determined to be the more excellent of all Episcopal terms the Roman Bishops should alone retain it whereas before it was common to all Bishops hath been judged deservedly the head of Antichrist which Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome had not long before lib. 7. indict 2. Epist. 96. made Antichristian and the Usurper a forerunner of Antichrist yet the Bishops of Rome in the first ages were not so accounted and therefore it follows not though the later Popes be the head of Antichrist that the Office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian there having been Offices perhaps derived from good Popes and continued only in the Church of Rome which deserve not that censure but approbation rather Nor is it necessary that every thing derived from Popes since they have been the head of Antichrist and continued only in the Papacy should be Antichristian the head of Antichrist may institute something that is not Antichristian 2. It is not true that the Office of Lord Bishops is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy It is manifest in the first Nicene Council Canon 6. that then and before were Patriarchs Metropolitan Bishops and Lord Bishops with their Office and that Council was in the fourth Century about the year 326. And that in the Greek Eastern Russian Churches the same Office is continued And therefore though no other of the Reformed Churches had retained that Office besides the English yet there would be no need for the Bishops of England to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast for an Office of Ministery But it is also pleaded that the Lutheran Churches reformed that have separated from the Papacie in Germany Denmark Swethland have retained the same Office under the name of Superintendents which is the same in Latine with Bishops in Greek and that it is false that the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ have in all ages utterly rejected the Office of Lord Bishops and that it hath its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church Yea it is manifest by the many Epistles written to the English Prelates by the reception at the Synod of Dort and innumerable other wayes that there hath been no such rejection or detestation either by any Church reformed or Eminent Writers of them except those of the Separation who have been also averse from the Discipline of the Protestant Reformed Churches beyond Sea and have given opprobrious Language to and of them as well as the English As for the testimonies here cited some of them as the Speeches of Hierome the Helvetian Confession of the Lord Cobham are only about the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters not of their Office most of them as that of Wickliffe used before by Bernard in his Tract to Pope Eugenius those of the University and Church of Geneva Beza's the Belgick French Confessions Marlorat Bale are against the Popish Hierarchy those of Cartwright Fenner and Authors of the Admonition were Speeches of Adversaries which in no Court pass for testimonies to which Arch-Bishop Whitgift and others have given answers long since It is added Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters Object One stone of Offence must be removed out of our way ere we pass on further it is this Though Lord Bishops are Antichristian yet it doth not follow that the Office and Ministry derived from them is so For they are also Presbyters and Ordain as Presbyters Answ. Give me leave to say that were not men resolved to say any thing that they might be thought to have somewhat to say we had not heard of this Objection For 1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of Ordination is false 1. Contrary to their own avowed Principles their Lordships think it too great a debasement to be degraded from their Lordly dignity to so mean an Office 2. Contrary to the known Law of the Land by which they receive power to act therein in which they are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops 3. Contrary to their late practice whereby they have sufficiently declared the nullity of a Ministerial Office received from the hands of a Presbytery in thrusting out of doors several hundreds of Ministers so Ordained Strange That it should be pleaded they act as Presbyters in the matter of Ordination and yet they themselves judge a Presbyterian Ordination invalid But 2. What if this should be granted it would avail nothing except it can be proved that they are and act as Presbyters of the Institution of Christ which these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ will never be to the worlds end Thus far of the third argument Answ. 'T is true to some that have either renounced Episcopal Ordination as Antichristian or refused to hear Ministers Ordained by Bishops as acting by virtue of Antichristian Calling it hath been told that the Bishops were first Presbyters and Ordained Presbyters together with Presbyters and some of them that held that a Bishop and a Presbyter were not superiour in Order but in Degree did Ordain as Presbyters and that therefore if the Ordination of Presbyters be not Antichristian the Ministers should retain their Ordination by Bishops and the people hear them though that were yielded that Lord Bishops Office were Antichristian Now nothing is here replied to the allegation that Bishops Ordain with Presbyters the Bishop with the Priests present are to lay their hands on the Ordained according to the Book of Ordination Nor to this that some of the Bishops have acknowledged Episcopacy not to be an Order above Presbytery Nor to this that though the Bishop imposing hands do act as of superiour Order yet being a Presbyter his act is valid as he that conveighs a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor if he be not Heir yet if he be only Executor and by that hath power to conveigh it the grant is good But he sayes 1. It is false they Ordain as Presbyters it is contrary to their principles Answ. Whether it be so in all is uncertain nor do I know how this Author can prove it unless they did declare it which is more than I have learned 2. It is contrary to the known Law of the Land Answ. 1. It is not true that the Bishops do receive power by the Law to act in Ordination in it are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops for the Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who are not Lords is valid by Law 2. The Law which gives power to act ties not Bishops to think themselves of a Superiour Order to Presbyters nor to act with such an intention or under such a notion 3. They have nullified Presbyterian Ordination and required Re-ordination by a Bishop Answ. They do not nullifie Ordination by a Presbyterie in foreign Churches but in England perhaps because the Laws require Episcopal Ordination and it is conceived necessary to avoid Schism
virtue of a power derived from him Answ. If by teachings of Antichrist be meant the teachings of the present Doctrin of the Church of Rome according to the Trent Council wherein they dissent from Protestants and the power derived from him be meant of the Englâ—sh Bishops Ordination it is denied that the Preachers of England derive their power from Antichrist Pope or Church of Rome and I say that it is meer impudency to say they do who renounce the Popes authority by solemn Oath and separate from the Church of Rome and are persecuted condemned and put to death where the Pope hath power even because they disclaim the Pope and his Doctrin Yet if any should act by virtue of Ordination from the Pope as doubtless many did before the Reformation such as Wickliffe and many others and yet not teach his Doctrin he might be heard teaching the Gospel and in such a case the consequence were not valid and therefore in this sense it may be denied that because it is unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by virtue of a power derived from him 3. Saith he Christ calls and solemnly charges his upon the penalty of most dreadful Judgments to separate from every thing of Antichrist Rev. 18.4 14.9 10 11. Answ. It is true Rev. 18.4 we read thus And I heard another voice from heaven saying Come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues Which may be understood of a local departure fâ—om Babylon or Rome when her judgment of Destruction from the Kings of the earth draws nigh but if it be extended further to a departure by forsaking communion with her in Worship and leaving the subjection which was yielded to her in her Government yet is it not understood of every Doctrin the Pope teacheth not of the Bible or Apostles Creed or any Doctrin or Service agreeable to these nor of relinquishing every Rite and Usage though undue and illegitimate which is observed by them but the Fornication that is Idolatry Heresie and other wickedness mentioned v. 3. Chap. 17.2 Revel 14.9 10. it is said If any man worship the Beast and his image and receive his mark in his forehead or in his hand the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God By the Beast and his image are meant some Empire or State which promotes Idolatry Some conceive it meant of the Pagan Emperors Others and those both more and more accurate Commentators among the Protestants understand by them the Roman Papacy and Latin Empire the worshiping of which is undoubtedly the acknowledging of its power and subjection to their Idolatrous Decrees and Edicts The receiving his mark in the forehead or the hand is allusively to the use of marking Slaves in the forehead and Souldiers in the hand to profess themselves servants to the Popes and ready to fight for them which Mr. Brightman makes to be in the Roman Clergy their indelible character in Ordination in the Emperors their Oath of Protection of the Popes in the Common people their assuming the names of Papists and Roman Catholiques Mr. Mede more exactly in his Comment on Rev. 13.18 thus To receive the mark of the name of the Beast is to subject himself to his authority and to acknowledge him to be his Lord but to receive the number is to imbrace his impiety derived unto him from the Dragon to wit the Idolatry of the Latins whence that happily will not be unworthy consideration although no man can receive the mark of the name of the Beast or be subject to his authority but together also he must receive his number that is be must needs be Partaker of his impiety yet it may be that one may admit the number or impiety of the Beast but yet refuse the mark or name That which now long since is true of the Greeks which doth evince that the worship of the Beast and his Image and receiving his mark in his forehead or in his hand is not retaining of every usage of the Papists no not though it be Corrupt and Superstitious as many zealous persons against Popery but superficially viewing the text conceive much less such customs as are not superstitious in their use but acknowledging the universal Monarchy of the Popes and adoring Images the Host Reliques Crosses invocations of Saints and such like impieties which the present Ministers of England do profess to abhorr and therefore it is without cause that they are charged with receiving the maâ—k of the Beast and people are affrighted with the penalty of the dreadful Judgments Rev. 14.10 unless they separate from them and their Ministry as a thing of Antichrist 4. Saith he There is not a command in the Scripture enioyning Saints to take heed of being deceived to try the Spirits because many Antichrists are gone abroad into the World but is an abundant demonstration of the truth of this Assertion Answ. I grant it if the Assertion were they that act in the holy things as acknowledging the Power teaching the Doctrin owning the Calling of him that is truly Antichrist are not to be heard but to be separated from But being understood of other things which the Separatists call Antichristian it is not true nor proved by the commands in Scripture which forbid only to reject Antichristian Doctrin and Worship not every thing said by any without proof to be a thing of Antichrist The Baptism given in Popery is not by all Separatists rejected as Antichristian there is less reason to call the Ministry of England a thing of Antichrist 5. Saith he The institution of Officers of his own by Christ to be continued in the way appointed by him to the end of the World Ephes. 4.11 Answ. It is true that Christ when he went up into heaven gave gifts to men some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers and that some of these are to be continued to the end of the World and in that way he hath appointed But that there is any particular way of Election Ordination and Mission of ordinary Pastors and Teachers in those words appears not nor how the major is proved those that act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian so called not proved Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but separated from I discern not unless this be the Argument Christ hath appointed these therefore no other are to be heard but to be seperated from which overthrows the hearing of and communion with gifted Brethren whom he would have heard for they are no Officers of Christs institution 6. Saith he That there is not one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry with innumerable things of the like tendency and import that might be produced if needful are such a basis upon which the truth of the major
it is put in the Plural number as the Churches of Asia Galatia Judaea In the Evangelists History of the doings sufferings and sayings of our Lord Christ I find the Word Church used but in two places Mat. 16.18 and 18.17 Of the extent and meaning of both which Texts there is so much controversie not only between the Protestants and Papists but also among the Protestants themselves of different persuasions about Church Government that it would require a Treatise by it self to make a thorough discussion of those two Texts in order to the clearing of the Controversies that are started about them That Mat. 16.18 is undoubtedly meant of the Christian Church but whether Oecumenical visible or invisible or indefinite or topical is doubted It is without any proof appropriated to the Church of Rome or any particular Church as ordered under this or that peculiar form of Government but is to be taken for the number of Believers in Christ whether of Jews or Gentiles more or fewer abstractively from any political considerations and such external adjuncts and denominations as whereby usually Churches are in common speeches diversified In the other place Mat. 18.17 in as much as it is not said tell my Church but tell the Church and the term thy brother may as well be meant of a Brother as by birth or proselytism adjoyned to the Jews as St. Paul calls the Jews by birth his brethren kinsmen according to the flesh Rom. 9.3 in which sense it may seem to be taken in that place Mat. 5.23 24. which is a precept like to this for the reconciling of particular differences and righting of wrongs and the expression let him be to thee as a Heathen seems to intimate as of a Brother in Christian profession it may not without reason be doubted whether by the Church there be meant the Christian Church or an Assembly of the Jews in their Synedrium whether greater or lesser and if it be extended as a direction to Christian Brethren whether it be meant of their Assembly under an Ecclesiastical Consideration or Political that is the Christian Magistrate Institution of a Church by Preception or Command I find not neither Christ nor his Apostles that I know have given us any rule or law of bounding modelling or numbring Churches There is a precept Heb. 10.25 that Christians should not forsake the assembling of themselves together as the manner of some was But none about the defining how many should go to a Church or be accounted to belong to one Church no determination by any precept concerning Members belonging to a Church whether they should be fixed to one Meeting or ambulatory and moveable sometimes belonging to one Assembly sometimes to another of the same profession Nor do we find any Institution of Churches whether they ought to be Domestick Congregational Parochial Classiâ—al Diocesan Provincial Patriarchical or Oecumenical The ordering of such distinctions Christ and his Apostles so far as I deprehend have left to Divine Providence and Humane Prudence allowing more or fewer to a Church as the imes will permit the increase or diminution of Believers should be as Pastors may be had and their Partitions and Meetings be convenient for their edification and government It is true the Romanists would infer from Christs promise to Peter Mat. 16.18 Upon this Rock will I build my Church that St. Peter and after hâ—m the Bishop of Rome was made universal Bishop But that by Christs Church is meant the universal Church and by Christs building it is meant constituting an universal Bishop is an assertion without proof In some of the Ancients the Bishops of Rome have been stiled Oecumenical but so also have other Patriarchs We believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church but so denominated from their common confession or the same Faith not from union to and subjection under one visible Church head Mr. Paul Bayne as I remember long since disputed against Diocesan Churches for Parochial and in the Assembly at Westminster the dissenters against this proposition that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial government from such distinction of Churches as the New Testament yields But the Arguments seem not to me to be cogent they declaring only what was done de facto not what was necessary to be done de jure That Text Mat. 18.17 is much urged by sundry sorts of Pleaders for their several wayes of Church-government But it is uncertain whether by Brother and Church be meant Christian Believers and the Christian Church and if Christian Believers and Church be meant whether the Church be meant of the Christian Civil Judicatory or Ecclesiastical Consistory or Congregational Assembly of Believers of all ranks or some select Arbitrators that of which the Church is to have cognizance being there no other than the sin of one Brother against another which v. 21 22. Luk. 17 3 4. shew to be meant only of private trespasses or injuries done by one to another who might remit or forgive them nor is any other act ascribed to the Church than an admonition to the injurious Brother to do right to him whom he hath wronged whereupon it is then allowed or appointed upon non-satisfaction to him or disobedience to the Church without any other juridical sentence mentioned that he that is thus disobedient should be to him that complained as a Heathen or Publican with whom the Jews would not have familiarity Nothing is said of being such to the Church or by vertue of its sentence juridical or being excluded à sacris which we are sure the Publicans were not Luk. 18.10 These things seem to me to evince that neither is here that instituted Church which the Assertors of Congregational Churches and Church-government urge as the only Churches and Church-government of the New Testament and inculcate as the pattern in the Mount and any other way to be as the setting of mans posts by Gods posts and separate from a National Church as a humane Invention Nor is here that Church-government instituted which they make the only Government appointed by Christ that the Congregation or the major part are to cast out exclude from Communion in Holy things in every Church though but of seven or eight every member that sins and will not obey the monition of the rest of the Congregation These things being premised I answer to the Questions in the first Querie fore-mentioned 1. That it is granted That since the Unchurching of the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath not yet that we know of so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his We say that Christ hath redeemed us to God by his bloud out of every Kindred and Tongue and People and Nation and hath made us unto our God Kings and Priests Revel 5.9 10. We own no Church visible now but of Believers by their own personal profession We approve the 19. Article of
the Church of England that the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly administred according to Christs Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same The addition in the Confession of Faith of the Assembly Ch. 25. Art 2. that the visible Church universal under the Gospel consists of all those throughout the World that profess the true Religion and of their Children is not found in the Writings of the New Testament and those Texts that are alledged for it Ezek. 16.20 21. Rom. 11.16 Gen. 3.15 Gen. 17.7 if they were pertinent would as well prove a whole Nation to be Gods visible Church yea all mankind descended from Eve as the visible Church to consist of the children of them that profess the true Religion And the same may be said of them that assert an Ordinance of Infants visible Church-membership unrepealed that alledge Mat. 28.19 as proving Christs appointing Nations as such to be baptized that alledge the Jewish Proselytism as a pattern to us How far this Quaerist agrees with these may be discerned by other passages If he concur with those of the Congregational way about Church-members and their proof from the Covenant to Abraham Gen. 17.7 as made to his natural seed and so to all Believers natural seed I see not how he can avoid the asserting of a National Church like the Jewish which I grant is not agreeable to the Gospel according to which the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men as the definition of the Church of England Art 19. expresseth it and hath been fully proved by me in the third part of my Review Sect. 52. c. 2. In answer to the Question Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomy of the Gospel I say that though there be no National Church so as that the whole Nation and every member of the Nation be to be accounted of the visible Church of Christ by vertue of their Generation or Proselytism and such Covenant as was made to Abraham concerning his natural seed or to Israel at Mount Sinai or elsewhere yet the whole number of Believers of a Nation may by reason of their common profession be called a National Church as well as the whole Body of men throughout the World professing the faith of the Gospel and obedience to God by Christ according unto it not destroying their own profession by any errours everting the foundation or unholiness of Conversation are and may be called the visible Catholick Church of Christ as the Congregational men speak in their Declarat ch 20. Wherefore it is no more against the Gospel to term the Believers of England or Scotland the Church of England or Scotland than it is to term the Believers throughout the World the Catholick Church nor is it more unfit for us to term our selves Members of the Church of England in this respect than to term our selves Members of the Catholick Church nor is there need to shew any institution of the Lord more for the one than for the other Nor is there need to alledge Isa. 49.20 or Isa. 66.8 for such an Institution Nevertheless that the Prophesie Isa 49.23 Kings shall be your Nuâ—sing Fathers c. waits the time of its accomplishment is said with more Confidence than Evidence Many learned Interpreters think otherwise among whom Mr. Gataker in my judgment inferiour to none in his Exposition of Holy Scripture hath these words Annot. on Isa. 49.23 And Kings shall be thy Nursing Fathers and Queens thy Nursing Mothers fulfilled in those Persian Potentates Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahaâ—uerus with the Queens also of some of them that patronised and protected Gods people and promoted Gods work with them Ezra 1.1 4. and 63.12 and 7.12 26. Neh. 2.6 8. Esth. 8.3 8. and much more in other Emperours and Kings together with their Queens as Constantine Theodosius and the like who both embraced the Christian faith themselves and maintained the profession of it Of some whereof see Rev. 17.12 16 17. And Mr. Mede on Rev. 16.17 hath these words For truly out of the same ten horns or Kings they shall be who at length shall hate the Whore whom they have so long born which partly we perceive to be fulfilled shall make her desolate and naked shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire Nor is it to be denied without ingratitude to God and Men that Kings and Queens since the rise of Antichrist though many of them made drunk by the Whores intoxicating cup have been cruel Butcherers of the Saints both before the Reformation and since even in our dayes have been nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers to the Church of Christ and that a National Church in the sense fore-mentioned hath been the result of its accomplishment and we hope in more ample manner will be the result of its fuller accomplishment As for the Text Isa. 66.8 that it is a prophesie expresly relating to the Jews and their miraculous conversion is not certain Mr. Gataker in his Annot. on Isa. 66.8 hath these words The most Interpreters both Jew and Christian understand these words of the strange sudden and unexpected delivery of the remainders of Gods people out of the Babylonian bondage by Cyrus Howbeit divers Interpreters understand them of the restitution and restauration of the Church under the Ministry of the Gospel when so many thousands were so soon and so suddenly converted without any great labour or pains-taking about them of those by whom they were converted Act. 2.41 4.4 and both these Expositions conceived as subordinate the one to the other may very well be admitted And therefore if the Author hear it not pleaded in this matter yet he may find another Exposition than that which he imagines that it expresly relates to a future miraculous Conversion of the Jews However if it did sith it is said Rom. 11.25 26. When the fullness of the Gentiles is come in all Israel shall be saved he might find something for a National Church in that Prophesie Isa. 66.8 As for those words in his Parenthesis that the assertion of a National Church of the institution of Christ is wholly destructive of Gospel administrations they are said with no more truth than proof though we should say a National Church in respect of its Government or Officers is of the Institution of Christ. For suppose it were asserted that Christ had instituted Patriarchs or Arch-bishops and Bishops and the Government of the Church of England or Scotland under them yet this might be without total destruction of Gospel Administrations The preaching of the Gospel administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper with other administrations of Christian Worship and Discipline have been and may be continued even where Archbishops and Bishops have been over a National Church as instituted by Christ. But let us attend his motions thus he goes
