. T. makes essential of a true Church Somewhat more essential to a true Church than the truth of Doctrine of Faith the truth of Worship the truth of holy Conversation viz. Segregation and Aggregation proved The Aâ—imadverter's Argument retorted upon himself Though every defect of Order doth not nullifie a Church yet the defect of that Order that is of the essence of a true Church doth Of the Disorders of the Church of Corinth Their impertinent Allegation by the Animadverter of Synods the learned Whitaker's judgment of them and General Councils These no proof for National Churches Of many particular Congregations under one Presbyterial Government These may be yet no National Church The Church of Jerusalem but one particular Congregation meeting together in the same place for celebration of Ordinances How this Church was the pattern of all other Churches Mr. T. his Cavils refuted THe next attempt of Mr. T. in this Section is to prove a National Church so denominated from their subjection to some Canon-Rulers Ecclesiastical which is the National Church we are enquiring after or conveening by Deputies in some National Synod though not of Divine Institution is a true Church This seems at first blush to be a difficult task to assert a Church not of Divine Institution to be a Church of God for so 't is if a true Church his Temple Tabernacle in which he walks and dwells is to me such a Paradox as requires a strong brain and hard forehead to make good But Aquila non capit muscas nothing but what others despair of ever accomplishing is thought by daring spirits worthy the attempting We attend his proofs Thus he argues They may be a true Church who have all things essential to a Church and nothing destructive of its being such But a National Church may have all things essential to a Church c. Therefore Answ Very good We deny his minor Proposition that a National Church may have all things essential to a Church c. What saith he for the proof of it He tells us that a National Church 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 Answ But this is gratis dictum and without proof 1. That Mr. T. can give us an account of any National Church under the Oeconomy of the Gospel concerning which it may be affirmed that the truth of the Doctrine of Faith the truth of Worship the truth of holy Conversation did appertain to it i. e. if I do not much mistake him it hath been sound in Doctrinals the true Worship of Christ hath been managed and carried on in it and the particular members thereof i. e. the multitude of the Inhabitants of the Nation holy and righteous will not hastily be believed by such as have thought themselves concerned to look into these matters As for the Church of England we suppose he will not have the confidence to assert that it may be truly affirmed of it that the members thereof are so qualified The frequent staggering and shameful spewings through excess that we daily behold in no small number even of the Captains and chief of this Herd evince the contrary Of the soundness of their Doctrine we give an account Chap. 11. and of the truth of their Worship Chap. 8. But 2dly The Animadverter full well knew that his Antagonists look not not upon the particulars instanced in to be the Essentials of a Church We Country-folk are not wont to say that when the materials of an House are fitted and brought together the House is built there must be an orderly forming and placing of each piece in the building according to the Scheme or Platform thereof before this can be affirmed of it And therefore hic pes figendus he should have manifested the truth of his dictate that besides these there is nothing essential to a true Church We are apt to think that two things over and above whâ—t is instanc'd in by him are so essential to a true Church that without them it is not such 1. Segregation or separation from the wicked carnal formal hypocritical world and the worship thereof of which chap. 4. of the S. T. and in our Epistle to the Reader prefixt to this Treatise 2. Aggregation or a solemn gathering together by free and mutual consent into particular Congregations in the fear of the great God gâ—ving up our selves to him and one another according to his will to â—alk together in the fellowship of the Gospel in obedience to all the Institutions and Appointments of our dear Lord. 1. That thus it should be in Gospel-dayes the Prophets of old bear their Testimony Jer. 50. 5. Come let us †Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which points forth not a casual aggregation not a forc'd conjunction but a free and voluntary giving up themselves to the Lord and to one another 'T is used of such a conjunction
Officers if Presbyters and Elders be such as 't is evident they are from Act. 14. 23. 20. 17 28. whom we find in the Church at Jerusalem Act. 11. 29 30. 15. 2 4 6 22 23. 16. 4. 21. 18. 3ly What he further offers That the Church of Jerusalem was to be that Church from whence were to be taken such as might plant other Churches for which end they were after dispersed Acts 8. 1 4. therefore it cannot be said to be the pattern of all Churches is to speak modestly such a strange non-sequitur that he must take time to make good That because the Lord in his providence suffered the enemies of his Son to dissipate and scatter this Church and by it took advantage in the greatness of his Love and Wisdom for the preaching the Gospel to others also that therefore it should be a Church not formed up according to the mind of Christ or being so formed was not to be an example and pattern with respect to the matter and manner of its constitution to succeeding Churches is a consequence that will not be swallowed down because Mr. T. saith it and yet nothing but his ipse dixit is tendred towards its support and maintenance But what he saith in the 4th place wil he thinks do his work 't is this Be the Church of Jerusalem of what nature or kind soever whether Congregational Presbyterian or Parochial it was so not from any Institution of Christ but came to pass according to divine Promises and Providence which being so various as that no certain rule can be accommodated to all times places and estates of the Church We may judge that Christ hath left the shaping of Churches much to humane prudence That is in short there is no Form of Churches of divine institution An Assertion so derogatory to the honour and glory of our dear Lord Jesus that it cannot but be grievous to Christ-loving Saints to hear it abetted by any I confess if this were the state of Churches it were to no purpose to contend with him about his National Church nor is it at all to be wondred at if he hath always been for that Church-Government that was uppermost in the World But this being an Assertion wherein most of the Saints of God in the World do look upon themselves upon more accounts than one to be greatly concerned Mr. T. should have brought most irrefragable Arguments to make it good But behold in the stead hereof we meet with a deep silence he onely turns aside to consider what worthy Mr. Parker offers to prove that the form of Churches is of Divine Institution Of which in the next Section we shall speak Sect. 17. The Form of Churches of Divine Institution The learned Parker 's Arguments vindicated from Mr. T. his Exceptions Particular Churches called the Body of Christ his House and Temple The plain upon which the Antichristian Church was first erected No other foundation of the Church but Christ. 1 Cor. 3. 10. Eph. 2. 20. Zech. 6. 13. Rev. 11. 1. explained Twelve Arguments to prove the Form of Churches is of Divine appointment IN Sect. 17. Mr. T. pretends to answer the learned Parkers Arguments by which he proves Lib. 3. de Polit. Eccl. c. 17. that the Form of Churches is of Divine Institution How well he hath discharged this province is now to be considered The sum of Mr. Parker's first Argument is this The Church is the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 12. 27. But in the first forming of mans Body he shewed himself such an accurate worker in the determining the dimension and measure of it Gen. 2. that nothing might be added to or taken from it by any Therefore it cannot be imagined that he should be so regardless of his own Body as not accurately to circumscribe the dimension thereof This Mr. T. is pleased to call a Rhetorical flourish but by his good leave it will be found an Argument of such weight that he will not be able soon to remove it out of his way If the Church of Christ be his Body he hath certainly determined the dimensions of it Not to have done so had been an Argument of little care thereof of his leaving it to the arbitrary disposements of the children of men of which we reade not a tittle in the New-Testament Who or where is he that dares assume the confidence of ordering and disposing the Body of Christ without his leave or can do so without treading the Soveraignty of Christ over it under foot and proclaims himself to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that lawless one the Antichrist or Beast that ascends out of the bottomless-pit must go into perdition What saith Mr. T The Church of Christ he tells us is the Body of Christ but this is rather true of the Universal Church and Mystical Body of Christ as may be gathered from 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. Eph. 1. 22 23. 4. 4. than of a particular Congregation Answ 1. But he gives us no Argument to demonstrate that 1 Cor. 12. 