designed by his Son and his Apostles the several Officers and Offices his Wisdom thought sufficient for the management of the affairs of his House that is his Church as they are such First Christ Jesus called his twelve Disciples together and gave them power and authority over all Devils and to cure Diseases and he sent them to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick Luke 9.1 2. After he appointed other seventy also and sent them two and two before his face into every City and place whither he himself would come and these were confined to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Mat. 10.6 To whom he saith only he was sent Mat. 15.24 St. Peter having confessed him Christ tells him Mat. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church which by reason of the repeating of his Name and alluding to it and thereby minding him of it is justly to be thought to imply a promise of a special use of him in the building of his Church not barely as that particular man but as a foundation of it by his Preaching as other Apostles are called Foundations Eph. 2.20 in respect of their Doctrine wherein St. Peter had some work before the other in his Preaching Acts 2. and 3. and 10. And therefore Christ promiseth to give him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 16.19 So as by his preaching to open the Kingdom of Heaven first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles when Cornelius was admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore Act. 15.7 he speaks of it as his preheminence that God made choice among the Disciples that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel and believe he imploying that key of knowledge which the Lawyers had taken away who entered not themselves into the Kingdom of God and them that were entering in they hindered Luke 11.52 To him our Lord Christ assures Mat. 16.19 Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Which Phrase seems by the expressions Mat. 23.4 Rev 2.24 to import that what he should command to be done should be in Heaven ratified as commanded by God as it was Acts 2.38 Acts 3.19 20. Acts 10.48 and what he should untie that is free men from the obligation of that should be untied in Heaven that is God would not require the observation of it which was performed Acts 11.3 14 17 18. Acts 15.10 Which promises though personal to St. Peter and in respect of the first work peculiar to him neither imparted to any other Apostle nor derived from him to any successour yet this last promise was after made to the rest of the Apostles Mat. 18.18 and performed when St. Peter with them decreed about Circumcision Acts 15.24 and the Holy Ghost established it v. 28. Afterwards our Lord Christ being risen from the dead finds his Disciples assembled for fear of the Jews Thomas being absent and saith Peace be unto you as the Father hath sent me even so send I you And when he had said this he breathed on them and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained John 20.19 21 22 23. The words of salutation of mission the breathing on them and imparting the Holy Ghost to them do import that the remission and retaining of sins there promised was a peculiar power given to them on whom he thus breathed though also communicated after to other Apostles who were in like manner sent and received the Holy Ghost as they did Which remission of sins was accomplished when by their preaching persons repented and were Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins Acts 2.39 41. When Aeneas was cured by St Peter Acts 9.33 For healing is by remission of sins Mat. 9.6 James 5.15 John 5.14 Or by taking off the sentence of delivering to Satan by which the Apostles had power to retain sins as appears by that speech of St. Paul 1 Tim. 1.20 That he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander unto Satan that they might be instructed or corrected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as either to be afraid or disabled from blaspheming any more as they had done when Satan should chastise them with bodily punishment St. Paul also had determined by his Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. When the Christians were gathered together that they might be witnesses to deliver him that had his Fathers Wife unto Satan for the destruction of the Flesh that is the wasting of his body that the Spirit or Soul being sensible of his sin and humbled for it might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Which had been his comming to them with a Rod 1 Cor. 4.21 and the retaining his sin had not his after-sorrow caused S. Paul to forgive him in the person of Christ 2 Cor. 2.10 which was the remitting of sin confirmed in Heaven Other instances there are of the retaining of sins by Apostolical power when St. Paul smote Elymas the sorcerer with blindness Acts 13.11 and St. Peter inflicted death upon Ananias and his wife Sapphira for lying to the Holy Ghost and keeping back part of the price of the Land which they had sold Acts 5.3 5 10. After this mission commission and breathing of Christ on the disciples to reestablish St. Peter after his fall Christ injoynes him to feed his Lambs and his Sheep thrice charging him that he might shew his love to him whom he had thrice denied whereby he doth not make him universal Bishop or Monarch of the whole visible Church as Romanists impiously pervert the Text but requires of him diligence in testimony of his love to him by doing that work which is expressed in words which signifie teaching one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not ruling and that Ministry which is common to other Bishops Acts 20.28 and Elders among whom St. Peter termes himself a fellow Elder and Christ the chief Shepherd 1 Peter 5.1 2 4. But then Christ did most design the Officers and Offices he thought requisite for the management of the affairs of his house when being to ascend into Heaven not long after in a mountain of Galilee Jesus spake to them saying all power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations or rather Disciple or make Disciples all Nations or of or in all Nations not the Jewes only as formerly Mark 16.15 Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every creature or to all the creation Baptizing them thus discipled Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved into the name of the the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
I have commanded you and lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the world Amen In which instruction of the Apostles is founded the function of the Evangelical Ministry as Pareus speaks in his Commentary consisting in Preaching the Gospel and Baptizing and teaching the obserservation of Christs commands which Offices the promise to be with them all dayes to the end of the World shewes to be perpetual till Christs second coming Who the Officers are of Christs designing may be best gathered from Ephes. 4.11 Some of which are undoubtedly to continue And that there should be a succession by ordination of some for the Churches is apparent from 2 Tim. 2. 2. Tit. 1.5 and that they should be ordained may be gathered from Acts 13.2.3 and 14.23 1 Tim. 4.14 and 5.22 that there should be some who should have inspection over others that they do not sow errours or otherwise corrupt the Churches may be granted from 1 Tim. 1.3 4. Tit. 3.10.11 and by the things charged on the seven Angels of the seven Churches Rev. 2.2 6 14 15 16 20. Rev. 3.2 3 15 16 19. To set down the History of Officers and Offices in after-ages to determin the disputes about their several degrees or orders is full of difficulty and to our present business unnecessary This only is sufficient for present to say in answer to the question now under hand That such as do these works which Christ or his Apostles have appointed to be performed for his Church are Officers designed by Christ and their ordination thereto agreeable to his design nor are those Officers or Offices an invention of new ones by the sons of men not only needless but a daring advance against the Soveraignty care and wisdom of God over his Churches though they have other names and titles and maintenance and immunities and dignities and additaments than the Scripture mentions They that are called Archbishops Bishops Deans Canons Prebendaries Parsons Vicars Curates Chaplains Masters of Colledges Hospitals Wardens Fellows Clerks Priests enjoy emoluments by Tithes or other revenues may be truly Officers of Christ if they be ordained to and do the works or Offices appointed by Christ and the Apostles to the Ministers of the Church of Christ as well as they who are termed Presbyters Presbyteries Teachers Pastors Lecturers Itinerant Preachers gifted Brethren whether they be chosen by a particular Congregation and ordained by an Eldership and receive maintenance by Collection augmentation stipend or other waies Sect. 22. The solemn deputation of Ministers is not the peculiar priviledge of Saints 6. Saith our Author whether the priviledges of Saints be not every way as great and extensive under the Gospel as those under the Law If so then whether the solemn deputation of men signally pointed out by the Lord for the administration of Holy things in his house by the body of his Church be not now as then their peculiar priviledge Answer The people of Israel were a holy people to God and conceived to be meant by the Saints of the most High Dan. 7.27 But that the solemn deputation of men signally pointed out by the Lord for the administration of Holy things in his house by the body of that Church was their peculiar priviledge is not proved but the contrary is manifest that the Priests and Levites were by Gods own choice set a-part as is before said Sect. 7. Saints now are either real or in appearance only The former as such are invisible and it is granted that they have priviledges in spiritual blessings in Heavenly things in Christ every way as great and extensive under the Gospel as those under the Law yea in some degree greater to wit in the clearer revelation of the mystery of Gods counsel and accomplishment of Gods promises by the Prophets and gift of his Spirit Saints in appearance only or the visible Church of the Jews had in some things greater priviledges such as those mentioned Rom. 9.4 5. Rom. 3.1 2. Gods revealing his minde by Urim and Thummim extraordinary Prophets and many more than Christians now and therefore no good inference can be made from the priviledge of the Saints then in the solemn deputation of Ministers of holy things if it had been such as this Author supposeth unto the same priviledg to the Saints now The solemn deputation of Apostles and other Ministers of the Gospel we finde not to have been the peculiar priviledg of the body of the Church in any part of the New Testament Their ordination is no where mentioned as done by the Saints or brethren which were not Officers nor is there any plain proof of their election by all or the major part of the members of each Church in the Scripture And though therâ— be in antiquity in the first ages relations of their election yet withall such stories of the tumults frayes and other disorders as necessitated an a teration of that course are related Considering how unquiet in judicious deceitful factious divided those are that usurp the name of Saints and perhaps are I see not how safe it were to commit the solemn deputation of Ministers to them without much regulation of them and ability of discerning of Spirits which is not a gift continued to the Churches who oft are as easily deceived by hypocrites and seducers as others and if it were the peculiar priviledg of Saints it were not to be denied to women contrary to the Apostles rule 1 Cor. 14.33 34. 1 Tim. 2.11 12. If it were such a peculiar priviledg to Saints to ordain or choose their Ministers so as they were not to own any but whom they choose then the lesser part of a Congregation were not bound to take him for their Minister who is not chosâ—n by themselves though chosen by the most each person might choose his Minister and withdraw for his Ministry at pleasure if not chosen by him and refuse to contribute to his maintenance which wâ—th many inconveniences too often exemplified in Churches gathered in the Congregational way cause such Churches to be often dissolved or to be multiplied into so many parties as make them unfit for any good order or use Sect. 23. Corruptions in non-fundamentals un-church not The Quaerist adds 7. Whether any Church in the world we speak of a visible instituted Church hath greater security against Apostacy from God and that sore judgment of having its Candlestick removed and being unchurched than that people of the Jews had if not then whether supposing a national Church to be of the institution of Christ it may not so come to pass that it may be so overspread with corruptions that it may lose the essence of a Church and justly be disrobed of that appellation Answer I grant that no particular Church visible whether National Provincial Classical Parochial or Congregational hath greater security of Apostacy from God than the Jewish and that any such Church may be so overspread with corruptions that it may lose the essence
chosen by the Church and therefore seems not sufficient to inferr a necessary perpetual rule of such election especially other passages shewing the Constituting or Ordaining of Elders without mentioning of any such election as Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 And though the original and use of the word were from the custom mentioned and did in popular Elections signifie Election by suffrages yet as in other words so in this use hath enlarged its sense apples it to other creating than by such suffrage as is manifest by the use of it even in the same book Acts· 10.41 where the Apostle are termed Witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chosen before of God who did not choose by suffrages of others and by Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on Act. 14.23 is shewed to be used in like manner in Philo Judaeus and other Authors besides Christians as the same with Electing Ordaining or Constituting without Suffrages of others and must be so understood in this very place because none are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stretch out their hand but Paul and Barnabas and it is said they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be well translated any other than Ordaining by laying on their hands on the Elders not by bare stretching out or lifting up their hands as was wont to be in Suffrages and it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to or for them manifestly distinguishing the Disciples from the Electors or Ordainers by stretching out or laying on of hands So that this place doth not prove Power solely delegated to a particular Church instituted for the electing of their own Officers and therefore if all were true which is added by this Author These men as it s known have no such authority pretend not to it have it in derision come barely with a presentation from a Patron and Ordination Institution and Induction from a lord-Lord-Bishop things forraign to the Scripture and impose themselves upon the people whether they will or no. Yet they may be Ministers of the Gospel and heard as such notwithstanding this Argument Yet I add that it will be hard for this Author to prove that the Parish Churches in England are not particular Instituted Churches of Christ or that the Ministers are imposed on the People whether they will or no the contrary is true of many places especially in London concerning the Incumbents and Lecturers Nor is the Ordination of a Lord-Bishop such a forraign thing to the Scripture as this Author would insinuate the Bishop not Ordaining without other Elders joyning with him and giving him no other authority than to Preach the word of God and to Minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto To shut up the Answer to this Argument As the Text Joh. 10.16 is abused by Hart to prove the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ as Dr. Rainold sheweth in his Conference Ch. 6 divis 1. it being meant only of the Lord Christ and the Quakers abuse Joh. 10.12 to cry down Preachers as Hirelings because they receive Wages though it be according to Christs own determination Luke 10.7 the Lords Ordinance I Cor. 9.14 St. Pauls practice sometime 2 Cor. 11.8 and his Precept Gal. 6.6 and his Approbation 1 Tim. 5.17 18. The word Hireling Joh. 10.12 being not used as making it a sin for a Minister to receive hire but to distinguish Christ from other Shepherds who was not as Hirelings whose Sheep are not their own but was a singular Pastor owner of the Sheep of whom he was Pastor and those abuse Joh. 10.5 who urge it against the hearing of any Preachers but those of their own Church or way calling them Strangers whereas the strangers there are such as were Usurpers of Christs Office and were enemies to the Sheep not feeding them but perverting them So this Author abuseâ—â— John 10.1 9. by saying the present Ministers of England are Thieves and Robbers because they come not into their Ministry by the door that is by any authority to them from Christ that is not by election of a particular Instituted Church when this is but from an expression in a parable in which is not the scope or Doctrin intended by it and therefore not argumentative and neither is it certain that the door v. 1. is the same with the door v. 9. nor if it were is the door that whereby there is entrance into the Ministery but the Church nor the entrance by right election of others but by the persons true faith nor is the not entring in by the door brought as the reason or form denominating them Thieves and Robbers but only as some description of them from a concomitant nor are any meant there to be Thieves and Robbers who do direct to Christ or receive him for defect of regular calling but such only as obtruded themselves as the Messiah on the people with intent to make a prey of them Sect. 4. The present Ministers may be heard as Gifted Brethren There is yet more of the like stuff 2. Saith he 'T is not lawful to hear them as Gifted Brethren 1. The most of them are not Gifted Brethren Nor 2. Brethren being Canonical Drunkards Swearers Gamesters c. Answ. That any of them are such it is to be bewailed and in a Christian way the persons that are guilty are to be rebuked Levit. 19.17 not to be thus charged in Print in a Book vented in the dark tending not to amend them but to make them odious even with them that are too much inclined to censuring and reviling of those that dissent from them or are of an opposite party But how it appears that the most of the present Ministers of England are such as he stigmatizeth them I know not and I hope it is not true However if it were so it proves not that others better qualified might not be heard nor that these men may not bethren yea if he follow St. Pauls rule 2 Thess. 3.15 alledged a little after he is not to account them as enemies but to admonish them as Brethren and were all this and more true yet they might be heard preach the Gospel as Brethren Gifted as Judas was to be heard though declared by Christ to be a Devil Joh. 6.70 But what saith he of the rest 3. The best of them cannot by Saints in respect of Gospel Communion be so accounted For 1. There was never any giving up of our selves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example whence such a Brotherhood doth result Answ. By Saints I doubt not he means such as are members of a particular Instituted Church Congregational distinct from Parish Churches either under Episcopal or Presbyterial Government For such only are accounted Saints by him as give up themselves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example and by Gospel Communion no doubt he means hearing of them preach praying with
joyning together in their praying and praising God Mat. 21.16 Luke 19.39 40. Sure it can be no sin in any person to joyn in the true worship and service of God with any if he have no command to withdraw himself from that service because of their presence nor power to exclude them and yet is bound to the duties then performed Believers might prophesie and hear it though Unbelievers came in 1 Cor. 14.24 25. Christians are commanded to separate and not touch the unclean thing 2 Cor. 6.17 But those they are to separate from are no other than Unbelievers and the unclean thing is the Idol v. 15 16. not the true service of God because of the presence of some scandalous Brother The people of God are to come out of Babylon Rev. 18 4. but that is no other than Rome and that because of its Idolatry v. 2 3. Rev. 17.2 3 4 5 6 18. We are not to keep company with a man called a Brother if he be a Fornicator or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner with such an one no not to eat 1 Cor. 5.11 But this prohibited keeping Company and eating can be meant of no other than arbitrary unnecessary society in civil things and eating common Bread because v. 10. that keeping Company which is forbidden to such Brethren is allowed in v. 9 10. to the Fornicators of this world which cannot be Gospel Communion keeping company in eating the Lords Supper but civil eating The Doctrine of defiling our selves by the presence of wickâ—d men at the Lords Supper hath begotten so much superstition in the minds of many well-affected people that they can scarce ever break Bread with comfort no not in the best Instituted Churches there being seldom such an unspotted Congregation but that some or other is known or reported or suspected to be guilty of some sin or errour which is made sufficient to exclude themselves from the Communion so that as they use to speak they are not free to break Bread and that before the fault be examined or the person judged upon trial to be guilty and impenitent which makes those very Churches which by themselves are counted purest and best Disciplined to be full of Brawls and rash censures and separations and without any regular Discipline of any long continuance These things being considered I answer that I know no evil in it to account the worst of the Ministers of England Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion if not under regular censure in Hearing Prayer Praising of God eating the Lords Supper nor evil to account them members of the same Church and of one Brotherhood according to the Rime which should not be derided by any holy sober Christians being only the Lords Prayer in Metre It follows Sect. 5. Tender Consciences may call the Bishops Reverend Fathers Nay 3. We cannot so acknowledge them but we must also acknowledge the Bishops for our Reverend Fathers for theirs they are which how abhorring it is to any tender enlightned soul may easily be conjectured Answ. The Bishops are acknowledged by the present Ministers of the Church of England as their Reverend Fathers in respect of their Ordination but as Brethren only in respect of Gospel Communion Nor do I think the Bishops affect the title of Reverend Fathers as if they were superiours over the Ministers or People in respect of the common Faith had dominion over their Faith or were Lords over Gods heritage or would be called Masters or Fathers in that sense in which our Lord Christ appropriates these Titles to himself and his Father Mat. 23.8 9 10. in which sense I acknowledge any tender enlightned soul should abhor to give it to them I conceive they are far from usurping that Title as the Bishop of Rome doth who now hath ingrossed the Title of Pope that is Father heretofore given to other Ministers even to Deacons and doth claim the Prerogative to be the Oecumenical Bishop and Universal Monarch as Christs Vicar over the whole Church as having power to make Laws binding the Conscience out of the Case of Scandal and Contempt to determine infallibly in point of Faith with much more wherein he sitteth in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God 2 Thess. 2.4 But I conceive the Title of Reverend Fathers is given to them and taken by them in no such sense but that they account not only the Ministers but also the meanest Christian their Brethren in Christ. Yet may they be called Reverend Fathers not only in regard of their Age and their success in begetting others through the Gospel in Christ Jesus as the Apostle of himself 1 Cor. 4.15 in which respect there have been and I presume some of them are rightly termed Fathers in Christ but also in respect of their Office and Dignity according to that of the Apostle 1 Tim. 5.1 Rebuke not an Elder but intreat him as a Father In which respects usual Titles may be given even to the unworthy as St. Paul did Acts 22.1 and 26.25 and such compellations and salutations have been used by holy persons Gen. 42.10 Dan. 6.21 as warrantable which Quakers and tender Consciences not enlightned but darkned by prejudice and undue suggestions abhor as giving flattering Titles to men disclaimed by Elihu Job 32.22 whose example and opinions are not imitable nor doth this Author any good Office to any in such affrightments whereby our Breach is widened and our Wound uncurable Sect 6. It is not proved that the best of the present Ministers are to be separated from as walking disorderly This Author goes on thus But to hear this Plea speak its uttermost let it be granted they are Brethren and may be so esteemed They are Brethren that walk disorderly or they do not That they walk disorderly cannot be denied by such as pretend to Reformation if submiâ—ting to Ordination or Reordination by a Lord Bishop covenanting and protesting with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture and the best Reformed Churches to own as consonant to Scripture a Lyturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church and read them to wear the Surplice c. be disorderly walking they are the very best of them beyond contradiction to be reputed in the number of disorderly Walkers And so after due admonition according to the Scripture and a perseverance in their sin to be separated from by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ Mat. 18. 2 Thess. 3.6 Now we command you Brethren in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition he received of us with what vehemency authority and holy earnestness doth the Apostle press separation from Brethren that walk disorderly We command you and we command you in the Name of the Lord Jesus and we command you Brethren by vertue of our relation to each other and that love and endearment that is betwixt
us as Brethren that you withdraw your selves c. I scarce know any one thing pressed by the Apostle with greater vehemency than what is here instanced in wherein we have also an undeniable convincing Argument that the persons of whom we are treating walk disorderly Those that walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles we may add and from the Primitive Church for above three hundred 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 of England walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles but after the traditions of the Whorish Church of Rome therefore they are such as walk disorderly What Apostolical tradition have we for stinted Forms of Prayer or Liturgies in the Church did they frame any those that are ascribed to some of them are all spurious as hath been over and over proved For Surplice Crossing in Baptism and many other Gewgaws used by them If they have any Apostolical written Tradition for these things let them produce it and we shall lay our mouths in the dust and for ever be silent as to a charge of this nature If they have not as there is nothing more certain they are disorderly walkers if the Apostles Argument be valid We command you to withdraw from such as walk disorderly But who I pray are these disorderly walkers how shall we know them they are sayes the Apostle such as walk not after the tradition received from us Answ. Though it belongs to the persons charged here to speak for themselves and not to me who am not chargeable with the accusation as here it stands yet conceiving they would say the same in effect which I shall say now I do that the invalidity of this Authors arguing may appear say thus much for them but chiefly for the truths sake I conceive they will deny that they covenant and protest with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture and the best reformed Churches and would challenge this Author to prove it that he may not be found a Calumniator that they would take on them the justifying of their submitting to Ordination or Re-ordination by a Lord Bishop their owning as consonant to Scripture a Liturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church their reading them their wearing the Surplice the Crossing in Baptism they would say after Baptism and deny these things to be disorderly walking according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpeâ— of Rome and I doubt not but that they would maintain it that beyond contradiction they are not to be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers but that this Author is an egregious false accuser However whether they be faulty or not this I think I may safely avouch that these practices except the first which I assure my self they will deny whether justifiable or sinful are not of so great a degree of pravity as that barely for them they should be reputed in the number of disorderly walkers and so after due admonition according to the Scripture and a perseverance in their practice to be separated from by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ Mat. 18. 2 Thess 3.6 either by a separation of Saints from them in Gospel Communion or private familiar society For the former precept Mat. 18.15 16 17. is only concerning such a sin whereby a person sins against his Brother that is doth him some personal injury Which appears both by the constant use of the phrase of sinning against another in the New and Old Testament as Acts 25.8 1 Cor. 8.12 Gen. 20.9 and 42.22 and 43.9 and 44. 1 Sam. 2.25 and 19.4 5. and 24.11 and particularly in the same Chapter v. 21. Luke 17.3 4. which were occasioned from Christs words Mat. 18.15 where Christ commandeth Peter and the rest of his Disciples to forgive their brother that sinneth against them seven times a day yea seventy times seven times Which can be understood of no other sins than personal injuries for these alone they were to forgive as trespasses against them as the Parable Mat. 18. shews v. 32.35 Mat. 6.12 14 15. of which sort those practices imputed to the best of the present Ministers are not Yet if they were the separation is not to be made without an admonition and gradual process which I think this Author hath not used towards them as I conceive his own words evince a little before we cannot as things stand perform the duties of Brethren to them according to Mat. 18. If the sins were such as Christ means Mat. 18.15 and their proceeding according to the direction there yet the separation whether enjoyned or permitted rather is no other than such as was by the Jews from Heathens and Publicans which was not from Communion in Holy things for the Publicans were allowed to go to the Temple to pray even with the Pharisees Luke 18.10 11. though they would not receive them and eat with them Luke 15.2 Acts 11.3 Which shews that the being to him that is injured as a Heathen and Publican Mat. 18.17 is no other than separation from eating and familiar reception not from Gospel Communion as this Author would have it and therefore the Text Mat. 18.15 16 17. is impertinently alledged to prove his separation from the present Ministers of England in respect of Gospel Communion Nor is 2 Thess. 3.6 alledged more to the purpose For 1. the disorderly walking there must be understood of sins of greater pravity than the rest besides the first which they will deny charged on them if they be proved sins as the vehemency authority and holy earnestness the Apostle doth press his command with doth evince For this vehemency is not an undeniable convincing argument that the persons of whom this Author is treating walk disorderly as he fansies but that they that walk so disorderly as the Apostle here means are so corrupt and their walking so evil that their converse with them in a familiar society as with others would not be for their safety or credit or the repute of Christianity Which will the more appear by the instance that is given v. 11. where he saith For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly working not at all but are busie-bodies which shews that the walking disorderly is not being in some disorder about Church Government and outward Rites proper to Ministers which are the instances of disorderly walking here brought by this Author but gross sins of any Brother not a Minister who was bound to work or else was not to eat v. 10. which Ministers were not bound to do as v. 9. 1 Thess. 2.6 1 Tim 5.17 18. 1 Cor. 9.6 7 11 12 13 14. shews nor were they for this not working so as not to earn their own Bread to be noted or signified and declined that they might be ashamed as is required v. 12.14 Gross sins then common to every Brother such