27. is to be interpreted of the Universal Church we have demonstrated the contrary Sect. 13. which he should have done if he would have us think our selves concerned in his reply 2dly He himself grants That a particular Church of Christ is and may be called his Body as his words 't is rather true of the Universal Church than of a particular Congregation import That he should entrust any with a power to model figure and fashion his own Body as they please and yet never give us the least hint of any such betrustment is the first-born of improbabilities and absurdities The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very plain in the Land of Shinar upon which the cursed Fabrick of the Antichristian Church Babel was at the first erected as Mr. T. well knows The learned Parker further argues Each first Church of God is the house and building of God 1 Cor. 3. 9. Heb. 3. 3 4. 1 Tim. 3. 15. And what prudent housholder will permit the Figure and Quantity of his House to the arbitrement and will of others To this Mr. T. adjoyns 'T is true the Church of God is his House God built it Christ is the only Foundation of it yet others are subordinate Builders and Foundations too in respect of their Doctrine 1 Cor. 3. 10. Ephes 2. 20. to whom many things pertaining to the outward figure and quantity i. e. the distributing of Churches into Oecumenical National Classical Parochial c. are left c. This the Sum. Answ 1. 'T is true Paul calls himself 1 Cor. 3. 10. A Builder with respect to his instrumental planting and founding of that Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wise Architect or chief Builder but that he or any others was to build according to the good pleasure of their own wills that they had no Idea Platform or Model given them by Christ the Lord and Master of the House according to which
Soveraignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom with respect to Worship be granted by him to any of the sons of men absolutely or conditionally If the first tâ—en must the Church be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ trampling upon his Royal Commands and Edicts for so its possible it may fall out those that attain this Headship may do as its evident many Popes of Rome the great pretenders hereunto have done If the second let one iota be produced from the Scripture of the Institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto and we shall be so far from denying it that we shall chearfully pay whatever respect homage or duty by the Laws of God or man may righteously be expected from us But this we conceive will not in hast be performed and that for these Reasons 1. The Scripture makes mention of no other Head in and over the Church but Christ Ephes 1. 22. 5. 23 29. 2 Cor. 11. 2. To this Mr. T. answers 1. We use not the title of Head but of Supream Governour yet that title being given to Saul 1 Sam. 15. 17. and others 1 Cor. 11. 3. Ephes 5. 23. Exod. 6. 14. and may be used Answ 1. What We Mr. T. means when he saith We use not the title of Head I know not 't is the usual form of the present Ministers to stile the King in their prayers Under Thee and Thy Christ Supream Head and Governor But 2dly Head of the Church is a title nor to be given to any in that sence in which it is given to Christ this Animadverter grants I ask Hath Christ onely an Headship of influence to his Church communicating vital Spirits unto the true Members thereof Hath he not also an Headship of Government over it If he assert the first he knows he is departed into the Tents of the Antichristian Papal Shepherds who allow indeed such an Headship to Christ alone The second they divide betwixt him and the Pope as Mr. T. seems to do betwixt him and the King If the second be owned by him than none of the Children of men have an Headship of Government over the Churches of Christ they are not so the Supream Governors thereof as to give forth Laws and Institutions of their own for the Saints to conform to For this title of Head is not to be appropriated to any in that sense in which it is given to Christ as saith our Animadverter Besides 2dly If the Kings of the Earth are the Supream Governors of the Churches of Christ they have this Supremacy over them by grant from Christ and that either absolutely or conditionally if the first then whoever ascends the Throne of worldly Ruledom hath a right of supremacy over them though they themselves be such as have cast off the Yoak of Christ are trampling upon his Royal Laws and Edicts If the second let us see the proof thereof from Scripture with the conditions annexed to this their supremacy and we are satisfied This we told Mr. T. before but he was not pleased to take notice of it That because the Scriptures mentioned by him attribute â—he title of Head of the Tribes to Saul and the Man is called the Head of the Woman Therefore the Governors of the World may be called the Head of the Churches of Christ when that title of Head of the Church is given to none but Christ in the Scripture is such a piâ—iful non-sequitur as Mr. T. will not surely without blushing review Sir Saul was constituted by the Lord King over Israel a Man to have superiority over the Woman with allusion hereunto they are called their Head by the Spirit of the Lord But where is the Scripture constitution of the Superiority Kingship of any over the Church beside Christ Amongst whom he saith He will have no such thing Where is it that any have this title of Head of the Church ascribed to them by the Holy Ghost This must be proved or you must acknowledge the impertinency and invalidity of their present arguing the best of it is whether you will be so ingenuous or no 't is but a Fig-leaf covering that every eye can discern your nakedness through it We say in S. T. 2dly If there be any other Head of the Church besides Christ he must be either within or without the Church The latter will not be affirmed Christ had not sure so little respect to his Flock as to appoint Wolves and Lyons to their Governors and Guides in matters Ecclesiastical nor can the former for all in the Church are Brethren have no Dominion or Authority over each others Faith or Conscience Luke 22. 25. Mr. T. replies Though all in the Church are Brethren yet all are not equal nor doth Luke 22. 25. prove it Answ 'T is enough for our present purpose that all in the Church are thus far equal that being all brethren none may exercise any Ruledom or Authority over the rest without their consent nor any such Ruledom as to command in case of Worship where Christ is silent which is at least asserted Luke 22. 25. and Mr. T. may confute it when he is able Of this Scripture we have spoken at large Chap. 4. and of Rom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 17. frequently and have fully removed out of the way what is here repeated touching the Laws of Rulers and their obligation upon Conscience nor need we add more We say further in S. T. 3dly If any other be Head of the Church but Christ then is the Church the body of some others beside Christ but this is absurd and false not to say impious and blasphemous To which Mr. T. Particular Churches in respect of that ministration and government which their Governors afford them may be said to be the bodies of their Governors Answ Boldly ventured however 1. The Church is frequently said to be the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 12. 12 27. Ephes 5. 30 32. Col. 1. 18. 2dly Is no where said to be the body of any other not of Peter Paul much less of Nero Domitian the Supream Governours of the Empire at that day By what Authority Mr. T. takes the body of Christ and joyns it to another Head besides himself I am yet to learn 3dly The Church is call'd his Body upon the account of that glorious nearness and union is betwixt Christ and them the reception of Spirits life from him their absolute indisputable subjection to him Is the Church the body of any other with respect hereunto beside Christ Where is it so called Is it united or in subjection to any other besides Christ as the Woman is to the Man upon the account whereof she is call'd his body Ephes 5. 28. his I say not anothers That Mr. T. should assert That upon the same account the Church may be called the body of some other beside Christ We add 4thly There was no Head of the Church in the Apostles dayes but Christ That upon any
rarely if at all there are persons present that will be are offended at it it may be weak Saints that by their example it may be with a doubting Conscience are brought thither Arg. 6. His sixth Argument is That is not the scandalizing in the texts in which if the offence be regarded the person supposed to offenâ— shall be alwayes deprived of the use and benâ—fit of his liberty contrary to 1 Cor. 10. 29 30. and that is a matter of the greatest moment for his souls welfare the hearing the Word of God whereby his liberty will be lost and a yoke of bondage received contrary to Gal. 2. 5. 6. 1. But so it is in thâ— offence for hearing the present Ministers Therefore Answ The discovery of the unsoundness and rottenness of the foundation upon which this Argument is built will totally enervate and render it useless with respect to the end for which it is produced 1. 'T is supposed that we ought not alway to deprive our selves of that which is the matter of our Liberty if a weak brother be alway offended with our use of it But this is notoriously false First The ground or reason of my first forbearance to exercise my Liberty remâ—ining Reason will dictate that I must forbear the exercise thereof still Secondly Directly contrary to what is asserted by the Apostle 1 Cor. 8. 13. Thirdly Opposite to his intendment in the place cited by the Animadverter viz. 1 Cor. 10. 29. For why is my Liberty judged of another mans Conscience i. e. why should I give occasion to another of judging my Liberty The Interrogation is of one denying saith Paraeus q. d. I will by no means do it I will rather abstain from eating flesh for Eternity as he speaks 1 Cor. 8. 13. 2. 'T is supposed that except a man hear the present Ministers he cannot hear the Word of God at all which blessed be the Lord is far otherwise 3. The Liberty mentioned Gal. 2. 