Mr. Selden De Diis Syris syntag 2. c. 1. in Heinsius his Aristarchus sacer on Nonnus c. 1. If Names abused to Idolatry or Superstition might not be used without such abuse the godly might not say as Isa. 63.16 Doubtless thou art our Father or we cry Abba Father or Our Father or Christ Father because Idolaters said to a stock thou art my Father Jer. 2.27 or say to the Lord thou art our God because Idolaters said our Gods Hos. 14.3 nor Christ be termed a Priest Lord Master because of the abuse of them to Saints deceased Popes Rabbins or others Surely the name Priest being the name of no Idol it cannot be proved from Zech. 13.2 Hos. 2.16 17. that it is commanded by the Lord to be abolished Nor do I think any of his Authors say it Hieroms words are Though it might well be spoken in respect of the signification of the word which signifies in common application an Husband as well as Ish yet I so hate the name of Idols that I will not have it said Baali but Ishi in â—espect of the ambiguity and likeness of speech lest while a man speaks one thing he mind another and mentioning an Husband he mean an Idol What the Hebrew Doctors and others named by this Author say upon this place of Hosea I cannot examine for want of the Books That which he produceth out of Rivet I assent to That which this Author saith that Priest or Altar are of the same allay with the word Mass and is upon the same foot of account to be rejected is not true sith Mass doth usually signifie not only the Service but also the consecrated Host as the chief thing in it which is an Idol and so is not the name Priest In the Helvetian larger Confession ch 18. 't is true they make a difference between the Ministry now and the Priesthood in the Old Testament and it is true that they assert Christs Priesthood as for ever and incommunicable and therefore give not the name of Sacerdos usually translated Priest to their Ministers not because they take the word Priest as it answers to Presbyter to be evil in the sense used in the Church of England as a Degree or Order above Deacons but as it is used in the Church of Rome as their words shew which are these For our Lord himself ordained not any Priests in the Church of the New Testament which having received a power from a Suffragan might offer daily the Host I say the very flesh and very blood of the Lord for the quick and dead but such as should teach and administer Sacraments This Author proceeds in his paralellism thus Sect. 4. The parallel particulars prove not the English Ministers symbolizing in office with Popish Priests 2. The Priests of Rome must be first Deacons ere they are Priests so must the present Ministers of England 3. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office by a Lord Bishop or his Suffragan so must the Ministers of England 4. The Priests of Rome must at their Ordination be presented by an Archdeacon or his Deputy with these Words Reverend Father c. Reverend Father I present these men unto thee to be admitted unto the Order of Priesthood so are the present Ministers of England 5. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office according to their Pontifical devised by themselves the Priests of England according to their Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons which is taken out of the Popes Pontifical as is evident to any that shall compare the one with the other and as hath been long since confessed by themselves in an Admonition to the Parliament in Q Elizabeths dayes in their second Treatise 6. The Popish Priests must kneel down upon their knees at the feet of the Lord Bishop that Ordains them and he must say to them blasphemously enough Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit or forgive they are remitted whose sins ye retain they are retained which exactly accords with the fashion of Ordaining the Priests of England 7. The Popish Priests are not Ordained in and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests but in some Metropolitan Cathedral City several miles from the place so are the Priests of England 8. The Popish Priests take the care of souls though not elected by them from the presentation of a Patron by the Institution and Induction of a Lord Bishop and do not the present Ministers of England the same 9. The Popish Priests wait not the Churches Call to the Ministry but make suit to some Prelate to be Ordained Priests giving money for their Letters of Ordination so do the present Ministers of England 10. The Popish Priests are Ordained to their Office though they have no flock to attend upon so are the Priests of England 11. The Popish Priests must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary so do the present Ministers of England 12. The Popish Priests may at their pleasure without the consent of the People resign and give over their Benefices and betake themselves to some other of greater value A symmetrie with them herein is visible by the frequent practice of the Ministers of England 13. The Popish Priests though Ordained to preach must have special license from the Prelates so â—o do so must the Priests of England 14. The Popish Priests are subject to be silenced suspended deprived and degraded by the Prelates as are the present Ministers of England 15. 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 Parsons to Arch-deacons Arch-deacons to Lord Bishops Lord Bishops to Arch-bishops so the Priests of England 16. The Popish Priests must be distinguished from other people by their Vestments as Surplice Tippet c. so must the Priests of England 17. The Popish Priests are tied to a Book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man for their Worship and Administration so are the Ministers of England and that to such an one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis as hath been proved by divers That the Common-prayer Book in Edward the sixth his time was so you have his with his Councils Testimony for it thus they write As for the Service in the English Tongue it hath manifest Reasons for it and yet perchance it seemeth to you a New Service and indeed is no other but the Old the same words in English which were in Latine If the Service of the Church were good in Latine it is good in English How little different the Common-prayer Book now in use is thereunto they that will take pains to compare the one with the other may be satisfied To these parallel particulars might be added sundry more wherein there is an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England but ex ungue Leonem The sum of what we have been offering in this matter
is this First those Ministers that in their Names Offices 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 Secondly 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 by those with whom we have to do are not the Ministers of Christ have not received any Power Office or Calling from him to act in the holy things of God But such as hath been abundantly demonstrated are the present Ministers of England therefore these have received no Power Office or Calling from Christ and so are Antichristian Quod erat demonstrandum Answ. Of these particulars the three first are granted and avouched as not Popish but justifiable and agreeable to Orthodox antiquity To the fifth I return the same answer that Arch-Bishop Whitgift gave Surely if those things which were good in the Popes Pontifical and either contained in the Scripture or well used before in the ancient Church or well prescribed by General Councils be also in our Pontifical our Pontifical is never the worse for having of them for if the thing it self be good and profitable it forceth not from whom it was taken or of whom it was used so that now it be rightly used But it is most false and untrue that the Book of Ordering Ministers and Deacons c now used is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pontifical being almost in no point correspondent to the same as you might have seen if you had compared them together But ignorance and rashness drives you into many errours To the sixth though the English Prelates avouch not the Opinions of the Popish Writers of giving grace ex opere operato by the Sacrament of Orders as they call it of the indelible character imprinted by the laying on of hands of the Prelates with such other of their errours as wherein they over-magnifie the power they have in their imposition of hands yet they plead that they do use the words Joh. 20.22 23. in the Ordination of Priests without blasphemy or absurdity Archbishop Whitgift in his Answer to the Admonition p. 49. of the Edition 1572. in 40. To use these words Receive the Holy Ghost in Ordering of Ministers which Christ himself used in appointing his Apostles is no more ridiculous and blasphemous than it is to use the words that he used in the Supper But it is blasphemy thus outragiously to speak of the words of Christ. The Bishop by speaking these words doth not take upon him to give the Holy Ghost no more than he doth to remit sins when he pronounceth the remission of sins but by speaking these words of Christ Receive the Holy Ghost Whose sins soever ye remit they are remitted c. he doth shew the principal duty of a Minister and assureth him of the assistance of Gods Holy Spirit if he labour in the same accordingly Mr. Richard Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5. sect 77. The Holy Ghost may be used to signifie not the person alone but the gifts of the Holy Ghost and the very power and authority which is given men in the Church to be Ministers of Holy things is contained within the number of those gifts whereof the Holy Ghost is Author and therefore he which giveth this power may say without absurdity or folly Receive the Holy Ghost such power as the Spirit of Christ hath endued his Church withal See Edward Stilling fleets Irenicum part 2. c. 6. p. 231. Bradshaw against Fr. Johnson p. 65. of Gatakers Rejoynder to Can. Though in their Ordination of Ministers the Bishops use as a Ceremonial speech to say Receive the Holy Ghost and therein peradventure offer some force to the Scripture unto which they allude yet they disclaim all actual power and authority of giving the person or gifts of the Holy Ghost unto men Besides I add sith the laying on of hands is together with the designation of the person a sign of prayer as Mat. 19.13 Mark 10.16 and in Confirmation and the Apostles use Acts 8.15 and in Ordination Acts 13.3 those words may be used prayer-wise and freed from exception Whereto perhaps that makes which Dr. Field l. 5. of the Church ch 56 hath The Council of Carthage 4. Canon 3. provideth that in the Ordination of a Presbyter the Bishop holding his hand on his head and blessing him all the Presbyters that are present shall hold their hands by the hand of the Bishop and the person Ordained kneeling joyns in prayer for the Blessing So Dr. Sparks conceived it might be understood ch 15. of Unity and Uniformity Ecclesiast disc of the French Reformed Churches art 8. ch 1. The Ordained shall kneel when they impose their hands on him To the seventh Ordination is not alwayes at a Cathedral and may be before the Congregation to whom the person is to be Priest To the eighth That it is not alwayes so nor when so Popish See before in Answer to the Preface sect 22. and to chap. 2. sect 3. To the nineth To offer a persons self for Ordination may be no evil but in some cases a duty 1 Tim. 3.1 Isa. 6.8 Giving money for Letters of Ordination is no simony but only wages to the Register for his writing as when the Register was paid for writing and sealing the Instrument signifying the person to be an approved Preacher Against any Bishops taking money for Ordition and the Registers exacting overmuch provision is made Canon 135 Eccl 1. Jac. and even in the Council of Trent Sess. 21. Decr. de reformatione c. 1. To the tenth The Priests of England are not to be Ordained without some title according to Cannon 33. even the Trent Council ubi supra c. 2. hath made some provision about it It is necessary that some bâ— Ordained though they have not a fixed flock to attend upon Ministers are necessary for Armies Navies and sundry occasions which continue but for a while Even the Synod of Dort made some Orders about such and the New-England Elders that imploy Ministers to teach the Native salvage people do justifie the Ordaining to Office without a flock to attend upon unless they would have them imployed without Ordination which were incongruous to the Holy Ghosts direction Act 13.2 If Itinerant Preachers should have Approbation they should have Ordination To the eleventh subscription is required by the 36. Canon to three Articles about the Kings Supremacy the Books of Common-prayer and Ordination and the 39. Articles of Religion at Ordination the Priest promiseth obedience to his Ordinary to follow with a glad mind and will his godly admonitions and submit himself to his godly judgment by the late Act unfained Assent and Consent is further required but none of these by Oath the Oath of Canonical Obedience is only required at Institutions into Benefices and is
Successors therein in any of the Churches of Christ Where read we of their so doing yea are any qualified with Gifts as they for the discharge of such an Office or doth Christ indeed send forth servants in any imployment and not furnish them with Gifts sutable thereunto Credat Apelles Apella would have been printed What more dishonorable to the Lord Jesus can be asserted It remains then that they being neither Prophets nor Apostles nor Pastors nor Teachers that they are not to be found in the Scripture of the institution of Christ. Nor are they dreamed of in the world of several hundreds of years after Christ. Clemens in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth takes notice of no other besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops and Deacons which Bishops he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters or Elders yea Lombard himself confesses Hos solium Ministrorum duos ordines Ecclesiam primitivam habuisse de his solis praeceptum Apostoli nos habere Lomb. l. 4. Sen. D. 24. h. 3. Ext. The primitive Church he tells you had no other Order of Ministers than Bishops or Presbyters and Deacons Nor did the Apostles give commandment concerning any other That their rise and occasion was from the aims and designs of men to accommodate Ecclesiastical or Church affairs to the state and condition of the Civil Government is ingenuously confest by one that was looked upon to be as great an admirer of and as able a Champion for Diocesan and Metropolitical Prelates as any one of late dayes t is Dr. Hammond we mind who in his Dissertations about Episcopacy Sect. 3. hath these words His sic positis illud statim sequitur ut in Imperii cognitione in provinciâ qualibet cum plures urbes sint una tamen primaria principalis censenda erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ideo dicta cui itidem inferiores reliquae civitates subjiciebantur ut civitatibus Regiones sic inter Ecclesias Cathedras Episcopales unam semper primariam Metropoliticam fuisse So far is the Office of lord-Lord-Bishops from being of the institution of Christ that their Primacy and Supremacy was the result of the designs and contrivements of men to accommodate the state and frame of the Church to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations Answ. The thing to be proved was that the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures but the whole Discourse is about another thing not the Office but superiority of Order above Presbyters Primacy or Supremacy of degrees among Bishops the dignity of their Sees or Episcopal Chairs which is quite another thing than what he undertook to prove so that we may hereto apply the Poets words Amphora coepit Institui currente rotâ cur urceus exit Which were enough to answer this whole passage yet there are some things to be animadverted therein 1. It is true we read of Diotrephes 3 Joh. 9 10. and of no other in Scripture that he lâ—ved the preeminence either over or among the Church or the brethren and strangers who were to be received that they might be fellow-helpers to the truth v. 5 8. and that St. John if he came would remember his deeds prating against them with malicious words and not content therewâ—th neither doth he himself receive the brethren and forbiddeth them that would and casteth them out of the Church But this was not the usurping the Superiority of Order of a Bishop above a Presbyter but a proud pragmatique arrogant practice over the Church Brethren Strangers even St. John himself together with very injurious violent proceedings in words and deeds which are nothing to the bare challenge by dispute or assuming by collation either of the Civil or Ecclesiastical Power a Superiority of Order above Presbyters nor is Diotrephes mentioned as one of those Antichrists that were then gone abroad into the world or any mention of Antichrist in that Epistle 2. I know not the reason but I take notice that in this passage reciting Ephes. 4.11 twice he leaves out Evangelists and concludes thus It remains then that the Bishops being neither Prophets nor Apostles nor Pastors nor Teachers that they are not to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ. Which conclusion might be overthrown if it were pleaded that they were Evangelists and so successors to Timothy termed an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and to Titus whose work is alledged for a pattern of Bishops 1 Tim. 1.3 5.19 22. Titus 1.5 But sith that title is declined by pleaders for Episcopal Superiority I let it pass 3. But the term of Pastors and Teachers is challenged by Bishops and what saith he against it This is too great a debasement of their Lordships which is a Satyrical Sarcasm no proof Did any of them say so or count it to be so If any did so he shewed himself unworthy of the name yea forgetful both of what he promised and prayed for alluding to this very Text as his Consecration and which was expresly charged on him by the Arch-Bishop when he delivered him the Bible Nor doth it any whit derogate from the congruity of the titles of Pastors and Teachers as it is given to Bishops that their Parochial Priests over whom they reside are supposed to be Officers in that degree than it doth from the giving of the Title of Teacher to a Presbyter because Assistents or Coadjutors are given them in case age or infirmity hinder them from the frequent doing of that office I omit mention of the living to avoid imputation of flattery but I suppose the Author of this Writing is not ignorant that Jewel Usher and many more have when they were Bishops been truly termed Pastors and Teachers and hope well of others 4. But under the term of Apostles they may not be reckoned True they had extraordinary Commission and Power yet they may be Successors to them Dr. Owen of Schism c. 6. sect 55. Professedly disclaims all thoughts of rejecting those Ministers as Papal and Antichristian who yet adhere to this Ordination in a succession from Popish Bishops being many of them eminently gifted of God to dispense the Word and submitted unto by his people in the administration of the Ordinances and are right worthy Ministers of the Gospel This Author denies not they succeed to them as Christians If so they may be heard as Gifted Brethren which was denied by him to the Ministers chap. 2. But why not in Office was the Apostles Office any other than what Christ injoyned them Mat. 28.19 20. Mark 16.15 and therein they must have Successors though not in the extent of their Commission and in their Power else how should Christ be with them all dayes unto the end of the World But they cannot derive their Succession but through the Papacy and then they are Antichristian I answer They may derive their Succession by proving their consonancy with them in doing the same work after them
and Preaching the same Gospel If any to stop the mouths of the clamourous Papists have derived their Succession from the Bishops under the Papacy by proving as Mr. Francis Mason did the Consecration of the Bishops after the Reformation by three Bishops allowed by the Romanists themselves after the ancient Canon though perhaps more than needs yea though they were Consecrated and Ordained by the Pope himself and some Cardinal Bishops yet if they were Consecrated or Ordained to no other work nor in any other manner than Priests and Biships are Ordained and Consecrated according to the order of the Church of England they would not be Antichristian For though it be not gainsayed but that the Pope is the Antichristian head over many Countries yet it is gainsayed that all that is derived from him or done by him is Antichristian I do not think it is Antichristian to confess the Apostles Creed though a person say he believes it because it is received from the Pope and Trent Council 5 That Bishops as a Superiour Order or Degree above Presbyters were not dream'd of in the World for several hundreds of years after Christ I think can hardly be made good though I will not meddle with that point which hath been debated so much by men of greatest and most exact skill in Antiquity with whom I conceive my self no way fit to be compared yet this I say that the not taking notice of Bishops distinct from Presbyters by Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians published not long since by Patrick Yong is ballanced by the passages in Ignatius his Epistles if they be genuine concerning which the Reader may judge by what Arch-bishop Usher hath written in his Edition of those Epistles of Ignatius As for Lombard if the Primitive Church according to him extend not beyond the dayes of the Apostles as his words import they prove not that the Order of Bishops above Presbyters was not dreamt of several hundreds of years after Christ. But of this I will not contend it 's enough for my purpose if the Office be found in Scripture though not their Superiority 6. As for the words of Dr. Hammond I find them Dissert 4. de Episcopatu c 5. sect 4. though not fully cited by this Author and I acknowledge that he makes the state and frame of the Churches to have been accommodated to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations in the Empire yet withall he conceives that the reason of directing seven Epistles to the seven Angels of the seven Churches was because they were Metropolitan or Mother-Churches and conceives this division into Provinces Dioceses and depending Churches to have been transcribed from the samplar of the Jews by Moses Law Deut. 16.18 and 17.9 And therefore his words are not to be drawn to an acknowledgement of Lord-Bishops Primacy and Supremacy to have been the result of the design and contrivements of men much less that the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters had its rise and occasion from the aims and designs of men to accommodate Ecclesiastical Affairs to the state and condition of Civil Government It is added Sect. 6. The office of Lord Bishops is not contrary to express precepts of Christ in the Scripture 2. That the office of Lord Bishops is contrary to express Precepts of Christ in the Scripture the truth of which he that runs may read in the ensuing Scriptures Mat. 20.25 Mark 10.42 Luke 22.25 1 Pet. 5.3 the English of vos autem non sic but ye shall not do so neque ut dominantes Cleris not lording it over God's Clergy or Heritage an ordinary Reader may easily conclude to be inconsistent with their Lordly Dignities Answ. This Author still shoots wide from the mark He undertook to prove that the Office of Lord-Bishops is contrary to express Precepts of Christ in the Scripture but he concludes against their Lordly dignity which is no more their Office than the honour ascribed to a Preacher or Reader in the University by giving them the titles of Master or Doctour in Divinity is their Office The term Bishops indeed implies their Office appointed by Christ to have inspection over the flock but the term Lord is only a tâ—tle given them by the King when he makes them Barons of the Realm which may be severed from the Office of Bishops as it hath been since the Reformation in England when Suffragan Bishops have been made without the addition of Lordship But however this Author conceives the having such titles as Lords to be contrary to the express precepts Mat. 20.25 Mark 10.42 Luke 22.25 1 Pet. 5.3 and he translates Vos autem non sic But ye shall not do so But this is more than either the words or translations do permit It is in Mat. 20.26 Mark 10.43 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It shall not be so among you or to you which explains best Luke 22.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But ye not so that is as our translation renders it But ye shall not be so and so notes not a Precept but a Prediction and shews Event not Duty which Mr. Gataker thinks in his Cinnus l. 1. c. 3. p. 36. after a discussion of several Interpretations to be the genuine meaning of Christ. But granting it to be a Precept is it a Precept to the Apostles only or to others The former hath countenance from the Text 1. From the occasion the request of the Mother of Zebedees children 2. The indignation of the Ten by reason of it 3. Christs calling of them to him and no other in Matthew and Mark. 4. Their contention of St. Luke 5. Christ's speaking to them who had been with him in his temptations 6. His allotting to them a Kingdom and to sit on twelve thrones But if it be to others it is doubtful whether to all Christians or only to Ministers of the Gospel and whether it forbid simply Dominion at all or such Dominion as the Rulers of the Gentiles exercised to wit Tyrannical or the affectation and inordinate seeking of it not the having or the exercise of Dominion In my Romanism discussed Article 7. sect 8. p. 172 173. I have set down ten Reasons to prove that the Rule meant in those Texts is not only Tyrannical Dominion but also the Dominion of one Apostle over another and the affectation and inordinate seeking of that rule which a person may have and lawfully exercise and this is forbidden not only to Ministers but also to all Christians but not a Christians having or exercising the Office of a King or Civil Magistrate nor the Apostles Rule over the Church of God or Ministers of a lower Order For then Christians should be forbidden to exercise that Office which is Gods Ordinance and the Apostles did ill in practising and appointing Rule over Christians yea of some Ministers over others in some cases But the Rule which is forbidden is Rule over the Faith of the Saints which St. Paul disclaims 2 Cor.
1.24 and the Popes usurp whose decrees in points of Faith and determinations of doubts of Conscience and impositions of Laws binding the conscience are made unerring such Rule over Princes in secular Affairs with pomp outward grandure like Gentile Princes as the same Popes usurp rule for themselves not for Christ rule by force not by authority of Gods Word If any Lord-Bishop affect seek take upon him or exercise such Lordship or Dominion it may be censured for Antichristian yet not his Office but his practice is to be thus censured and this not to be imputed to his Order but his Person But to judge so of a person barely because of the Title of Lord which was given by Sarah to her Husband and propounded as meet 1 Pet. 3.6 or to deny any liberty to manage any civil business to an Ecclesiastical person because of those words of Christ is more than I conceive they have sufficient ground to do Sure such Congregational men as have been Heads of Colledges in the Universities or Vicechancellors or Leaders of Forces have given occasion to be termed Antichristian as well as Lord-Bishops if Lordly Dignity and Secular Rule merit that appellation As for 1 Pet. 5.3 the Annotation in the Book of the Annotations in English termed the Assemblies is thus Lords that is not imperiously commanding your own inventions instead of the Doctrine of the Gospel nor carrying themselves insolently and magisterially towards Gods people 3 John ver 9. which imports not an Office forbidden but the evil practice of them whose Office is allowed For this very Exhortation is given to those who were Elders among the Christians even St. Peter who entitles himself a fellow Elder to them and therefore contains not a Precept forbidding the Office of a Lord Bishop any more than of an Elder such as St. Peter was but the abuse of the Office nor doth it forbid Lordly Dignity but Lordly Rule whereas Bishops Rule should be Pedo non Sceptro not as Princes but as Shepherds If any Prelate use such Rule it is not his Office but his Practice which is to be termed Antichristian Sect. 7. The Office of Lord-Bishops not from the Papacy But this Author proceeds Not to multiply Arguments in a matter that others have so largely debated 2. That Office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian if the Pope be the head of Antichrist this must not be denied But the Office of lord-Lord-Bishops is derived from is only to be found in the Papacy Which of the Reformed Churches that have separated from the Papacy have retained it Did the woman in her flight into the Wilderness carry it along with her What more absurd then to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast for an Office of Ministry and what more evident demonstration of its being an Antichristian Office than its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church and its utter rejection and detestation by the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ in all ages What is delivered over to us in this matter by some of them we shall briefly affix hereunto Hierome in his Epistle to Evagrius and in his Commentary on the Epistle of Titus professes That it is more by custom than by any institution of the Lord that Bishops are become greater than the Elders or Ministers Harm of Conf. Sect. 2. Tit. 11. So from him do the Churches of Helvetia proclaim whence they infer and that truly according to Act. 4.9 That no man by any right can forbid but that we should return to the old appointment of God and rather receive that than the custom devised by men Wickliff in his Answer to King Richard the Second citing Mat. 20.25 1 Pet. 5.3 sayes Lordship and Dominion is plainly forbidden to the Apostles and darest thou then usurp the same If thou wilt be a Lord thou shalt lose thy Apostleship c. The University of Geneva say Theses Genev. 71. These functions following we hold to be altogether false and destitute of all true foundation viz. the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Churches the Cardinalship Patriarchship Archiepiscopalship and briefly the whole degree of Lord Bishops over their fellow Elders Marlorat in his Exposition on the Revel chap. 17.3 sayes That Archbishops Deans c. are in Office under Antichrist yea upon Chap. 9. that they are the tails of Antichrist Beza saith They could not be brought into the Church until they had driven him out who is the only Master Christ and there is neither holy Scripture nor Council nor antient Doctors which ever did know such Monsters Beza's Confess Art 7.14 The noble antient Oldcastle Lord Cobham saith That the whole Episcopal degree of Lord Bishops over their fellow Elders is altogether false and destitute of all true foundation yea that all other Functions and Offices besides Priests and Deacons are unlawful as being Sects devised by men destitute of all true foundation To these we might add honest Bale upon the Revelation viz. chap. 17. where he saith Canterbury and York are the Beastly Antichrist's Metropolitans and Primates and upon Chap. 13. that Archbishop Diocesan Archdeacon Dean Prebend Doctors Parson Vicar c. are very names of blasphemy For Offices they are not appointed by the holy Ghost nor yet mentioned in the Scripture Cartwright sayes of them that their Functions are not in the Word of God but of the Earth new devised Ministries and such as can do no good that their Office is the neck of the Popish Hierarchy come out of the bottomless pit of Hell Fenner proclaims them to be no natural members of the body of Christs Church as being of humane addition not born with her nor grown up with her from the Cradle The French and Belgick Confession sayes That they pass not a rush for them The Church of Geneva That the Hierarchie is Devilish confusion stablished as it were in despight of God and to the mocking and reproach of all Christian Religion The Seekers of Reformation in Q. Elizabeths time spake fully hereunto 2 Adm. to Parl. we have an Antichristian and Popish ordering of Priests strange from Gods Word never heard of in the Primitive Church taken out of the Popes Shop to the destruction of Gods Kingdom The Names and Offices of Archbishops Archdeacons Lord Bishops c. are together with their Government drawn out of the Popes Shop Antichristian Devilish and contrary to the Scriptures Parsons Vicars Parish-Priests are birds of the same feather to whom might be added many others Answ. 1. Though the Pope in these later ages especially since Boniface the third obtained of Phocas the Emperor more than 600 years after Christ that Rome the seat of blessed Peter the Apostle which is the head of all Churches should be both so called and accounted of all as Platina speaks and as Onuphrius addes Had the title of Universal Bishop conferred on him and it was added that the name of Pope which was
or some confusion 2. However those Presbyters are not of the institution of Christ these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ. Answ. If this be held no Presbyters in any Church but Congregational are of Christs Institution and then all the Presbyters of the French Dutch and other Churches under Presbyterial Government are excluded from being of Christs Institution as well as these Ordained by Bishops of the Church of England and then they by his Argument are no more to be heard than these and so Separation avowed from all Churches even Protestant besides those of their own way which is the pernicious errour to which this arguing tends But till it be proved I count his dictates fit to be rejected and proceed to the next Chapter CHAP. 4. ARG. 4. Sect. 1. They that deny not Christs Offices Doctrinally may be heard THus it is argued Those that oppugn or deny any of the Offices of Jesus Christ are not to be heard but separated from But the present Ministers of England oppugn and deny some of the Offices of Jesus Christ Therefore Before we come to clear the several parts of this Argument we shall crave liberty briefly to premise 1. That there is a two-fold denying or oppugning of the Offices of Christ Verbal and Professional Such was and is that of the Jews the Papists are not guilty hereof in words they own preach up plead for all the Offices of Christ as much as any so do all the present Ministers of England This is not then the denial of the Offices of Christ we implead them as guilty of 2. Real and actual when persons do that which enwraps in the Bowels of it an impugning and denial of the Offices of Christ. This the Romish Synagogue are eminently guilty of so are the present Ministers of England as shall we doubt not be clearly demonstrated in its proper place Secondly That a verbal professional acknowledgment of the Offices of Christ is nothing when contradicted in practice This the Apostle avowedly asserts in respect of the knowledge of God Tit. 1.16 They profess they know God but in works they deny him and may congruously enough be applyed to the matter in hand This as applied to the Combination and Synagogue of Rome some of themselves have long since ackowledged whilest they profess Christ to be King and submit not to the Laws he hath prescribed in his Word they make him an Idol and put a Scepter of Reed in his hand so some of their own But I interrogate What if a man should with the greatest earnestness profess and in the height of a confident spirit averr that he were born again of God washed sanctified in the blood of Christ and by the spirit of the Lord that he did receive and own Christ as his King and Law-giver when I see this man at the same time walking in a way of Rebellion against Christ in open contempt and defiance of his Laws and Government subjecting to the yoak of other Lords and Law-givers shall hiâ— Plea be admitted Surely no Quid verba audiam cum facta videam 'T is long since decided by Christ that false Prophets are to be descried not by their words they may speak like Angels cry Hail Master kiss him yet be false Prophets yea Judasses to him but by their fruits Let them profess a thousand times over that they own all the Offices of Christ if they are the mean while found in the practice of those things that are inconsistent with the truth of such a profession they are really deniers and opposers of the Offices of Christ. This is that then we affirm in this matter 1. That those that do really oppose any of the Offices of Christ are not to be heard but separated from This carrying a brightness along with it that is sufficient to convince all except such whose eyes the God of this World hath blinded that its original is from God we shall take for granted will not be denied by a professing enlightned people though otherwise it were easie to multiply arguments for its demonstration 1. To oppose Christ in any of his Offices bespeaks such as are guilty thereof to be Antichrists 1. Joh. 2.22 and 4.2 3. 2 Joh. 7. of the same mind with us herein is learned Beza upon the forecited Scriptures and none will surely be so inconsiderate not to say worse as to assert It is lawful to attend upon the Ministry of Antichrist 2. To hear such is to strengthen and encourage them in that their denial of and opposition unto the Offices of Christ and thereby become partakers with them in their sin The thought of which cannot but be grievous to the poor Lambs of Christ. But this will not be denied Answ. 1 I allow the distinction of verbal and real oppugning the Offices of Christ But it is false that the Papists are not guilty of a verbal denying of the Offices of Christ and that in words they own preach up and plead for all the Offices of Christ as much as any For though they do acknowledge Christ to be King Priest and Prophet yet their Doctrine and not their practice only doth overthrow all the Offices of Christ. As he that ascribes Kingly power to a subject doth make another King than the right King and so doth uâ—king him and as he that ascribes to a Creature that which is proper to God doth set up another God and so ungod the true God who can no more be multiplied than the Heavens can bear two Suns even so it is with the Papists while they assert that traditions unwritten are to be received with alike affection of piety and reverence as the written Gospel when the Pope ascertains them that he is infallible that he is judge of Controversies can determine what is to be held as an Article of Faith unerringly can make Laws to bind the Conscience by vertue of his Authority without the case of Scandal and Contempt can dispense with Gods Laws lawful oaths incestuous marriages prohibited by God by his indulgences can forgive sins authoritatively and absolutely that ascribe to every Priest a power to offer in the Mass a propitiatory unbloody sacrifice for the quick and dead to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Penance to enjoyn laborious works of penance which shall be satisfactious to God for sins while they make Saints deceased and Angels Mediatours between God and Man by their merits and agency with God for us they ascribe to Creatures the power proper to Christs Offices and so do make other Prophets and Priests to officiate as Christ they do verbally deny the Offices of Christ and not in words own preach up and plead for all the Offices of Christ as much as any as this Author most untruly suggests but do doctrinally evacuate them all of which no such thing can be charged on the present Ministers of England nor is at all demonstrated by this Author 2. I grant that a verbal professional acknowledgment
Elders who were worthy of double honour 1 Tim. 5.17 had some preeminence above the rest nor doth the relation of Brotherhood hinder but that though in respect of the common Faith all of them are equal yet some may have some Power or Office committed to them which others have not and so may have authority over them That some Offices or Services may be added to those mentioned may be gathered from 2 Cor. 8.19 whether all the Officers or Offices be rightly ordered in the Church of England is not our present enquiry Much hath been said before in answer to the second and third Chapters of this writing which need not be here repeated That the present Ministers of England have neither name nor thing required by Christ in this law is notoriously false the names of Pastors Teachers or Doctors Deacons or Ministers and the Office of Preaching the Gospel continues therein both in the name and thing That they have set up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of Christs authority cannot be said but very unrighteously nor do the alterations or additions any more prove it then the setting up Catechists or Expositors or Lecturers in the primitive or later times proves open defiance and contempt of Christs authority He goes on in the same vein of crimination thus Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the Common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment 5. That these Officers be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ and solemnly set apart by Fasting and Prayer this is evidently comprised in the ensuing Scriptures Act. 1.15 and 6 1 2 3 5. and 14.23 and 1.23 26. and 9.26 27. In conformity whereunto we find the Saints for many centuries of years after Christ in the peaceable possession of this their priviledge and right Clemens in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth p 57. saith Our Apostles also knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that Contention will be about the name of Episcopal charge Therefore for this reason having received a full predetermination they constituted such as were forenominated and in their instructive distribution delivered that if they were negligent other approved men should receive their Ministration being ordained by them or in the mean time by other choice men all the Church consenting thereunto Yea afterwards let some one among you Ingenious Merciful filled with Love speak if through me Faction and Contention Schisms I will depart Of which if you are willing I return and will do the things appointed by the multitude Wherein he fully asserts the priviledge of the Church or People of Christ we are pleading for And afterwards during the raign of Antichrist Christ hath not left himself without a witness nor his people without Champions to plead their right in this matter To instance but in a few That lively witness of Christ Martin Luther loudly proclaims That the voice of the People ought not to be severed from the chusing of Ecclesiastical persons And long before him Cyprian who lived about 260 years after Christ sayes Plebs obsequens c. The people that obey the commands of God and fear him ought to separate themselves from a wicked Pastor seeing the people themselves chiefly have either power to chuse Pastors that are worthy or to refuse those that be unworthy Cypr. Epist. 68. and tells us plainly That this is bottomed upon the authority of God That that is a just and lawful Ordination which is tryed by the judgment and voice of all viz. that fear and obey God Of the same mind long after was Francis Lambard the Companion of Luther in Germany in the Preface of his Book intituled The sum of Christianity who sayes Verily every Parish ought to have his proper Bishop the which should be chosen by the People and confirmed by the Commonalty of every Parish who if they swerve one jot or tittle from the Doctrine of the Gospel of the Kingdom ought to be deposed by the people and others more fit to be elected by them And in Chap. 5. of the said Book he professes That 't is the most gievous crime and by no means to be suffered that many children of Perdition do deprive the people of God of their just right and title viz. to chuse them a Pastor Peter Martyr in his common places refers the chusing and election of Ministers to the People as their undoubted right To whom we may joyn Mr. Bullinger who sayes That the Apostles exercised not tyranny in the Church in Ordaining Ministers without the consent of the People Bullin Decad. 5. Serm. 4. Tit. 1. 1 Tim. 5. Gualter also upon Act. 1.25 saith That those that profess the Gospel handle the matter as evil as the Monks and Popish Bishops in that they restore not again to the Church the liberty of chusing Ministers which by tyranny they took from them Of the same mind is Zanchie Calvin Beza Danaeus Tilenus Tyndal the Martyr with many others as Mr. Fox Cartwright Mr. Jacob c. We cannot omit the famous case of the united Brethren of Bohemia who concluding the whole Papacy to be purely Antichristian could not allow of the Ordination of their Ministers by any in communion with it and yet being perswaded of a necessity of continuing that Ordinance in a way of succession send some of the Greek and Armenian Churches who returning with dissatisfaction they thereupon commit themselves and their cause to God and chuse Elders from among themselves and by Fasting and Prayer solemnly set them apart to the work of the Preaching of the Gospel To these many more might be added The practice pleaded for as is evident is as antient as the dayes of the Apostles and the first election of ordinary New-Testament Officers continued in the Church till after the dayes of Constantine when Pride and Tyranny soon brought all things into horrible Confusion upon the pretext of Decency and Order yet in the worst of times have the witnesses of Christ born their testimony hereunto What say our Reverend Fathers and Ministers of the Church of England to these things Have they not an equal respect to this appointment of Christ as to those before instanced in Is there any thing like it almost practised by them in this great concern of separating persons for the Preaching of the Gospel of Christ Is not the liberty of the Brethren and Churches of Christ as much as lies in them wholly disanulled and broken by them Have they any such Call to the Ministry Do they at all value or esteem of it Are they in the practice of the Primitive Church or of the Reformed Churches of this day in this matter Is not the print of the feet of the old Strumpet of Rome the bloody persecutor of the Saints the cunning Deviser of a new self-invented and whorish Worship to be solely found in the paths they are in this matter traversing and can such be accounted as the subjects of the
Kingdom of Christ and the real owners of his Authority and Power Answ. That Bishops or Presbyters should be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ in each City or Parish or select Congregation I find not to be the appointment of Christ in the Scriptures alledged or any other the impertinency of the Allegations to this purpose is shewed before Chap. 2. Sect. 3. In this Chap. Sect. 6. besides what is said in answer to the Preface Sect. 7.22 the only text not before considered Acts 9.26 27. and 16.17 if it were alledged were altogether impertinent there being no election of St. Paul but to be an Apostle and that by Christ not the Church on whom Ananias laid hands at the appointment of Christ only That he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost and to remove the fear of him and non credence of his being a Disciple Barnabas and no other we read of took him and brought him to the Apostles declaring how Christ had converted him Which are altogether impertinent to prove election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church and Ordination thereupon to be the appointment of Christ. It is granted before in the answer to the Preface Sect. 22. that there are relations in antiquity of the election of Bishops by the people which could be no other way then in times of Persecution when the Emperors were Infidels yet withal that even then things grew into such heats that sometimes the Emperor was fain to interpose for quietness and after when Wealth and Power by favour of Christian Emperours were added to Bishops sometimes bloody frayes and other evils made that Election so turbulent that it was found necessary to put it into the hands of fewer until the investiture of Bishops being wrested from the Emperours the Popes seized on it leaving the election of the inferior Clergy unto the Bishops or Patrons that had endowed the Ministers with Estates except in cases reserved to his Romans But where the Reformation is with the consent of Princes much of the power usurped by Popes is recovered by them in other places the people either chuse or consent to the election which being made the whole essence of the Ministerial Call by Congregational men and by Divine Right their opinion is opposed by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici Printed 1654. Chap. 8 9. Nevertheless the Testimonies produced by this Author are not fully to his purpose those out of Clements his Epistle are not home the former speaks of constituting and appointing Ministers after the Apostles by other famous and discreet men as it is in Burtons English translation of that Epistle with the good liking and consent of all the Church which is less then Election constituting their Call The other contains only a voluntary offer to prevent breaches which is nothing to the asserting of a power in them rightly seated if it were such it would be more then this Author I think would yield that upon the command of the multitude a Minister is to relinquish his place The words of Luther Bullinger and perhaps the rest of the Protestants whose words are not set down meant no more than the not obtruding Ministers on the Churches of Christ as the Monks and Popish Bishops did who put on the People Priests unable to Preach the Gospel such as fed themselves and not the flock without choice or consent of the people Which if it be any where practised is unjustifiable as on the other side where people are corrupted with Error or Factiousness or Carnal Relations and Sâ—lf aims or are unskilful to judge of the disposition and abilities of a Minister it is unsafe or rather more dangerous to intrust the Church of Christ though a gathered Congregation with the election of their Minister by Common Suffrage without intervention of some discreet and able Ministers to ratifie or disanul it What Cyprian saith upon the occasion of the lapse of Basilides and Martialis Bishops in Spain of their rejection and the election of Sabinus and Felix was agreeable to the Canons then in use and to the state of those times what he saith of Divine Authority is not rightly proved The Scriptures of the New Testament and Old prove no Divine Institution of a certain way of electing or rejecting Ministers so as that there may not be variation from what he saith was in his time yet it is meet that according to the sayings of Cyprian Lambard Gualter or others respect be had to people that they be heard what they can say for or against their Minister and that he who is criminous or insufficient be not imposed on them to their souls hurt What our Reverend Fathers and Ministers of the Church of England say to these things may be seen in Whitgift's Answer to the first Admonition and Defence of the Answer Tr. 3. p. 170. Bilson of the perpetual Government of Christs Church Chap. 15. Andrews respons ad Bellarm. Apolog. Chap. 13. p. 313. after King James his Premonition Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 5. sect 80. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 54. If the Prelates do any thing unjustly therein they must give an account to God the Ministers who consent not thereto are not chargeable both may be accounted as Subjects of the Kingdom of Christ and the real owners of his Authority and Power notwithstanding what is objected against them especially if the evil be either from the defect or iniquity of Laws Canons and Customs whereby that redress of Grievances in this kind which even the Prelates have complained of is stopped I confess that the continuance in force of so much of the Popes Canon Law or our Common Law as hinders a godly and able Ministry in every Parish hath been deplored and much endeavour hath been to amend things But the experience that hath been of the difficulty therein even when Congregational men have been most industrious to rectifie things should methinks abate the censures of this Author and rather cause men quietly to wait for a remedy using the benefit of the Ministry we have than by separation and popular election in gathered Congregations make things worse than they are Sect. 8. Prophesying is not opposed by the Ministers But this Author hath not yet done but tells us To these many other institutions of Christ may be added which they subject not to What should I mention 6. That Royal Command of our Soveraign King and Lawgiver which the profound self-philosophically wise but indeed foolish and unlearned Doctors of this day wrest to the countenancing of the disorders and confusion of Antichrist darkness so gross that it may be felt that all things be done decently and in Order 1 Cor. 14.40 viz. that the Saints may Prophesie one by one and ought to admonish exhort and build up one another in their most holy faith Rom. 8.26 and 12.6 1 Cor. 4.17 and 5.4 and 11.23 Ephes. 4.7 11 12. 1
conclude that these persons and their Abettors were guilty of Rebellion against their Rules and did really deny the lawfulness of their Authority This is the present case if men shall be found traversing paths in the possession and practice of Orders and Constitutions that are foreign to the edicts of Christ yea contrary thereunto shall we not as rationally conclude that these persons are really opposers of his soveraign Authority and Government doubtless so Answ. To the major proposition of the fourth Argument Those that oppugn or deny any of the Offices of Jesus Christ are not to be heard but separated from Answer is made before The major of this argument here needs elucidation and limitation Orders and Ordinances which not only are not of Christs revealing but contrary thereunto are not all of one sort Some are in points of Faith some of practice some in things not fundamental some in fundamental Owning submitting and subscribing to them is either out of ignorance inadvertency infirmity through fear or some other motive or voluntary more or less which may be aggravated by many circumstances and effects Likewise the denying really and opposing of the Offices of Christ may be virtual or formal directly or by consequence by a factious setting up an open Antichrist or by neglecting the proper Authority of Christ. It is true every sin and every errour doth in some sort and degree oppugn the Offices of Jesus Christ Every disobedience to a lawful Magistrate every subjection to an Usurper hath in it somewhat of denying or oppugning his Authority Yet he that should deny that for every such sin or errour a person can be a good Christian or for every such disobedience or subjection a person can be a true subject should too Stoically make a parity in sins and neither hold good Divinity nor teach good Policy It is true he that shall openly and factiously set up another universal Monarch of the Church make other Mediatours to God besides Christ teach any other way of justification than by faith in Christ that shall expresly forbid the observation of what Christ hath commanded as for instance the Lords Supper or any other plain Command of Christ such do deny really and oppose openly the Offices of Christ. But there may be some errours in Faith and teaching of some use in positive Rites as may be a real denying or opposing interpretatively Christs Offices as in teaching Circumcision as necessary at that time Acts 15.5 in owning submitting and subscribing to some use as may be not only not revealed by Christ but also is by nearer or remote consequence a denial of Christs Offices and yet the persons observing it as v. g. the reservation of the Bread in the Eucharist sending it to the sick absent as many did in former times either out of ignorance fear or such like motives and yet these neither to be reckoned for such as either in heart or profession or practice deny the Offices of Christ as enemies to him nor to be shunned as such but may be his true subjects though weak ones Peters denial of Christ his dissimulation Gal. 2. shewed not enmity but infirmity and instability And many sincere Christians may out of errour or weakness teach and practise many things not only a while but also all their dayes and that with much contention and zeal which may inferr a denial of Christs Offices or his Nature as for instance Lutheran Consubstantion and yet are not to be judged opposers of the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ so as to be disclaimed separated from and rejected as no true Christian Brethren or Teachers And therefore the major proposition here may be variously conceived and without some limitations and explications is not to be received But he tells us Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured 'T is the minor or second Proposition that may be under suspition among some viz. That the present Ministers of England the very best of them do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not only not of Christs revealing but contrary thereunto in which two things are incumbent on us to prove 1. That the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not of Christs revealing This being a charge as to matter of fact the production of a few particulars that lie near at hand for its confirmation will give it a speedy dispatch 1. They own submit and subscribe to the Orders and Offices of Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons with many others appertaining unto this Hierarchie as Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ and promise subjection and obedience unto them Eccles. Canons Can. 7. 2. They own and submit Can. 4. to a Liturgy or prescript Form of Worship devised by men and imposed solely by their authority to which they tie themselves neither diminishing nor adding any thing in the matter or form thereof 3. They own subscribe and engage to conform to all the Orders Rites and Ceremonies prescribed in the said Book of Common Prayer Can. 36. such as bowing at the Name of Jesus using the Cross in Baptism kneeling at the Lords Supper which though we do not some would say smells very strong of the Popish Leven and is but one Peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden god wearing the Surplice c 4. They own that the Office of a Deacon is the first step or degree to the Ministry Can. 32 36 to which they are tâ— submit and subscribe before they are made Priests 5. That no person be admitted to expound the Scriptures though indeed worthy of the Cure of Souls as they speak Can. 49. without license from the Bishop thereunto 6. That there be some lawful Ministers which are no Preachers Can. 49 57. 7. That these unpreaching Ministers Can. 57. may lawfully administer the Ordinances of Baptism and the Lords Supper 8. That persons refusing to have their children baptized by such dumb Ministers or receive the Communion from them worthily deserve Excommunication if they shall persist herein Can. 57. 9. That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops is an Ordinance of God Can. 60. 10. That it appertains to the Office of Ministers to marry Can. 62. 11. That the Bishop of the Diocess may lawfully for a while suspend a Minister from his Ministry for refusing to bury the Dead Can. 68. 12. That 't is not lawful for Ministers to preach or administer the Communion in private houses except in times of necessity Can. 71. 13. That no Minister may lawfully appoint or keep any solemn private Fasts or be wittingly present at any of them nor hold any Meetings for Sermons in Market-Towns or other places which if he do and persevere therein he may lawfully be deposed from his Ministry Can. 72. 14. That Ministers ought to be distinguished by their Vestments and Apparel as Gowns Hoods Tippers Square Caps and in their journeys Cloaks with sleeves called Priests Cloaks Can 74.