5. 5. 1. Is a Liberty from Jewish Ceremonies the Bondage is owning subjecting to them which what it makes to his purpose I cannot tell Sure his Liberty from these will not be lost by his not hearing the present Ministers Liberty from some of them together with Ceremonies of Humane Invention will hereby be established and obtained in which it is the duty of Saints to stand fast 4. 'T is supposed that 't is my Liberty to hear the present Ministers or otherwise but that Mr. T. cannot plead who hath denied hearing them to be a matter of Liberty Arg. 7. His 7th Argument is this That is not scandalizing forbidden in those texts the avoiding of which draws after it a greater scandal But in shunning to hear the prâ—sent Ministers there is a greater scandal than in hearing them Therefore Answ We deny his Minor his proofs whereof are a meer petitia principli false and ludicrous 1st The person refusing to hear scandalizeth not himself by confirming himself in his superstitious error hindring his spiritual growth and ensnaring himself in an unjustifiable separation Nor doth he scandalize others by his example confirming those that refuse to hear in their error and schism whom he ought to oppose as Paul did Peter Gal. 2. 11. For 1. Refusing to hear the present Ministers is no error Nor 2. Superstitious Nor 3. An hinderance of spiritual good and growth Saints experience through the grace of the Lord the contrary Nor is 4. Separation from them unjustifiable Or 5. Schismatical nor cannot be for Schism according to the Scripture notion of it as a worthy learned person hath lately proved is in one particular Church amongst the members thereof which of the Church of England we are not Nor 6. is Gal. 2. 11. a ground sufficient for any one to reprove or oppose persons in their non-conformity to the present Ministers 1st Paul reproves Peter for non-communion with the Saints upon Principles purely Judaical those that refuse to hear refuse communion with visibly debauch't and wicked persons upon Gospel-Principles 2dly 'T was Peters dissembling that Paul reproved vers 11 12. One while he would eat with the Gentiles other-while for fear of the Jews he will not which will rather countenance a persons reproving such as hear those whom not long since they refused to have communion with and swore to extirpate He adds 2dly By refusing to hear the present Ministers 1. The sheep of Christ are scattered Answ They are rather united in one That there is such bitterness and enmity in the best of the Separatists as Mr. T. mentions towards dissenters from them that breaks the bond of Charity is false and untrue I wish that he speak not against his knowledge and coâ—science in this matter The bond of love and charity amongst the true disciples of Christ they are so far from going about to break that they labour to strengthen encrease it And could wish that all those names and titles of distinction which either some have assumed to themselves or others have reproachfully applied to them that love Christ in uprightness were removed that we might know one another as Christians and study the exaltment of truth and peace amongst each other and the Nations where our lot is cast He tells us 3dly The refuser to go to hear scandalizeth those that do so who are censured and shunned as lapsed Brethren and meer Foâ—malists and thereby are grieved He scandalizeth the conforming Ministers who are much hindred in their performance of their Ministry Answ 1. It may be those who are censured as lapsed Brethren are justly so censured being such as have departed from the truth â—nd way of the Gospel they once embraced and walked in and if so the censure is not unjust but righteous and if managed in a Gospel-spiriâ— of love and meekness there is no just cause of grief administred The censure if the Lord bless it for their awakening and recovery may be a foundation of future joy and rejoycing 2. That the Conforming Ministers should hereby be much hindred in the performance of their Ministry is not likely since what they do therein they have ready prepared in their hands and if it were true their Ministry being a false Ministry 't is our duty in the way of the Gospel to hinder them therein Arg. 8. His 8th Argument follows That scandalizing is not forbidden in these texts by avoiding of which the Magistrate is scandalized his Government disturbed his Power excited against others as disobedient to his Laws whereby many persons with their Families are undone But so it is when the present Ministers are not heard as the state of things now is Therefore Answ 1. The Major Proposition understood of scandalizing by giving evil example in doing that which is in it self evil which is our present case is notoriously false and untrue The not coming to the Service and Sacrifices of the Gentiles in the dayes of the Apostles The not owning the Pope the Sacrament of the Altar coming to