with many more that might be added to which the Ministers of England are to subscribe and own as agreeable to the Word of God before their admission into the Ministry according to the 38. Canon Ecclesiastical Are any of these Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ When or where were they instituted by by him That these are Posts set by the Lords Posts and Thresholds by his Thresholds of which the Lord complains Ezek. 43.8 who sees not That the present Ministers of England do conform and subscribe hereunto cannot be denied and thence an owning subscribing and submitting to Orders and Constitutions that are not of Christs appointment is evidently evinced Answ. Though I undertake not to justifie all that is in the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Synod at London Anno 1603. nor need the present Ministers nor perhaps will they or the Bishops themselves take it upon them yet that it may appear how falsly and injuriously this Authour hath dealt with them and how superficially he hath handled this Argument I say I. That he hath misrecited the Canons in all or most of the 14 particulars alledged 1. In the 7. Canon it is not said That the Orders and Offices of Arch bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons with many others appertaining unto this Hierarchy are Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ nor is it required therein that the Ministers promise subjection and obedience unto them But it is censured as a wicked errour to affirm that the Government of the Church of England under his Majesty by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Archâ—deacons and the rest that bear Office in the same is Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God and it is required of such as have thus affirmed that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent and publikely revoke it 2. In the 4. Canon Ministers are not required to own and submit to a Liturgy or prescript Form of Worship devised by men and imposed solely by their authority nor to tie themselves to it neither diminishing nor adding in the matter or Form thereof But it is judged a wicked errour to affirm that the Form of Gods Worship in the Church of England established by the Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments is a corrupt superstitious or unlawful Worship of God or containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures and it is required of such as have thus affirmed that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent and publickly revoke it 3. In the third particular are sundry things liable to Exception 1. It is said that in the Book of Common Prayer Bowing at the Name of Jesus is prescribed which I find not there but in the 18 Canon 2. It is not well that when this Author does not yet he tells us some would say that kneeling at the Lords Supper smells very strong of the Popish Leven and is but one peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden God when he might know that not only the 28. Article of the Church of England and the Homily of the Peril of Idolatry and the Apology of the Church of England are fully against it but also the Compilers of the Common Prayer Book suffered Martyrdom for their refusal and abhorrency of such adoration and in the Rubrick of the Common Prayer Book as it is now established after the Communion there is a clear and sufficient Declaration against it which should if this Author had dealt candidly have been told ignorant people who are drawn into a separation upon this suggestion 3. It is true that in the 36 Canon subscription is required to this Article That the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordering of Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God and that it may be lawfully used and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in publike Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and none other which I take not to be the same with owning submitting and engaging to conform to all the Orders Rites and Ceremonies prescribed therein 4. It is said Canon 32. The Office of a Deacon is a step or degree to the Ministry according to the judgment of the ancient Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Church and the subscription is required in the 36. Canon to the Book of Ordination as I have set it down here but they are not required by that subscription to own this assertion That the Office of a Deacon is the first step or degree to the Ministry 5. In the 49. Canon it is said No person whatsoever not examined and approved by the Bishop of the Diocess or not licensed for a sufficient or convenient Preacher shall take upon him to expound in his own Cure or elsewhere any Scripture or matter or doctrine But they do not speak though judged worthy of the Cure of Souls they may have a Cure of Souls by indirect means or by reason of the imperfection of the Law to debarr them or by reason of the want of sufficient Preachers as was in the beginning of the Reformation or for want of maintenance for able Preachers to undertake it who are not judged worthy of the Cure of Souls 6 and 7. Neither of the Positions are Canons 49 57. though their Ministration of Baptism and the Lords Supper is made sufficient And the 8. particular is in Canon 57. 9. Can. 60. It is not said That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops is an Ordinance of God but that it hath been a solemn ancient and laudable custom in the Church of God continued from the Apostles times that all Bishops should lay their hands upon children baptized and instructed in the Catechism of Christian Religion praying over them and blessing them which we commonly call Confirmation and that this holy action hath been accustomed in the Church in former ages 10. It is not said Canon 62. that it appertains to the Office of Ministers to marry but they are only regulated therein 11. The Bishop is to suspend according to Can. 68. Ministers refusing to bury but the lawfulness of it is not there asserted though presupposed 12 13. Ministers preaching administring the Communion in private houses except in times of necessity some appointing of Fasts holding Meetings for Sermons are forbidden Can. 71 72. but it is not there determined that they are forbidden because of the unlawfulness Inexpediency or inconvenience may occasion a prohibition of that which is not unlawful 14. It is not asserted Can. 74. that Ministers ought to be distinguished by the habit there prescribed but that ancient Churches thought it fit II. Were all true which this Author hath alledged in these 14 particulars yet it is not true which he saith that either in the 36 or 38. Canon Ecclesiastical Ministers are to subscribe to and own all these Orders and Ordinances as agreeable to the Word of God III. To the Questions Are any of these
suppositions as ever objection in so weighty a case was built upon 1. 'T is supposed that Christ hath not determined in the Scripture how the affairs of his house should be managed with decency and order as well as commanded that they be so which is 1. No small derogation to the perfection of the Scriptures 2. To the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ debasing him herein below Moses though the Scripture in this respect prefers him before him 3. Diametrically opposite to the Scripture instanced in which stands as a two edged Sword to cut the throat of their cause in its approaches thereto for shelter of which take this brief account The Apostle having in the beginning of the Chapter prest the Church of Corinth to follow after spiritual gifts but especially that they might prophesie the liberty of the Saints therein being fully asserted and several directions thereabout given he condemns their disorderly practice in respect of this important duty and priviledge ver 26. and gives direction touching its regular performance and this he doth First Generally ver 26. Let all things be done to edifying which with a little alteration he represses ver 40. Let all things be done decently and in order Secondly Particularly by telling them how they ought to manage this affair in a way of decency order and edification wherein several rules are comprised too long to be here insisted on as in cases of speaking in an unknown tongue ver 27 28. of prophesying by two or three ver 29 30. of the duties of women with respect thereunto ver 34 35. that from hence a power invested in the Church for the binding of the consciences of men touching ceremonies in Worship should be regularly deduced is the first born of improbabilities and absurdities 1. Paul speaking by an infallible spirit of Prophecie advises the Church of Corinth that all things be done decently and in order therefore persons that have not pretend not to such a spirit may of their own heads bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the service of God 2. Paul doth not only tell them that all things ought to be done decently and in order but discovers to them wherein that decency and order lies therefore the Church hath power to determine in this matter are such Non-sequiturs as will not in haste be made good I reply as the Argument is framed by me there is moment in the objection which is not built upon the principle he expresseth but this that however Christ hath not only commanded but also determined in generals in the Scripture how the affairs of his House should be managed with decencie and order yet in many particularities he hath not determined how the Worship of God and Rule of his Church should be managed with decencie and order as whether at the Communion there should be a Table spread with a linnen cloth the Service begin with a recital of the Institution or Prayer Publike Prayer begin with Confession of Sin or Thanksgiving or profession of our faith seating of persons in the meeting be with respect to their civil degrees or sexe or promiscuously Sermon begin at the reading of the Text and Prayer be after or before these with many more are indeterminate by Christ or his Apostles in the Scripture and yet are to be determined according to the Rule of Decency and Order either by each person himself in that which is private or by Rulers in that which belongs to the Community and Obedience is due to the determinations of Rulers in these things And it seems to me to use this Authors own phrase the first-born of improbabilities and absurdities that God should charge parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord Eph. 6.4 that we should first of all make supplications prayers intercessions giving of thanks for all men for Kings and for all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty 1 Tim. 2.1 2. that the Bishop should be one that takes care of the Church of God 1 Tim. 3.5 If these have no power in the Worship of God and rule of the Church to make Constitutions about things undetermined or that they may without any sin be disobeyed For as for the exception as if such power reaches only to things Civil not Ecclesiastical the contrary is proved by Bishop Sanderson in his sixth Lecture about the obligation of Conscience Nor is there any derogation to the perfection of Scripture or the faithfulness of Christ by such a grant For the sufficiency of the Scripture being in affording Doctrines of Faith and Rules of Life if as able to make a man wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus as the Apostle speaks 2 Tim. 3.15 its perfection is acknowledged there is no lessening of its use though it be said that notwithstanding its sufficiency to its end yet Laws Domestical Civil National Ecclesiastical are necessary to be added for good order and Government And the faithfulness of Christ Heb. 3.2 is not placed in determining every particularity in Worship yea he was faithful in that he did not for then he should have put upon us such a yoke as Moses bid contrary to his Office Joh. 1.17 but in that he discharged the work his Father had appointed him as our High Priest in suffering and interceding for us and as the Apostle of our Profession in teachinng us the counsel of God fully in the Doctrine of the Gospel and that above Moses as being not as a servant in Gods house only as Moses but as a Son over his own house And it is to be considered what Bishop Sanderson observes that if Christs faithfulness must have been extended to the determination of all particularities equally to Moses he must have set down all particularities of Civil Government as Moses did in the judicial Laws of the Jews and so those Laws must be observed as some have attempted and the Common Law of England must be evacuated and a yoke put upon our necks from which Christ hath freed us And therefore a good Argument is hence deducible that God would have the ordering of things undetermined left to Governours because otherwise Christ should not have been faithful as Moses sith he hath not determined them yea should have been unfaithful if he had sith it was the Will of God that Christians should not have such a yoke of Rites put upon them as Moses did put upon the Jews Acts 15.9 10 Gal. 5.1 2 3 4. But the Text 1 Cor. 14.40 requires more consideration sith he saith it is diametrically opposite to that principle it is alledged to establish which is but a meer Dictate of his for which he brings no proof For neither is his account of the Apostles dissertation right it being not true that he asserts the liberty of the Saints in prophesying as if prophesying were the liberty of the Saints as such which
making good their ground herein who sees not that their Plea hitherto impleaded sinks of it self Sith I neither plead for the Constitutions of the Church of England in particular nor is it my supposition that only the Constitutions of a constituted Church of Christ bind in things of Divine Worship and Church Rule and therefore my Answer and position need not sink for want of making good this plea. And accordingly might put him off to others to answer his impertinent questions What is it then they mean by the Church whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are without disputing to subject to is it the National Church of England But where find they any National Church of the Institution of Christ in the Oeconomie of the Gospel How prove they that the Church of England is so Nevertheless I may say I know not any that hold concerning the Church of England that its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper opinions are to be subjected to without dispute though the Romanists hold it of the Church of Râ—me and for a National Church I refer him to what is before in answer to his Preface sect 15. But there are more questions behind Yet should this also be granted where are the Constitutions and Laws of this Church that we may pay the homage to them as is meet Which Question he might answer himself who in this Chapter cites so many of the Canons of the Church of England But he yet enquires When was it assembled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place together in its several members freely to debate 1 Cor. 11.20 and 14 23. and in the Margin Maccovius in loc com append de Adi p. 861. Things indifferent he tells you ought not to be introduced into the Church but by the common consent thereof according to Acts 15. determine what Laws and Constitutions were fit to be observed by them To which I answer The Church of England was assembled at London Anno 1603. in its several members by deputation freely to debate things as was the usage in the Synods of ancient and later times and even in New England at Cambridge there about the Antinomian opinions in Mr. Welds History in England in the Assembly at Westminster of the Congregational Churches by their Elders and Messengers in their Meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. which kind of Meeting must be allowed as the Meeting of the whole Church which they represent there being no other way in which orderly many particular Churches throughout a Nation can convene and debate freely either points of Doctrine or Discipline than by such Deputies and therefore as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod Nor is there any thing against this in 1 Cor. 11.20 or 1 Cor. 14.23 unless it be supposed that all those must meet to debate matters of Doctrine and Discipline who did then meet for worship which is not to be said For then in such things women also must have a voice contrary to the Apostles resolution 1 Cor. 14.34 and the practice of all the Churches As for Act. 15. the Synod was about a point of Doctrine and though it be said ver 22. that it pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send some to Antioch yet the whole Church is not likely to be meant of every particular member but as Acts 6.2 5. Acts 21.20 22. and elsewhere by the multitude or whole Church is meant a great part or indefinite number However those from Antioch mentioned Acts 15.2 were not many and therefore if that Synod be a pattern for after times yet it cannot be a rule in respect of the number of persons convening when Churches are so increased or so far distant one from another as that they cannot commodiously meet in their multitudes or debate orderly but must of necessity act by Deputies and their Constitutions are to be taken as the Constitutions of the whole Church for whom they appear But this Author excepts If it be said that this is not requisite it is enough that it be assembled in its several Officers or such as shall be chosen by their Officers whose laws every member is bound to be obedient to We answer But these Officers are the Church or they are not if they are not as there is nothing more sure I owe no subjection to their Laws or Constitutions it being pleaded that 't is the Church that hath only power in this matter if they are the Church let them by one Scripture prove they are so or where the true Officers of a true Church are so called and as Nonius saith out of Nâ—vius to them Dum vivebo fidelis ero Yet except this also be yielded them there is nothing of moment in the Objection produced Answ. The Objection as it is by me made is not the Plea as here is supposed The power in this matter is by me ascribed to Rulers and Texts requiring obedience to them have been produced and notwithstanding this Authors exceptions there is something of moment in the Objection and the speech is not made good That the present Ministers of England submit own and subscribe to Laws and Constitutions that are not in any sense of Christ revealing nor if it were doth it follow Therefore they oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. Sect. 6. It 's not proved that the Ministers of England own Constitutions contrary to the revelation of Christ. He goes on thus But this is not all 2ly The present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Laws Constitutions and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ whence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ may rationally be concluded This also by the induction of a few particular instances will be evinced beyond exception Answ. Four things are here undertaken 1. That the particular instances stand by Laws and Constitutions 2. That these Laws Constitutions and Ordinances are contrary to the revelation of Christ. 3. That the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to them 4. That from thence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ may rationally be concluded In which how he hath failed will be apparent by the view of what he alledgeth They own saith he and acknowledge 1. That there may be other arch-Arch-Bishops and lord-Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself which is contrary to 1 Pet. 5.3 1 Cor. 12.5 Ephes. 4.5 Heb. 3.1 Luke 22.25 26. Answ. That there may be other arch-Arch-Bishops and lord-Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England but not in the sense in which Christ is called the chief Shepherd 1 Pet. 5.4 or the same Lord 1 Cor. 12.5 or one Lord Ephes. 4.5 or the Apostle and High Priest of our prosession Heb. 3.1 or Lordship is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3 Luke 22.25 26. they are
not acknowledged arch-Arch-Bishops over the whole Church as the Pope but in their own Province nor are they termed arch-Arch-Bishops as if other Bishops had their authority from them as the Pope claims but they only have a Primacy or Precedency with some other Prerogatives by that title Nor are they or other Bishops made Lords as Christ over the whole Church or have such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3 Luke 22.25 26. and is usurped by Popish Bishops but are Lords only by the Kings Grant as is said before in Answer to Chap. 3. Sect. 5 6. not in the Church of Christ but in the Kingdom and Parliament and therefore this acknowledgement is not contrary to the revelation of Christ there being no contrariety or contradiction unless there were an opposition in the same respect as Logicians determine Christ is said 1 Tim. 6.15 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only Dynasta or Potentate and yet without contrariety or contradiction the Eunuch Acts 8.27 is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dynasta or Potentate as in the reading in the margin of our translation But were there contrariety yet it is not shewed that what is acknowledged is a Law Constitution or Ordinance which do usually determine not what may be but what shall and must be nor that Ministers own it by subscription 2. That men may and ought to be made Ministers only by these Lord-Bishops which is contrary to Heb. 5.4 John 10.1 7. and 13.20 and 14.6 Act. 14.23 with 6.3 5. Answ. It is true it is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England that men may be made Ministers by these lord-Lord-Bishops but not that they may and ought to be made Ministers only by these lord-Lord-Bishops sith Ministers are allowed who are made by Suffragan Bishops who are not Lords and for the Churches Reformed of Foreigners dwelling in England Ministers made by Presbyters only But this is not a Law Constitution or Ordinance to which Ministers subscribe nor if they did is there any contrariety therein to the revelation of Christ. Heb. 5.4 it is said And no man taketh this honour that is of being High-Priest unto himself but he that is called of God as Aaron But this is impertinently alledged being not spoken of the Gospel Ministery but of the Priesthood of the Law and the High-Priest and of his Calling by God immediately and therefore if that which the Ministers acknowledge be proved contrary to the revelation of Christ by this text the making of Mâ—nisters in Congregational Churches by their Eldership is alike contrary sith they are not called of God as Aaron Of the impertinency of John 10.1 7. enough is said before in the Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Joh. 13.20 He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me is no more contrary to Bishops Ordination than to Presbyters John 14.6 speaks not at all of making Ministers but of the way whereby Christians have access to God Of Acts 14.23 and 6.3 5. enough hath been said in Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. 3. That Prelates their Chancellors and Officers have power from Christ to cast out of the Church of God contrary to Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 Answ. That there is a Law Ordinance or Constitution of this to which Ministers subscribe I finde noâ— Of the texts Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 enough hath been said in Answer to the Preface Sect. 15. to Chap. 4. Sect. 5. whence the impertinency of the alledging these texts may appear 4. That the Office of Suffragans Deans Canons Petty-Canons Prebendaries Coiristers Organists Archdeacons Commissaries Officials Parsons Vicars and Curates are lawful and necessary to be had in the Church evidently contrary to 1 Cor. 12 18 28. Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 The Officers instituted by Christ are sufficient for the edification and perfecting of the Saints till they all come unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ ver 12 13. in what sense the forementioned being not one of them of the institution of Christ may be owned as lawful or necessary without an high contempt of the Wisdom and Soveraignty of Christ cannot by such dull persons as my self he conjectured That any others see them any way useful to the Church of Christ may be imputed to such a sharp-sightedness as was that of Caius Caligula to whom when he enquired of Vitellius whether he saw him not imbracing the Moon 't was answered Solis Domine vobis-diis licet se invicem videre Answ. Where this imagined Law Ordinance or Constitution is or when and how the present Ministers do own acknowledge submit and subscribe to it as this Author suggests is not here shewed by him nor do I know where to finde it Oâ— the Office of so many of these as are ordained Presbyters or Priests as the term is in the English Liturgy enough hath been said in answering the 3 Chapter Sect. 3 5. c. that though their names are various yet their Office is the same with some of those who are of Christ 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 and consequently lawful and necessary the rest are not reckoned among the Orders of Ministry in the Church but counted Services which are acknowledged not necessary and whether they be useful or not it matters not in respect of the present enquiry if there be no Law Constitution or Ordinance to make them lawful and necessary to be had in the Church which the Ministers subscribe to as I think there is not 5. That the Office â—f Deacons in the Church is to be imployed in publick praying administration of Baptism and preaching if licensed by the Bishop thereunto contrary to Act. 6.2 Ephes. 4.11 Answ. That at first the institution of Deacons was to serve tables Acts 6.2 not to preach the word of God yet Steven and Philip being imployed in Preaching and Philip in Baptizing it is not contrary to Christs revelation in those texts or any other that they should be imployed in those works 6. That the Ordinance of breaking Bread or the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be administred to one alone as to a sick man ready to die which is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance 1 Cor. 10.16 and 11.33 Mat. 26.26 Act. 2.42 and 20.7 Answ. The Communion is in time of infectious diseases allowed to be administred to one only besides the Minister which whether it be fit to be done is left to the Minister That it is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance is not easily proved 1 Cor. 10.16 A Communion is proved in that Sacrament but ver 17. and 1 Cor. 12.13 rather proves the Communion to be therein with all believers throughout the world though absent than only with the present partakers and if so though but two joyn the Minister and the sick man the Communion there meant is held with all Christians the meaning and
Canon of his standing for fear of shedding ought But I deny that kneeling in the very time of receiving was ever in the Church of Rome any Rite of or for adoration of the Sacrament it self or any creature and therefore not Idolatrous I deny not the errour of their minds concerning that they received into their mouths But I deny that they ever intended adoration of the species at that moment of time when they took it in their mouths But then turned themselves to God rather to give him thanks which was not uncomely Of which he gives three reasons 1. Because it was never yet enjoyned by any Pope that they should then kneel 2. In the Mass there is no direction for adoration of the Sacrament when it is received 3. For that it is an incongruous thing in their superstition to adore a thing which is not higher than their polls when they adore it because they cannot be said to humble themselves to that which is lower than they can cast themselves To this last reason nothing is returned by Dr. Ames in his Triplic ch 4. p. 429. and Dallaeus adv lat cult l. 9. c. 13. Id quod adoratur eo à quo adoratur celsius ac sublimius aliquid esse debere insito à natura ipsa sensu omnes mortales confitentur atque consentiunt To which is to be added that kneeling is used according to the Common Prayer Book with Prayer to God and at the receiving of the Wine as well as at the Bread which are not so with the Papists and therefore kneeling is not to be taken as adoration of the Bread as the Papists do And for that which is said that the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling is directly opposite to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after Christ to the time of the invention and introduction of the Popish Breaden-god it is denyed by the same Dr. Burges in that and other following Chapters by the Bishop of Rochester Paybody and others about which and the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches at this day it is not necessary that I should make inquiry sith if it were so yet it proves nor that the present Ministers of England do oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ by their submitting to kneeling at the Lords Supper Sect. 10. Forbidding to marry or eat flesh at certain times are not characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant It is added What should I mention the Constitutions and Canons before pointed to wherein 't is forbidden to any to Preach not licensed by the Bishops thereunto to marry or eat flesh at certain times with many more of the like nature all directly contrary to the soveraign edicts of Christ and some of them evident characters of the last dayes Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 from whom Saints are warned by the Lord to turn aside ver 5. These we have produced carry an undeniable evidence with them that the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ and therefore deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office Answ. To that of forbidding to Preach answer is made in the examining this Chapter Sect. 2. Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from flesh at certain times upon politick considerations or for the better observing a religious Fast are not characters of the Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 But may be justified by such passages of Scripture as Jonah 3.7 Joel 2.16 1 Cor. 7.5 Dan. 10.3 Nor do I think the most zealous Separatists but would restrain from Marriage and Flesh the members of their Churches in the times of solemn Fasts or would count it evil that the Magistrate forbids for civil ends abstinence from some kind of food which being the case of the prohibitions of the Civil Laws of England rather than the Canons of the Church which make it not a sin against God to marry or eat flesh then is unjustly made the character of Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 which is more justly charged on the Monks and Popish Votaries who account it sinful to marry as if it were unchastness and more lawful to use Concubines than Wives for Priests as if they joyned with Pope Siricius terming such persons in the flesh and such as could not please God and place more holiness in eating Fish than Flesh which sort of people are very accurately proved to be there characterized by Mr. Joseph Mede in his Book of the Doctrine of Daemons intituled The Apostasie of the later times That the present Ministers of England are such or that precept which is not 1 Tim. 4.5 2 Tim. 3.5 From such turn aside belongs to them is not proved by this Author nor that they do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ or deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office French Protestants in the Synod of Charenton 1644. chap. 13. art 24. The Church shall not solemnise marriage in the dayes on the which the Lords Supper is administred nor on the dayes of a publick Fast. See this crimination retorted on the Separatists by Paget in his Arrow ch 6. sect 3. p. 155. n. 5. Yet he hath not done with this Argument Sect. 11. No such Headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices To all that hitherto hath been offered in this matter we shall yet add as a further demonstration of the truth we are in the disquisition of Arg. 3. Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office but the present Ministers of England do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ Therefore If the assertion of another King in England that as the Head thereof hath power of making and giving forth Laws to the free-born Subjects therein be a denial of his Kingly Authority as no doubt it is the major or first Proposition cannot be denied If Christ be the alone King of his Church as such he is its alone Head and Lawgiver If he hath not by any Statute-Law established any other Headship in and over his Church to act in the Holy things of God from and under him besides himself who sees not the assertion of such an Headship carries with it a contempt and denial of his Authority If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ let us know when and where it was instituted whether such a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom with respect to Worship be granted by them to any of the sons of men absolutely or conditionally if the first then must the Church it seems be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ trampling upon his royal Commands and Edicts for so it 's possible it may fall out those that aâ—tain this Headship may do as it 's evident many Popes of Rome the great
pretenders hereunto have done If the second let one iota be produced from the Scripture of the Institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto and we shall be so far from denying of it that we shall cheerfully pay whatever respect homage or duty by the Laws of God or Man may righteously be expected from us But this will not we humbly conceive in hast be performed and that because 1. The Scripture makes mention of no other Head in and over the Church but Christ Ephes. 1.22 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 2. If there be any other Head he must either be within or without the Church The latter will not be affirmed Christ had not sure so little respect unto his flock as to appoint Wolves and Lions to be their Governours and Guides in matters Ecclesiastical nor can the former for all in the Church are Brethren have no dominion over each others Faith or Conscience Luke 22.25 3. If any other be Head of the Church but Christ then is the Church the Body of some others besides Christ but this is absurd and false not to say impious and blasphemous 4. There was no Head of the Church in the Apostles dayes but Christ. 5. If any be Head of the Church beside Christ they either have their Headship from an Original Right seated in themselves or by donation from Christ. To assert the first were no less then blasphemy if the second let them shew when and where and how they came to be invested in such a right and this Controversie will be at an end 6. He that is asserted in Scripture to be the Head of the Church is said to govern feed and nourish it to eternall life is her Spouse and Husband 2 Cor. 11.2 In which sense none of the Sons of men one or other can be the Head thereof and yet of any other Head the Scripture is wholly silent But of this matter thus far It cannot by any sober person be denied but an owning of a visible Head over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship such an Headship not being of the institution of Christ must needs be a denial of his Soveraign Authority and Power Answ. This Author in this Argument seems to me to hide his meaning as they say the Fish Saepia doth by casting out some black colour whereby the water is infected and she not discerned A Headship over the Church besides Christ's he makes the present Ministers to acknowledge in some of the sons of men but who they are he means what the Headship is and how it is opposite to Christs Kingly and Prophetical Office is not plainly expressed nor in what Subscription Oath or Conformity they own and submit to it Headship is a Metaphor and sometime notes Origination vital influence direction or guidance superiority power authority or government which may be in many things No Minister I think gives such a Headship to any of the sons of men as to Christ over his whole Body either so as to derive their being members having their faith or eternal life or dominion over their Consciences or Sovereign power authority to rule or dispose of soul or body as Christ hath And that which the Bishop of Rome claims over the Universal Church is utterly disclaimed by the present Ministers The Headship which is made a denial of Christs Headship ascribed by the present Ministers to some person on Earth is expressed in various phrases A Headship in and over his Church to act in the Holy things of God a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of Christs Kingdom with respect to Worship a visible head over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to Worship which it 's said they own by conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads and Governours of the Church thâ—y own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a a Law making and Law-giving power touching Institutions of Worship that never came into his heart Headship over the Church to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship This can be conceived to be ascribed by the present Ministers to no other than the Bishops or Convocation or the King whose Supremacy in Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical seems to be that Headship here meant by the answer to the second Objection What Headship is ascribed to the Bishops or Convocation in making Laws or Constitutions about Worship to wit the accidentals thereof undetermined in order to the orderly decent performance of it to edification by the present Ministers hath been examined all along in the answer to this Book specially to the 4. and 5. Chapters Sect. 3. and as yet no such Headship is proved by this Author to be ascribed by the present Ministers as amounts to a denial of the Prophetical and Kingly Offices of Christ that the taking of the Oath of the Kings Supremacie or submission to his Edicts about matters of Worship is not owning such a Headship is further to be cleared And first I deny his major That those who acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ by acknowledging the King as Supream Governour in Causes Ecclesiastical or Spiritual as the Oath of Supremacy is proved by me in my Book of the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy ought to be understood particularly that he or with him the Bishops or Convocation may make Laws or Constitutions in the accidentals of Worship undetermined in Scripture observing the rules of Order Decency Edification deny Christs Prophetical and Kingly Office and to the proofs of it I answer This Author doth most injuriously suppose the power and authority asserted to the King of England in the Oath of Supremacie to make Laws or Canons about the Worship of God with the Counsel of a Synod or Convocation or Parliament is making another King besides Christ over his Church For there is no such thing acknowledged thereby which is proper to Christ to wit to be the universal Monarch of the whole Church to prescribe what Faith or Worship shall be given to God to be Infallible Interpreter of Gods Will and the Supreme Judge and Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy or which is arrogated by the Popes of Rome and thus acknowledged by Hart the Jesuite in his Conference with Dr. John Rainold in the Tower of London ch 1. div 2. in these words The power which we mean to the Pope by this title of the Supream Head is that the Government of the whole Church of Christ throughout the World doth depend of him in him doth lye the power of judging and determining all causes of Faith of ruling Councils as President and ratifying their Decrees of Ordering and Confirming Bishops and Pastors of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the coasts of the Earth of reconciling any
that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations Finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either Preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ. Which his practice sheweth to be such as to dispense with the Laws of God as by legitimating incestuous Marriages releasing of lawful Oaths granting Indulgences releasing out of Purgatory Canonizing of Saints Consecrating of things for the expulsion of Devils with many more and iâ— it be true which is related in a Book lately printed to have been asserted by the party of Jesuites in the Colledge of Clermont in France that the Pope is not only infallible in matters of Faith but also in matters of Fact he is elevated to that height as to accomplish the prophesie which is 2 Thess. 2.4 But the present Ministers of England do abhorr the giving such power to the King Bishops or Convocation yea it is disclaimed by the King Bishops and Convocation as blasphemous and that power they ascribe to the Church is set down in the 34. Article of Religion Every particular or National Church hath authority to Ordain Change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying And that which they acknowledge belonging to the King as the only Supreme Governour of the Realm of England and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as temporal is thus explained Artic. 37. We give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers Which is so far from being no other than the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome as this Author saith p. 47. that to shew the calumny of it I need use no other words than those of Dr. John Owen in his answer to a Popish Book entituled Fiat Lux ch 13. p. 271. The Declaration made in the dayes of King Henry the 8. that he was Head of the Church of England intended no more but that there was no other person in the World from whom any Jurisdiction to be exercised in this Church over his Subjects might be derived the Supream Authority for all exteriour Government being vested in him alone that this should be so the Word of God the Nature of the Kingly Office and the ancient Laws of this Realm do require And I challenge our Author to produce any one testimony of Scripture or any one word out of any general Council or any one Catholick Father or Writer to give the least Countenance to his assertion of two Heads of the Church in his sense an Head of Influence which is Jesus himself and an Head of Government which is the Pope in whom all the sacred Hierarchy ends This taking of one half of Christs Rule and Headship out of his hand and giving it to the Pope will not be salved by that expression thrust in by the way under him For the Headship of Influence is distinctly ascribed unto Christ and that of Government to the Pope which evidently asserts that he is not in the same manner Head unto his Church in both senses but he in the one and the Pope in the other I add that Mr. Philip Nye in his Book of the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy and power of the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical affairs and subordination of Churches thereunto Printed 1662. though not published hath these words p. 46. For Persons and Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical that are properly and indeed such as first Table-duties which contain matters of Faith and Holiness and what conduceth to the eternal welfare of mens souls an interest and duty there is in the Civil Magistrate more suâ— to give Commands and exercise Lawful Jurisdiction about things of that nature And for Persons there is no man for his graces so spiritual or in respect of his gâ—fts and Office so eminent but he is under the Government of the Civil Powers in the place where he lives as much in all respects as any other subject Yea in the Apology of the Brownists Printed 1604. these words are alledged for their common defence out of the Letter of Henry Barrow to a Lady 1593. p. 92. I have every where in my writings acknowledged all duty and obedience to her Majesties government as to the sacred Ordinance of God the Supreme Power he hath set over all causes and persons whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within her Dominions Out of these things I infer that asserting the Kings Supremacy or the power of making Laws owned by the Ministers of England is not making another King besides Christ over his Church nor ascribing such a Headship to the King or Governours of the Church as is pleaded for by the Church of Rome and that for the Kings Supremacy those that dissent about Ceremonies and Church Government do acknowledge it as it is meant in the Oath taken by the Ministers Concerning which Supremacy if what I have written in the little Treatise Printed 1660. intituled A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremncy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions be not sufficient to produce from the Scripture the institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto methinks Dr. Rainold his argument which convinced Hart in the conference with him ch 10. div 1. and such other writings as have been written by Bilson Mason Bramhall and many more should have prevented this calumny of making thereby another head besides Christ equivalent to a denial of his Kingly Office And to his Objections I answer 1. to the first That we use not the title of Head but Supreme Governour yet when it was used it meaning the same it might be used as it was given to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 though not as it it is given to Christ Ephes. 1.22 and 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 Nor is the title of Head so appropriate to Christ but that it is given to the Man over the Woman 1 Cor. 11.3 to the Husband over the Wife Ephes. 5.23 and may in a qualified sense in respect of Government be given to the King over the Church in his Dominions as to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 to the chief of Families as Parents or others of greatest authority or esteem as the heads of houses Exod. 6.14 in which sense Parliament men Judges Ecclesiastical Governours may be termed Heads of the Church or State they represent
or are subject to them To the second though all in the Church are Brethren have no dominion oâ— authority over each others faith or conscience yet neither are all equal in the Church nor doth Luke 22.25 prove it The Apostles sure had power over the members of the Church to command 1 Cor. 7.10 to give orders 1 Cor. 16.1 to judge 1 Cor. 5.3 though no superiority over one another And though the King and Bishops or Convocation are Brethren yet are they Superiours Rulers Rom. 13.1 Heb. 13.17 and though they have no dominion or authority over each others faith or conscience so as that their Laws shall bind the conscience immediately and must be obeyed as precisely and fully as the Laws of God and Christ yet their Laws Edicts Commands Canons or Rules even in the worship of God in things undetermined by God and according to such Rules as the Scripture directs them to observe bind in some sort the conscience as the commands of Parents and Masters by virtue of the authority given them by God Rom. 13.5 1 Peter 2.13 14 16 18 19. though not in respect of the things commanded by them To the third the Church is not the body of any other than Christ as joyned to any or depending on any or subject to any absolutely as unto Christ yet may particular Churches in respect of that Ministration and Government which their Governours afford them be said to be the bodies of their Governors as a wife is in some râ—spect the body of her husband Ephes. 5 28. nor is there any impiety or blasphemy in so saying And in this sense the Apostles and Bishops or Elders were heads of the Church in the Apostles dayes which answers the fourth To the fifth their Headship is by donation from Christ in the places often alledged and in answer to the sixth though not as Christ is termed the Husband of Believers 2 Cor. 11.2 can any be termed Husband nor to govern feed and nourish to eternal life as Christ by influence of his Spirit or power to give eternal life 1 Cor. 6 17. John 17.2 nor their Father as God is said to be Ephes. 4.6 1 Cor. 8.6 Jam. 1.18 Joh. 1.13 yet the Apostles and all others may be in a qualified sense who are instruments to convert or build up others by the Word or Discipline be termed their Fathers in Christ 1 Cor. 4 15. and to govern feed and nourish them to eternal life as 1 Thess. 2.7 11. the Apostle saith of himself Whence I conclude in answer to his major that notwithstanding what he hath said it may by a sober person be denyed that an owning of a visible head or heads over the Church having power of making and giving forth Laws with respect to worship as the King Parliament Bishops or Convocation do may be no denial of Christs Soveraign authority and power Le ts view that which remains Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christ's proves not owning another King coordinate to him That saith he the present Ministers of England do own and submit to such an Headship is undeniable witness their Subscription Oath Conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads and Governours of the Church which are not onely foreign to but as hath been already demonstrated lift up themselves in opposition against the royal institutions of Christ. This being matter of fact the Individuals charged herewith must either acquit themselves by a denial of what they are impleaded as guilty or prove what they do is not criminous but lawful to be done The former being too notoriously known to admit of a denial 't is the latter must be insisted on what is therein offered is nextly to be considered Answ. Though I cannot justifie all that the present Ministers of England do in their Subscriptions and Conformity as if it were no way criminous but in every thing lawful to be done nor perhaps will all of them plead so for themselves as being mindful of the Psalmists words Psal. 19.12 Who can understand his errours cleanse thou me from secret faults Yet for the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which are the only Oaths I know they have taken as I have so I do still plead that the taking of them is not criminous but may be lawfully done And I further say that were it yielded that the Laws and Edicts made and given forth by those sons of men he means as Heads and Governours of the Church not only foreign to but which I utterly deny he hath demonstrated that they lift up themselves in opposition against the royal Institutions of Christ yet might the Ministers be free from that which he chargeth them with as denying Christs Kingly Office and setting up another King besides Christ as his Peer sith it is clear that such Conformity and Subscription may be out of weakness or errour not out of Faction or Rebellion nor doth he who conforms or subscribes to the Laws or Edicts of an Usurper own his power when he yields subjection to his commands Those who obeyed the Laws of Richard the 3. of England did not thereby acknowledge him to be the King of right nor do all that submit to the decrees of the Trent Council or the Popes Edicts either own the one or the other as being just or the power as rightly claimed but for peace sake submit to what they cannot remedy Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ is not monstrous It is added This is that some say Obj. 1. That they acknowledge another Head besides Christ cannot indeed be denied but the Headship owned and acknowledged by them is an Headship only under Christ. To which we answer Answ. 1. But this Headship is either of Christs appointment or 't is not if it be let it be shewn where it was instituted by him and as we said this controversie is at an end if it be not the assertion of such an Headship even in subordination to Christ over his Churches as such hinders not but persons owning submitting thereunto are guilty of denying the Kingly Office of Christ. 2. The Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other 3. 'T is not so as is pretended they own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a Law-making and Law-giving power touching institutions of Worship that never came into his heart are flatly against his appointments as hath been proved 4. One Head in subordination to another doth as really make the Body a Monster as two Heads conjoined Answ. 1. The term Head of the Church is not used in the Oath of Supremacy but Supreme Governour and this is agreeable to Scripture Rom. 13.1 1 Tim. 2.2 1 Pet. 2.13 and how out of these and other Scriptures his Government is proved in that sense in which it is asserted by the Ministers is shewed by me in my Book of the serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings
act in the Worship of God by vertue of an Office-power received from them were these to be accounted in that respect Idolaters It seemeth so Nor can there be the least pretence of reason to the contrary Certainly such as act by vertue of authority committed to them in matters Civil from Rebels are equally guilty of Rebellion as those from whom they derive that their authority The case is here the same 2. That such as offer up to God a Worship meerly of humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the modes and rites of Idolaters are Idolaters If these be not such I must profess I know not who are That there are few or none that worship the Creature terminative will not be denied the most of Idolaters in the world are such upon the account of their worshipping the true God through mediums of their own dâ—vising with rites and modes that never entred into the heart of God to prescribe To assert that any should symbolize with Idolaters herein who are solely upon this foot of account such and not be guilty of the sin of Idolatry is absurd and irrational The major Proposition then as was said may be taken for granted Answ. Not so without better proof and thus understood That they still abuse it to Idolatry and That the modes and rites be of themselves Idolatrous without these limitations the major is denied Those that were ordained Priests by Papists and used the Common-Prayer Book after in the dayes of Edward the 6 th were not Idolaters though this Author will not acquit Latimer Cranmer Ridley Hooper and others from Idolatry then yet I shall boldly do it And to what this Author saith I reply That the Office-power no not though it were from Idolaters for Idolatrous purposes doth not make persons actually Idolaters till they do actually exhibit Divine worship to a creature Suppose a person be ordained a Priest to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and dead in the Mass yet if he â—epent thereof and never do adore the Breaden-God he is not an Idolater Yea suppose he act in baptizing preaching marrying burying according to the rituals of the Romanists by vertue of his Ordination as a Priest or as this Author speaks his Office-power without exhibiting any Divine worship to a creature which in some of these may be yet is he not thereby an Idolater The reason whereof is manifest because he is not an Idolater to whom the definition of Idolatry agâ—ees not And this is the reason why if Jerobâ—ams â—riests though consecrated for the worship of Idols did not worship them they were not to be accounted Idolaters Nor are those that act by vertue of authority committed to them in matters Civil from Rebels equally guilty of rebellion as thâ—se from whom they derive that their authority unless they act rebelliously if they act for the restitution of their Pâ—ince the publique peace they are accounted good Subjects and not Rebels though at first they derived their authority from Rebels Nor doth the worshipping of God by a Form meerly of humane composition make Idolaters though it have been abused to Idolatry with the rites and mâ—des of Idolaters unless theâ—e be Idolatry in the Form and the rites and modes be Idolatrous in their use because notwithstanding this no Divine worship may be given to a creature So though the Form of Baptism in the Roman Church were meeâ—ly of humane composition used with Crossings Cream Oyl Spittle if these rites were used though by them abused to Idolatry not as they do so as to give Divine worship to a creature the Users in this manner however guilty of Will-worship or Superstition yet would not be justly chargeable with Idolatry no not though they should in â—ome sort symbolâ—ze with Idolaters that is be assimilated to them or in some sort comply with them Much less is it true that they are Idolaters who use that which is of Diâ—ine appointment to the right use because Idolaters aâ—uâ—ed it to Idolatry He that should use the Lords Prayer or the Psalms to worship God with them should not be an Idolater because Witches have invocated the Devil by the Lords Prayer or the Papists the Virgin Maâ—y by the words of the Pâ—alms in Bonaventures Psalter That which he saith here That few or none worship the creature terminative he doth revoke the next page save one finding Bellarmines assâ—rtion l. de Imag. c. 21. That the Images themsâ—lves â—erminate the veneration given them as they are in themselves considered and not only as supplying the 〈…〉 that which they represent But had not this passage pâ—oved it the Idolatry of the Papists in worshipping the Hâ—st invocating Angels Saints the worship of the Devil by Americans the Sun and Moon of old would prove that most of â—dolaters do worship the creature terminative From that which is said I inferr That his majâ—r may be denied wiâ—hout 〈◊〉 or irrationaliâ—y But I pass to his minor of which he saiâ—h thus Sect. 12. The English Ministers oppâ—sâ— Pâ—pish Idolatry as other Protestants Whether this be true of the prâ—sâ—nt Ministers of England is next to be considered of which briefly 1. That the Romish Church so called are Idolaters their Woâ—ship in the complex thereof Idâ—laâ—ry will not we suppose be denied by any that call themsâ—lves Pâ—otestants the most learned of whom have asserted an◠〈…〉 And then allegeth thâ—â—â— Hymns O felix pueâ—pera O crux spes unica Boâ—aâ—scius the Jâ—suite that is 〈◊〉 lib. 3 Amphith Honor. c. ult ad Divam Hallensem 〈◊〉 Jâ—sum haeâ—eo lac inter meditaâ—s interque cruoâ—em c. Aqu. Sum parte 3. q 25. Bell. de Imag. c. 21. Fâ—arâ— seus de mendâ—za in viridatio utriusque eruditionis lib. 2. pâ—oâ— 2 The vsual ascription in Bellarmine Baronius Laus Deo Virginique matri Mariae Answ. In which I agree with him That the Papists are guilty of most horrid Idolatry and could he shew any such things in the Common-pâ—ayeâ— Boâ—k or the Service of the Ministers of the Church of England I should agree to his Separation But when no such thing is to be found in the Liturgy or Service of the present Ministeâ—s of England And when he knows the Hâ—mily of the Peril â—f Idolatry and the writings of the leaâ—ned Bishops and Dâ—vâ—nes of the Church of England are as much against â—hâ—ir Idolatry as other Protestants to insinuate into the peoples minds as if the present Ministers of England did symbolize with these Idolaters of whose Idolatry they shew so much detestation is a most viperous calumniation and most unworthy of a Christian. But he goes on thus Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by vertue of an Office-power from Idolaters 2. That the present Ministers of England act by vertue of an Office-power from this Combination and Assembly of Idolaters they themselves will not deny Succession from hence being one of the best pleas they have for the justification of their ministry
which when they have proved that ever the Lord Jesus did intrust an Assembly of the greatest Murderers Adulterers and Idolaters in the world with any power for the sending forth Officers to act in the holy things of God to and for the Church his Spouse will be admitted but that they shall never be able to do so hugely importunate are some of them herein that they are not ashamed to ask us VVhy Ordination may not be received from the Church so called of Rome as well as the Scripture To which we shall only say That when it is proved that we received the Scripture from that Apostate Church by vertue of any Authority thereof as such somewhat of moment may be admitted in that enquiry but this will never be done T is true the Bible was kept among the people in those parts where the Pope prevaileth yet followeth it not from hence that we received it from their Authority as Ordination is received If we did why did we not keep it as delivered from them to us in the Vulgar Latine So that of these things there is not the same reason It will not then be denied but the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office power received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters that Church being eminently so as hath been proved Answ. This Objection though it be but a slight thing and of no real force to nullifie or invalidate the Calling of the present Ministers yet because the well-affected Protestants are zealous against Popery as having learned the Pope to be Antichrist and that terrible threanings are in the Revelation against any communion with any thing that is suggested to them by those to whom they adhere to come from Rome or the Pope as being Antichristian it is needful that this thing should be cleared for rectifying the mistakes of people that their unadvised zeal against some things as Popish which are not may not occasion unnecessary Schism and such other evils into which persons perhaps otherwise of honest hearts cast themselves to their ruine It is known to those that study Controversies between Protestants and Papists that this hath been one grand Objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches that their Ministers are not rightly Ordained and therefore they have no succession which by Bellarmine in his Book de Notis Ecclesiae c. 8. is made a Note of the Church and therefore they are not a true Church but schismatical The Answers given to this Objection are 1. For the truth of the Reformed Churches the succession in them of true Doctrine is sufficient to demonstrate them true Churches as I have asserted in my Romanism discussed against the Manuel of H. T. Art 2. 2. That Ministers may be sent of God who teach the Doctrine of God though they have not Ordination according to Church-Canons as was the case at the first beginning of the Reformation in which there was something extraordinary by reason of the long tyranny of Popes and the great corruptions in the Latine Churches 3. That their Ministers were at first ordained by the Popish Bishops and though they did after renounce the offering Sacrifice for quick and dead yet even by the Papists own Canons and resolutions of their Casuists their power to administer the Word and Sacraments according to the Word of God continued still 4. That those who had been thus ordained had power to ordain others for which the French and other Protestants of the Presbyterial Government allege That Presbyters may Ordain even by the confession of the Romanists and that Bishops though they be hereticks in their account yet they lose not the power of Ordaining no not when degraded of which more may be seen in Rivet sum Controv. tract 2. q. 1. Alsted suppl ad Chamier panstrat de memb Eccl. milit c. 8. Ames Bellar. Enerv. tom 2. l. 3. de clericis c. 2 sect 10. and many more who have still pleaded That notwithstanding the impurity of the Church of Rome yet the Calling which Luther Zuinglius and others had from Popish Bishops was sufficient without any other Ordination for an ordinary calling to the Office of a Minister and that those who have succeeded them have been true Pastours in their Churches The English Protestants who have had Bishops above Presbyters have advantage above other Protestants to plead for the regularity of the Ordination of their Ministers because they have been ordained by Bishops and those Bishops consecrated by other Bishops according to the â—anons of the Ancients in a succession continued from Bishops acknowledged by the Papists themselves To evacuate this plea saith Dr. Prideaux Orat. 8. de Vocatione Ministrorum The Papists would fain find a defect in the succession of the English Bâ—shâ—ps from the preceding Bâ—shops and in the solemnity of their consecration And being beaten off from the denial of Cranmers consecration by the producing of the Popes acknowledging of him Arch-bishop and the register of his consecration as also of other Bishops in King Edwards dayes After Christophorus à sacrâ—bâ—sco or Father Halywood of Dublin in Ireland Anthony Champney and James Wadsworth say That Arch bishop Parker Bishop Jewel and those others which were made Bishops in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth though theâ—e were an attempt of their consecration at a Tavern at the Nags-head in Cheapside yet could not they procure an old Catholick Bishop to joyn with them and therefoâ—e their consecration was disappointed To shew the falshood of this fable and to make evident the compleat solemnity of Paâ—kers and others consecration and the truth of the Ordination of the English Ministers even by the Canons of the Papists Bishop Bâ—del in his Answer to Wadsworth ch 11. and Mr. Francis Mason in his Vindication of the English Ministry have fully proved the solemnity of the consecration out of the Aâ—ch-bishops Begister to have been â—ight and the succession to have been legitimate even according to the Canon Law and the Ministers Ordination to have been good though not ordained sacrificing Priests for quick and dead against the exceptions of Bellarmine 〈◊〉 and such other of the Papists ' as have denied Protestant Ministers true Pastours and their Churches true Churches It is not unlikely that some of the Prelaâ—ical party have vented in writings and conference such expressions as carry a shew of their disclaiming the Churches which have not Bishops and extolling the Popish Churches Government and avouching their Ordination from Rome which hath caused a great aveâ—seness in many zealous persons from Bishops and the conforming Ministers and is taken hold of by this Author and other promoters of Separation as an engine sutable to that end But as those learned men Bedel Mason Prideaux and others have pleaded the succession of Bishops from the Popish Bishops and the Ordination of Ministers by them there is no cause given of that out-cry that is made of the Bishops
Antichristianism declining to Popery or of Separation for that reason the Presbyâ—erian Churches making the like plea for themselves That the first Reformers had ordinary calling even according to the Papists own Canons and the Episcopal Divines pleading only the same thing more fully Yet it is not true which this Author saith That either the one or other make the succession from Popish Bishâ—ps one of the best pleas they have for the justâ—fication of their ministâ—y For though they plead this succession against the clamorous and violent actings of the Popish party which Petrus Molinaeus in his 3 d. Epistle to Bishop Andrews mentions to have been in France by Arnola the Jesuite and the writings of Champney Wadsworth and others shew to have been in England yet they have justified their ministry without it as may be seen in Amos Alsâ—ed Bâ—del and others And for the present Ministers of England I conceive they will deny that they act by vertue of an Office-power from the Combination and Assembly of Idolaters in the Church of Rome their Office-power being not such as Priests are ordained to in the Church of Rome to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead but to preach the Gospel administer Sacraments and Discipline according to Christs institution And in the solemnity of their Ordination the Româ—sts rites being relinquished by the Ordainers who are not a Combination or Assembly of Idolaters but professors of the true Faith and haters of popish Idolatry though some succession of their Predecessors from Idolaters be alleged to stop the mouths of Papists who pervert their proselytes by impuâ—ation of novelty to the reformed Churches and their Ministers rather than by proving their Doctrine out of Scripture As for that which is obâ—ected That Christ would never entrust such to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God for his Church it is without reason objected sith many of them might be and in charity we are to conceive were the servants of God who abode in the communion of the Roman Church Dr. Ames himself in his Animadversions on the Remonstrants Scripta Synodalia Artic. 5. c. 7. saith We believe there were and yet are many who have not so farr separated themselves from the Papists but that they are polluted with their manifold Idolatry who yet have their part in the Kingdom of God Even in the dayes of King Henry the 8 th and Q Mary all the Bishops were not like Gardiner Bonner and such as were inhumane persecutors Why Christ should not entrust Cranmer Tonstall and such like to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God as well as Judas to be an Apostle I find not cause The baptism received in the Church of Rome the Brownists in their Apology p. 112. acknowledge to be so farr valid as not to need rebaptization and why not then the Ordination by their Bishops Bishops and Ministers though they be evil men and unduly get into power yet as it is with other Officers their actings are valid as Caiaphas Ananias and such like persons who by bribes unjustly and irregularly usurped the High-Priests Office yet their sentence and ministration were not therefore disannulled He who said We received the Bible from the Church of Rome it is not likely meant it to have been received by vertue of their authority but their ministry Preachers having been sent by the Pope to instruct the Saxons in the Faith But whatever was meant by that speech this we may safely say That if the Office-power of the present Ministers had been as it is not received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters yet being no other Office-power than what hath been instituted by Christ it no more proves the present Ministers Idolaters than the receiving of baptism or the Scriptures by the ministry of men in that Church It is further added Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry 3. Nor can it be denied but they offer up to God a VVorship meerly of humane composition as the Common-Prayer Book worship hath been proved to be once abused to Idolatry with the mâ—â—es â—nd rites of Idolaters That the Commonâ—Prayer Book worship is a worship that was once abused to Idolatry being the worship of that Church whose worship at least in the complex thereof is so cannot with the least pretence of reason be denied That the whole of it is derived from and taken out of the Popes Portuis as are the Common-prayers out of the Breviary The administration of the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual or Book of Rites The Consecration of the Lords Supper Collects Epistles Gospels out of the Mass Book The Ordination of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests out of the Roman Pontifical hath been aâ—â—erted and proved by many VVhich might be evidenced if needful beyond exception not only by comparing the one with the other but also from the offer was made by Pope Pius the 4th and Gregory the 13th to Q. Elizabeth to confirm the English Liturgy which did it not symbolize with the service of the Church of Rome they would not have done Yea when the said Queen was interdicted by the Popes Bull Secretary Walsingham procures two Intelligencers from the Pope who seeing the service of London and Canterbury in the pomp thereof wonder that their Lord the Pope should be so unadvised as to interdict a Prince whose service and ceremonies did so symbolize with his own VVhen they come to Rome they satisfie the Pope That they saw no service ceremonies or orders in England but might very well serve in Rome upon which the Bull was recalled Not to mention what we have already minded viz. the testimomy of King Edward the 6th and his Council witnessing the English service to be the same and no other but the old the self-same words in English that were in Latine which was the worship of England and Rome in Queen Maries dayes it is evident That the present Minsters of England offer up a worship to God once abused to Idolatry That they do this with the rites ceremonies and modes of Idolaters viz. such as are in use in that Idolatrous Church of Rome needs not many words to demonstrate What else is the Priests change of voice posture and place of worship enjoyned them Not to mention their holy Vestments Bowings Cringings Candles Altars c. all which as it s known owe their original unto the appointments thereof In the margin Maccovius loc com append de adiaph p. 860. saith Non licet mutuari aut retinere res aus ritus sacros Idololatrarum sive Ethnicorum sife Pontificiorum c. etsi in se res fuerint adiaphorae quia vitandam esse omnem consormitatem cum Idololatris docemur Lev. 19.4.27 and 21.5 Deut. 14 1 It remaineth That the present Mâ—nisters of England acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offering
and urging that against the present Ministers which the holy Martyrs rejoyced in and the Ministers think themselves happy that they are found like them Me-thinks when you wrote this chapter you should have thought of that which is Psal. 73.15 If I say I will speak thus behold I should offend against the generation of thy children And have taken heed how you had perswaded to separation for that which in the Martyrs you make their infirmity and in charity you might so conceive of the present Ministers whereof many of them even of the Bishops and such as were in exile with the King and others at home and abroad have shewed their constant adherence to the Doctrine of the Church of England particularly against the adoâ—ation of the consecrated host when they were tempted to joyn with the Papists I wish you did not strengthen the hands of the Papists by this your pleading rather than help to reduce them from their great abominations and that you did not weaken the Protestant party by hindâ—ing the union that should be among men that agree in the main though they dissent in some things considerable in this time wherein the common Cause is endangered by divisions If the Martrys were but peeping out of the gates of Babylon it may seem they were not in your opinion escaped thence if some of the filth of the great Whores fornications did cleave to them how is it they are now with Christ where no unclean thing enters That they should repent of that which they offered to justifie a little afore they dyed is not likely It would be more for your comfort and the Churches peace if by getting out of Babylon you did not run to the contrary extreme of Fanaâ—icism and in seeking Reformation you did noâ— unsettle all and that you did review this Argument in which I find strong accusation and weak proof CHAP. 8. ARG. 7 th and 8 th Sect. 1. Every Offence of others makes not sinful that which otherwise is lawful T Is not lawful for Saints to do any thing for the doing whereof there is no positive pâ—ecept in the Scripture that is an offence grief scandal and cause of stumbling to their Brethren But the hearing the present Ministers of England as there is no positive precept in the Scripture for it so it is an offence grief scandal and cause of stumbling to the Brethren Therefore The major or first Proposition is bottom'd upon express precepts in the Scripture Rom. 14.13 15 20. 1 Cor. 8.9 13 and 10.24 Answ. There are varieties of circumstances and cases incident to the point of Scandal which make the action from which it ariseth to be lawful or unlawful there are several effects of Scandal and divers degrees considerable there are several states of persons offending and offended All which and more besides do require caution in denying or granting the major Proposition Of these I wrote many years agoe a Treatise of Scandalizing sold by Richard Râ—yston at the Sign of the Angel in Ivy-Lane in London from whence many limitations may be fetch'd by the intelligent Reader wherewith to limit the major Proposition without which it is not to be granted nor is it to be proved from the Texts alleged Nevertheless because if â— should take them in here I should enlarge and encumber the present Dispute too much I think to let the major pass at present and to wave also the exception which might be taken at the form of the Argument the conclusion either not being that which is to be proved but by consequence or if it be there be four terms in the Syllogism and to examin what he saith for his minor Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty The minor or second proposition saith he consists of two parts 1. That for hearing the present Ministers of England there is no positive warrant in the Scripture if there be let it be produced and this controversie is at an end The contrary thereunto hath all along been manifest in this present dâ—scourse It cannot enter into our hearts to imagin that the Lord Jesus having instituted Officers of his own for the management of affairs in his house should ordain that any of his houshold should attend upon the Ministry of such as are not of his institution as hath been abundantly demonstrated touching the present Ministers of England that they are not nor is it by many pleaded as their duty so to do but onely as their liberty which they judge they may or they may not do without sin Answ. What warrant there is to hear the present Ministers of England hath been shewed and that which hath been produced to the contrary examined especially ch 1. 2. The institution of Christ concerning Ministers and what concerns their calling hath been also discussed especially in answer to the preface and the 2 chapter in which places is shewed that warrant by permission is sufficient to justify the hearing of Ministers that the positive precept for hearing determins not hearing of Ministers as thus called but as teaching the word of God that such election and ordination as this Author requires are not necessary to make make men instituted officers of Christ that while the present Ministers preach the word of God the Saints may and ought to attend on their ministery and that they are not bound to examine their outward calling but to leave that to Rulers and themselves only to examin their doctrine that they may as lawfully attend on their ministry if edifying them in the faith as on the ministers of a gathered congregation that they ought rather in obedience to Rulers and to avoid Schism and to prevent the intangling of themselves with private and novel opinions which are more easily vented in private meetings then in publique and more readily entertaineâ— by private persons few of whom are learned and judicious than in more publique and solemn auditories to hear ministers that preach the truth in publique congregations caeteris paribus if their abilities and faithfulness be alike than to hear ministers in gathered churches privately meeting And with these explications I asseâ—t it not onely the Saints liberty but also their duty to attend upon the ministry of the present Ministers of England It follows Sect. 8. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers 2. That for the Saints such as are visibly so profess themselves to be such to hear the present Ministers of England is an Offence Grief Scandal and occasion of stumbling to their Brethren This is too evident to be denyed to how many thousands in England for whom those that as yet attend upon the present Ministry thereof dare not but think Christ dyed is the practice of some herein a Grief Scandal and occasion of stumbling Their Groanes and Tears alone and together upon this foot of account will better demonstrate the truth thereof than our words can Yea how many poor souls have been drawn by reason
of the practice of some leading bretheren in this matter against the checks of their own consciences to a conformity herein to their after grief and wounding Vpon whose doors 't is to be feared and we wish they would in the fear of God lay it to heart may be written The bloud of souls Answ. The term of visible Saints hath been too much contracted by being almost appropriated to the members of those Churches which are termed Congregational in contradistinction to Presbyterial and Prelatical or if applyed to any of the more zealous of the Presbyterial way of disciplin yet scarce vouchsafed to any of them who are for Episcopal government or conformable to the worship and ministry of the Church of England who are commonly termed Antichristian persons without in Babylon and for men to profess thâ—mselves visible Saints is in effect all one as to say they are of a gathered Church all others being counted without Which abuse of words as it smels of arrogance in appropriating to themselves the title which is common to all true believers and uncharitableness in conceiving of others as no visible Saints because they are not entered into that which is termed Church covenant so is it injurious to others though godly from whom such are estranged as no visible Saints but they are censured and declined as persons without that have nothing in them of God yea as adversaries to the power of Godliness meer formalists if they speak for the common-prayer book or any thing favourably of any of the Bishops and this serves for a design of keeping them to themselves without joyning in prayer and hearing in publique which they call hearing with the world out of the Church This I conceive to be the reason of this Authors expressions here of the saints visibly so scandalizing their bretheren by their hearing the Ministers that now preach publickly By which it may be seen that he regards not much who do hear the present ministers of England so that they do not as if it were not necessary to deterre all others from hearing them if they be false Prophets and Idolaters as this Author accuseth them yea and to oppose them even unto the death if they be such so that this argument is unnecessary if the other be good and rather supposeth all that is formerly disputed to be weak yet this point of scandal may serve turn to affright them from communion with the publique Ministery and keep them to themselves though it prove never so injurious to their peace and outward estate and sinful by reason of the Schism that is continued by it For this reason I shall examin this Argument also as it is here delivered and so much the rather because I have found by experience that when in this and other doubts of conscience I have in conference with honest but scrupulous christians satisfied them concerning the lawfulness of that which they doubted of yet in this I could hardly quiet their consciences that they might do without sin what they scrupled to do because they should offend good people the scandalizing of whom our Saviour and the Apostle Paul make a hainous sin and procuring an heavy curse For which reason I printed the treatise of scandalizing forementioned more then twenty years ago in the epistle dedicatory whereof are these words In my small reading and experience I finde few doubts of conscience concerning mens patent actions in the resolving of which the difficulty hath not most of all rested on this point of Scandal At present I shall not open the word scandal nor insist on the definition of Scandal nor the sorts of scandalizing or causes of it or the various cases concerning it leaving the Reader to that Treatise or to what else hath been since written by D. Henry Hammond of scandal Ma. Henry Jeanes of abstinence from appearance of evil and others for a fuller understanding of this point but assert that notwithstanding what is here said of the offence of brethren and the sad consequence of blood guiltiness which this Author would have it conceived the hearing the present Ministers tends to yet neither the so termed visible Saints nor any other by hearing the present Ministers do sin against the precepts of non-scandalizing given by Christ or his Aposte St. Paul Matth. 18.6 Luke 17.1 2 Rom. 14.13.15.20 1 Cor. 8.8.9.13 and 10 24. Which I prove thus 1. That is not scandalizing forbidden in these texts which is neither by giving evil example in doing that which is intrinsecally or of it self evil though none were offended nor by enticing practices or persecution impelling to evil nor by abuse of liberty in things lawful to the harm of another which are all the wayes I know of scandalizing there forbidden if there be any other shewed I think however it will not reach to the present case that which this Author seems to reduce it to is the last in that he puts in a Parenthesis in the minor these words there is no positive precept in Scriptures for it But it is not to be reduced to that sort of scandalizing for the hearing of the present Ministers of England cannot be accounted a matter of liberty or indifferency but either duty or sin hearing the word of God being an express precept in the general and so is obeying them that are Rulers now the ministers preaeh the word of God and our Rulers command us to hear them and this they have power to do and in this they have power over their subjects as parents have over their children and masters over their servants and are to be obeyed in that which is not evil but good and therefore the scandalizing is not by abuse of liberty in things indifferent nor is it scandalizing in doing a thing in it self evil or impelling to it as hath been shewed in the foregoing chapters of this answer Therefore the offending Bretheren what ever it be by hearing the present ministers is not the scandalizing forbidden 2. That is not Scandalizing forbidden in those Texts which doth not tend to any of those evils for preventing of which those precepts of not scandalizing were given But the hearing of the present Ministers tends not to any of those evils for prevenâ—ing whereof those precepts of not scandalizing were given This is proved because it tends not to any sin but to the performance of duty in hearing Gods word nor to any such sorrow or vexation as the precepts would have prevented which were such as made either persons to be discouraged in Christianity or to walk uncomfortably in the profession of it as by view of the Texts may appear But to neither of these effects doth the hearing of the present Minister tend This Author saith It makes visible Saints to grieve as their grones and tears alone and together demonstrate But how doth the Hearing the present Ministers tend to it Sure neither in the nature of the action noâ— in the will of him that hears if the person
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 Yet further 5. Consider on which side the Cross lies which the flesh and fleshly interest is most opposite to whether in going or forbearing to goe to hear these men Vsually that is the way of God that hath most of the Cross in it and the flesh is most strugling and contesting against But thus much of the 7th Argument Answ. If the case be granted as is suggested the same Argument which proves it unlawful to hear the present Ministers proves it unlawful not to hear them unless omission may not be said to scandalize which is contrary to Matth. 17.27 No serious and strict search of men can find what lies at the bottom of mens conformity till God discover it It is not fit to insinuate conceits of others which beget evil surmises in us of them true charity believeth all things 1 Cor. 13.7 It is a fruit of malignity to say I am very apt to believe what may beget evil prejudice in me or another towards a Brother But what if there were an embracing a Toleration if granted This would only shew That they did not tye themselves to the present ministry not that then or now they hold it unlawful to hear them nor that their hearing is only to avoid offence but for other reasons conjunct with it which may be lawfully aimed at in the same act Sure it is not evil in doing that which is lawful to arm at our own peace and other outward advantage besides the avoiding of offence If a man were disposed to retaliate it might perhaps be told this Author that perhaps somewhat else lay at the bottom besides his not offending the Lambs of Christ that he did separate heretofore it may be credit preferment power and gain lay that way it may be adherence to a party interest in their affections that I say no more retains him still in this way Yet would he take this ill and why he should do to other what he would not they should do to him I see no cause Christ taught otherwise Matth. 7.1 2 3 4 5 12. But to the question I answer It is their duty to hear the present Ministers while they preach the Gospel or Word of God And though by immediate precept a man is not bound to hear this or that particular Minister of this or that way of Church-government or perswasion but is at liberty to choose as may be all things considered for his conveniency yet if other things concurr he ought to hear such as the providence of God hath placed over him or near his habitation though he be not chosen by himself to be his Pastour which I think may be proved from 1 Thâ—s 5.12 Heb. 13.17 John 10 27 Mark 4.23 How we are to avoid Scandalizing our Brethren is shewed above But it favours of Schism to appropriate the term Brethren to Christians of our perswasion or of our society Who exceed in number holiness spirituality and tenderness is a hard thing to determine Vivorum difficilis est censura Who can tell what measure of these qualifications there is in them that are living Who can point out who are such who not Who can tell what men may prove for all their fair shews How is it possible for this Author or any other to number them compare weigh them in an upright ballance May not those be more carnal yea very hypocrites which he counts spiritual Saints Are not he and all others specially of his way of separation most apt to magifie those who jump with him in his way and to disparage dissenters Are not the sincere Lambs of Christ oftentimes carried away with false shews and partial affections and wrong reports What a Lesbian leaden rule doth this Author then give whose offence is to be avoided rather than anothers Yea the rule is against his scope For if those non-hearers be such holy spiritual persons as he makes them there is the less danger of offending them Yet I dare not grant it they are The experience the world hath had of the Brethren of the Congregational way hath yet given us no such assurance of their surpassing holiness but that they have been many of them caâ—nal and walked as men Have not they even some of the prime leaders of them shewed as much passion pride covetousness self-seeking and other sinister affections as others of different wayes Sure Hildersham Ball Bradshaw Gataker and many other who have opposed the way of Separation of old and of late have given as much proof of their holiness spirituality and tenderness as Johnson Ainsworth Robinson and others in Old or New England or Holland have done Nor do I think any of the Congregational way have exceeded I will not say the martyr'd Bishops in Q. Maries dayes but even late Bishops Vsher Bedel Potter and others of the Prelatical Ministers and Churches in holiness spirituality and tenderness Let the Reader pardon my just indignation at this rotten and stinking course of puffing up his own party and disparaging dissenters which can never tend to clear truth and beget righteous judgements in men but to delude men with specious pretences and â—oment divisions Non est ex personis fides aestimanda sed ex fide persona said Tertullian Truth is not to be measured by the persons but the persons by truth If we must know our duty by this Authors rule we must leave studying the holy Scripture and study men Every weak Christian must take upon him an impossible task to weigh two parties in an upright ballance one offended at hearing the present Ministers and the other for not hearing them and both being conceived godly and sober Christians judge which party is most numerous holy spiritual and tender Nor is the next direction much better It supposeth that they who conform whether Ministers or hâ—arers blame the Separatists that they do not build up in practice in a day of trouble what in a day of liberty they did in their preaching and practice pull down and destroy and thereby cause the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme and that this is the ground of the offence on the one side That thâ—y are disobedient to what they are satisfied and the Conformists Ministers or hearers of them or both once were that God is calling them to have nothing to do with to separate from this generation of men and that this is the ground of the offence on the other side and that the ground of the offence is more just on the side of these later These words are aenigmatical and require an Oâ—dipus to unriddle them However this I conceive is his meaning That the godly and sober Christians have no reason to be offended at him and others of his
Prelatical Preachers as well as to those of the separated Churches while they Preach the same word of God the promise being not made to the hearing of the men because of their personal qualities their Church-relation or any such consideration extrinsecal to the faithful discharge of the work of Preaching but to the teaching of Gods word in hearing of which men have been blessed though the Teachers themselves had no blessing the hearers have been saved when the Preachers themselves have been castaways as S. Paul speaks And if we look to experience of former times there is ground now to expect a blessing froâ— conforming Preachers as well or rather more then from Preachers of the separated Churches Sure the conversion consolation strengthening establishing of souls in the truth haâ—h been more in England from Preachers who were enemies to separation whether Non-conformists to Ceremonies or Conformists Presbyterial or Episcopal even from Bishops themselves then from the best of the Separaratists I think all that are acquainted with the History of things in this last age will acknowledge that more good hath been to the souls of men by the Preaching of Usher Potter Abbot Jewel and some other Bishops by Preston Sibs Taylour Whately Hildersham Ball Perkins Dod Stock and many thousands adversaries to the separated Churches then ever was done by Ainsworth Johnson Robinson rigid Separatists or Cotton Thomas Hooker and others though men of precious memory promoters of the way of the Churches Congregational And therefore if the Bishops and conforming Preachers now apply themselves as we hope when the heat of contention is more allayed they will to the profitable way of Preaching against Popery and profaneness exciting auditors to the life of faith in Christ duties of holiness towards God not onely in publique but also in private Families and righteousness love peace towards men there may be as good ground if not better considering how much the spirits of Separatists are for their party and the speaking of the truth in love edifying in love is necessary to the growth of the body Ephes. 4.15 16. to expect by them a blessing in promoting the power of godliness than from Separatists And as for this Authours reasons to the contrary The first of them is from a fond application of what is said of Gods dwelling in Sion which is meant of the special presence there in that his Temple and service was upon that hill in the time of the old Testament to the Congregational Churches as if Gods blessing were appropriated to them and excluded from the Assemblies of England they were not the Sion of God in their present constitution nor Christs Candlestick or Garden in which he walks but a wilderness that Babel Revel 18.4 And saith we are not surer of any thing than we are of this which if true it is an article of his Creed of which he is as sure as that Jesus is the Christ. But he gives no proof of it to assure us of it but that we may take him to be phrenetick or to be in a dream and notwithstanding his confidence he can make no better proof of this then the Romanists can for the new Article of their Creed Subesse Romano Pontifici est de necessitate ad salutem It is indeed said Heb. 12.22 That the Hebrew Christians were come to mount Sion in opposition to mount Sinai that is to say say the Annot. to the Church under the Gospel as Gal. 4.26 whereof mount Sion was a Type Psal. 14.7 50.20 Esa 2.3 and where the Gospel was first proclaimed without that terrour wherewith the Law was delivered Esa. 2.3 But why the Assemblies of England should not be the Sion of God as well as the separated Churches no reason is given but the vain conceit that of late he and others have entertained of appropriating that title to Churches of their way whose maintenance of Ministers by Collection they call the provision of Sion Psal. 132.15 in opposition to maintenance by Tithes counted Babylonish with such like language whereby many well-meaning Christians of weak judgement are misled Sure if the Church be called mount Sion from the Preaching of the Gospel the Assemblies of England may be called Sion Christs Candlesticks and Garden as well as any Christians in the world and if the Constitution of Churches is by faith their Constitution is as good as the Constitution of the separated Churches And methinks the separated Churches which have consisted of persons converted and instructed and edified in the Assemblies of the Church of England should have acknowledged that Gods blessing may be in them their own calling therein proving it if there were any spark of ingenuity and love of truth in them and not as this Authour express such malignity as to make them a very wilderness and that Babel out of which the Lord commands his people to hasten their escape Revel 18.4 which how grossly it hath been abused by this Authour sundry times before hath been shewed for which I now onely say The Lord rebuke thee As for the second reason the worship of England is no more polluted and not of his appointment then I have shewed to have been in the Jewish Corinthian some of the Asian Churches whom Christ yet walked in the midst of as his golden Candlesticks and yet Gods blessing did belong to them And why should we not expect Gods blessing to be on the Assemblies of England in which the true faith is preached and the true worship of God is constituted notwithstanding errours or pollutions remaining in them That Jer. 23.32 is wrongfully applied to the present Ministers of England is shewed before in answer to Ch. 6. Sect. 2. And how shamefully mirum ni contra conscientiam Revel 18.4 is applied to a call of Gods people out of the Church of England when it is by the holy Ghost interpreted Revel 17.18 of that great City which then reigned over the Kings of the earth and acknowledged by Papists the Jesuites themselves to be Rome hath been often shewed before In his last reason that which he saith That God is not in respect of his special presence and grace in the midst of the Parochial Assemblies of England is a speech of a man of an uncharitable venemous spirit but we hope such as that which Solomon speaks of Prov. 26.2 As the bird by wandring as the swallow by flying so the curse causeless shall not come And to his question Where are the souls that are converted comforted strengthened stablished that are waiting at the doors of their house I say that though there were none such yet this proves not God not to be present in them if they complain of the little effect of their Preaching is it any other then we meet with elsewhere Isa. 49.4 Isa. 53.1 John 12.38 Rom. 10.16 Isa. 65.2 Rom. 10.21 Micah 7.1 2. Luke 7.31 32 33 34. Matth 23.37 May they not say That these very men that upbraid them with the paucity
preaching of the Gospel though 't was preached out of envy Phil. 1.15 16. To which briefly 1. There may be cause of rejoycing in respect of the issue and event of things by the wise providence of God though the means used for their production be evil and not to be abetted or complyed with In what have Christians greater cause of rejoycing than in the death of Christ yet had it been utterly unlawfull to have joyn'd in counsel with or any wayes abetted or encouraged those wicked persons that Crucified and slew him Should the Pope send some Jesuits into any remote parts of Africa to preach the Gospel to the poor Indians there here were upon some accounts ground of rejoycing yet no ground for Saints to attend upon a Jesuitical Ministry But 2ly It appears not that these Paul speaks of were not true Gospel Ministers and so it reacheth not the case in hand This being that we have proved the Ministers of England guilty of viz. and acting in the holy things of God without any commission from Christ which when our dissenting brethren prove they have we shall easily acknowledge the lawfullness of attending upon their Ministry 3ly It follows not in the least that these the Apostle speaks of were either not real Saints or not true Ministers of Christ because they are said to preach him out of envy the object whereof was not Christ for had they envyed him they would never have preached him but Paul thinking sayes he to add afflictions to my bonds which is consistent with grace and a lawfull mission to the preaching of the Gospel Yet 4ly Here is not in this Scripture the least word requiring Christians to hear them That because Paul rejoyces at their preaching therefore 't is the duty of Saints to attend upon their Ministry is such a non-sequitur as will never be made good I reply nor needs it the lawfulness to hear the present Ministers of England not the duty of the Saints to attend upon their Ministers being the thing in question and therefore it is sufficient for my purpose if I prove hence the lawfulness of hearing them though I should not prove it the Saints duty to attend on their Ministry Which I conceive may be done by this argument They in whose preaching of Christ we may rejoyce though they should not preach Christ sincerely but in pretence out of envy not good will out of contention thinking to add affliction to other Ministers bonds may be heard by the Saints lawfully But the Saints may rejoyce in the present Ministers of England their preaching of Christ though they should not preach Christ sincerely but in pretence out of envy not good will out of contention thinking to add affliction to other Ministers bonds Therefore the Saints may hear the present Ministers of England lawfully The major is grounded on this that the thing we may rejoyce in is good for which we may thank God and consequently hear which is agreeable to that of the Prophets Esai 52.7 Nahum 1.15 applyed by the Apostle Rom. 10.15 to the preaching of the Gospel who he supposeth are to be welcomed and heard The minor is proved from the Apostles example Phil. 1.15 16 17.18 That preaching of Christ that is no other then St. Paul rejoyced in and professed he would rejoyce in the Saints now may rejoyce in though it be not sincerely but in pretence out of envy not good will out of contention to add affliction to other Ministers bonds But such is the preaching Christ by the present Ministers ergo the Saints may rejoyce in it The major is not to be denyed unless it be shewed that the Apostle did evil in so rejoycing The minor is manifest in that no other exception is taken against their preaching then such as with as great reason might have nullified the joy of St. Paul in that which moved him to rejoyce In a word though personal defects and miscarriages were in the preaching of Christ yet the thing it self being good and occasioning the magnifying of Christ it is and should be matter of joy to all that love Christ. To this Argument I find the Author of the Pamphlet intituled prelatical preachers none of Christs teachers p. 45. answering thus that preaching of Christ is not to be rejoyced in without limitation because of these texts Mark 1.24 25. Luke 4.34 35.41 Acts 16.18 Acts 15.1 Gal. 5.2 4.12 Phil. 3.2 3. Acts 20.29 Psal. 50.16.18 But he sets not down the limitation he would gather thence only it may seâ—m by the texts that we are not to rejoyce in the confession of Christ or his servants by the Devils when the necessity of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses for justification is taught when hypocrites take Gods law into their mouths by professing or declaring of it but hate to be reformed Which we grant but say all these texts and the limitation thence deducible are impertinent to the present argument for as much as these do not preach Christ. Nor saith that Author in propriety and strictness of speech can Christ be said to be preached by a prelatical Ministry they justifie them that deny Christ to be the sole law-giver of his Church and so make him an Idol Which to be false is shewed in the answer to the 5th chapter of this treatise Yet saith that Author p. 46. In case such a Minister as this that preacheth by the Bishops licence should in his Doctrine or Sermon affirm Jesus Christ to be the sole law-giver unto his Churches yet in and by his very act of preaching he should deny it should the Apostle rejoyce in that preaching of Christ which is a denying him An horrible speech of monstrous absurdity and impudent malice I should not say so much of such preaching though it were by the Popes licence or the Devils instigation For though I should not rejoyce in the motive or impulsive cause by which it is done yet I would not so censure the thing it self as a denying of Christ. But how the receiving of a license from a Protestant Bishop to preach the Gospel within his Diocess and preaching there by vertue of it according to the order established by the law of the land should be a denying of Christs legislative power is to me incomprehensible and to use that Authors phrasifying the first born of absurdities I should rejoyce and bless God to obtain such power upon justifiable conditions But to our Author His First answer is not to the purpose For rejoycing in the Ministers preaching of Christ or those that preached out of envy is not a rejoycing in the good event by evil means but in a good event by good means the preaching Christ is a good thing in which the Apostle and we rejoyce and the effect is good although the motive and end of the preachers be evil The putting of Christ to death was in it self evil and not to be rejoyced in though the effect of it be good and to be
rejoyced in no way was the acting of Pilate or Herod or the Jewes to be abetted but to be abhorred though the Counsel of God was to be justified and extolled as was done Acts 4.24 c. Should the Pope send Jesuites to preach the Gospel and they should continue to preach it and no doctrine antievangelical I know no reason why the Saints might not attend on their Ministry To the 2 d. 3 d. and 4 th Answers I reply That the preaching of Christ in opposition to Paul makes it probable that they were not real Saints nor true Ministers in his sence such motives being contrary to that brotherly love which is in every real Saint 1 John 3.14 and that order of the Church by which is a lawfull mission which me thinks he should not conceive to have been in them that acted in a way of contention against St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles And for the Ministers of England I like better the words of Mr. Iohn Robinson in his Justification of the Separation p. 307. then these Authors words In the general I confess there is a proportion and so in that general and large sence wherein Mr. Bernard pag. 313. expounds the word sent or Apostle I do acknowledge many Ministers in England sent of God that is that it comes not to pass without the special providence and Ordination of God that such and such men should rise up and preach such and such truths for the furtherance of the Salvation of Gods elect in the places where they come They which preached Christ of envy and strife to add more afflictions to the Apostles bonds were in this respect sent of God and therefore it was that the Apostle joyed at their preaching How much more they that preach of a sincere mind though through ignorance or infirmity both their place and enterance into it be most unwarrantable And sure if they may in this sense be said to be sent of God it follows Saints may hear them which was to be proved It is added Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach warrants the hearing of them Object 4. The Ministers of England preach truth and is it not lawfull to hear truth preached We answer 1. That 't is lawfull to hear truth preached is readily granted but this must be done lawfully and in the way of Christs appointment 2. All that preach truth are not to be heard nor will our discenting brethren say they are For 1. There was never yet any Heretical preacher in the world but he preached some truth is it lawfull to hear such This will not be said 2. The Devil himself preached truth yet Christ forbids him and commands that he hold his peace 3. The Popish Priests preach truth yet who will say 't is lawfull to attend upon their Ministry But 3. As the present Ministers of England preach truth so 1. They preach it but by halves and dare not for fear of the L. Bishops inhibition preach any doctrine though never so clearly revealed in the Scriptures and owned by them as the truth of Christ he commands them not to meddle with 2. The main truths they preach at least many of them are contradicted in their practice They 'l tell you that the Lord Jesus is the great Prophet and King of his Church but how palpably this is contradicted by them in their practice conforming to institutions and laws that are not of his prescription who sees not This we have abundantly demonstrated 3. With the truth they preach they mingle errours directly contrary to the Scripture and the revelation of his will therein Instances of this kind have been already exhibited to which may be added many more we shall mention but a few 1. That the Ministry Worship and Government which Christ hath appointed to his Church is not to be received or joyned unto unless the Magistrates where they are reputed Christian do allow it 2. That the Apocryphal books which have in them errors 2 Mac. 12.44 45. 14.41 42. Eccles. 46.20 Wisd. 19.11 untruths 2 Esd. 14.21 22 23. 2 Mac. 2.4.8 Tob. 5.11 12 13. with 12.15 Judith 8.33 10.9 with v. 12. 11.6.12 13 14 15. 1 Mac. 9.3.18 with 2 Mac. 1.13 to 17. and 9.1.5.7.9.28.29 blasphemy Tobit 12.12.15 with Rom. 8.34 1 Tim. 2.5 Rev. 8.3.4 magick Tob. 6.6 7 8. 9.2.3 with 3.7 8. 11.10 11 13. with 2.9 10. and contradiction to the Canonical Scriptures Judith 9.2 3 4. compared with Gen. 49.5 6 7. Esther in the Apocrypha chap. 12.5 15.9 10. with Ester Canonical chap. 6.3 5.2 Eccles. 46.20 with Isa. 57. 2. may be used in the publick worship of God 3. That the most wicked and their seed may be compelled and received to be members of the Church 4. That Marriage may be forbidden at certain seasons as in Lent Advent Rogation-week c. 5. That Baptism is to be administred with a cross in the forehead and that as a symbolical sign 6. That though the most notorious obstinate offenders be partakers of the Lords Supper yet the people that joyn with them are not defiled thereby 7. That there may be Holy days appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist to the Apostles all Saints and Angels together also with Fasts on their Eves on Ember-days Fridays Saturdays so called heathenishly enough and Lent 8. That the Cope Surplice Tippit Rocket c. are meet and decent ornaments for the worship of God and Ministry of the Gospel 6. That the Book of Common-prayer is the true worship of God 10. That Christ descended into hell as if Christ descended into the place of the damned as the Papists hold 11. That Lord Bishops can give the holy Ghost and power to forgive and retain sins 12. That Altars Candles Organs c. are necessary and useful in the Church of God 13. That all children when baptized are regenerate and received by the Lord for his own children by adoption Common-prayer-book of publick Baptism Yea 14. That children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation and shall undoubtedly be saved So they profess in the Order of Conformation in the Common-prayer-book with much more that might be offered in this matter I reply 1. The grant That it is lawfull to hear truth preached is sufficient to prove it lawful to hear the present Ministers preach truth which he denies not they do unless he could prove it were contrary to the way of Christ's appointment to hear the truth from them 2. All that preach some truth are not to be heard yet all that preach the great truths of the Gospel notwithstanding some errours non-fundamental may be heard especially if the errours be seldom or never pressed on the hearers but left to them to examine and to be approved or disproved Heretical Preachers are not to be heard because they preach not the great truths of the Gospel but errours which overthrow the foundation so do the Popish Priests yet it were no sin to hear
either of these speak truth The Devils we are to have no communion with God having put an utter enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman 3. If the present Ministers of England preach truth but by halves it is lawful to hear them preach those halfs The Bishops allow them to preach all truths needful to salvation all that is contained in the Creed Lords Prayer and Ten Commandments in the 39 Articles the two Tomes of Homilies nor are men inhibited in Schools or Convocations or at some times in books published in Latine to discover any truths of God so it be done without disturbance or other evil consequence That some truths needful to be known are not permitted to be published to the vulgar auditories may have the same reason as Christ had for not acquainting his disciples with many things he had to say to them because they could not then bear them John 16.12 Some things may seem very clearly revealed in the Scriptures to some and be owned by them which are pernicious as that the Saints have all right to government that they are to smite the civil powers as part of the fourth Monarchy that justified persons are not under the command of the moral Law some disputable as about the thousand years reign That God cannot forgive sins without satisfaction to his justice Church-constitution Covenant Government and many more which it is agreeable to the Apostles rule Rom. 14.1 their practice Acts 15.28 not to vent in all sorts of auditories and if the Bishops do restrain Preachers especially those that are young raw injudicious but violent and apt to cause division they do agreeably to the Apostles rule to the example of all Churches where Government is not popular which breeds confusion yea I think the Separatists have found by experience some restraint necessary and that the universal liberty of Conscience or of prophesying as it is termed is intolerable and if Bishops who are men and may be more rigid then they should hold the reins in too hard yet there is no reason why the people should refuse to hear that truth which is necessary and sufficient to salvation because they cannot hear every truth which perhaps out of faction or a childish inconstancy or having itching ears they desire to know As for what is said about the Ministers contradicting their preaching by their practice it is answered before in the Answer to the 5 th Chapter And yet were it granted their personal evils are not sufficient to make the hearing of the truth unlawful to the hearers As for the errours they are said to mingle with the truths they teach they are not such as overthrow the foundation if they were errours and taught by them and therefore this is no sufficient reason why they may not be heard preaching necessary truths Yet to shew the futility of this allegation I shall consider each of the supposed errours The first I doubt not they will deny and require this Authour to prove it For the second it is not for ought I know preached by any of the Ministers That the Apocryphal books which have in them errours may be used in the publick worship of God nor do I think if they should so do could it well consist with their subscription to the sixth Article of the Confession of the Church of England which excludes them out of the Canon of holy Scriptures which contain all things necessary to salvation and saith The Church as Hierome saith doth read them for example of life and instructions of manners but yet doth it not apply them to stablish any doctrine And what Dr. Rainold the Bishop of Durham that now is with many of the English Protestant and conforming Divines have written about the Apocryphal Books is sufficient to clear the present Ministers from suspicion of complying with the Papists who according to the Decree of the Trent Council ses quarta put most of them though they leave out some of them into the Catalogue of sacred Books containing that truth and discipline of the Gospel which is saving and to be preached to every creature and receive and venerate them with equal affection of piety and reverence as other books of holy scripture And although the passages alleaged by this Authour are liable to exception nor do I think it fit for me to justifie or excuse them yet this I say to shew there is not a sufficient reason to withdraw from hearing the present Ministers preaching or praying 1. Some of the books are not appointed to be read at all 2. Some of those that are appointed to be read are capable of an easier censure and better construction then is put upon them by this Authour 3. That those which are not so capable of excuse yet are appointed to be read on such days and in such places as those that alleadge this for a reason of not hearing the present Ministers need not be present 4. That it was once resolved as lawful by Dr. George Abbot after Archbishop of Canterbury in his answer to Dr. Hill the Papist p. 317. from the Preface to the second Tome of the Homilies for the Minister instead of the Apocryphal books to read some other part of the Canonical Scripture of the old Testament Which things being considered there seems not for this to be a sufficient reason of not hearing the present Ministers or charging them as this Authour doth The third errour I conceive they will deny to be their tenent But concerning this and the 4th 5th 6â—â— 8th 9th 11th errours so much hath been said before chiefly in the answer to the 5 th 6 th 7 th chapters of this book that I need not here make a particular answer concerning each of these severally yet I say the things are not matters of the Ministers Doctrine however they be of their practice and therefore cannot be a reason of not hearing their Sermons And they who make this a sufficient reason not to hear or to pray or receive the Lords Supper with a person by reason of some errour he holds or teacheth or some undue practice on Gods worship or conversation with other men go against all rules and examples in holy Scripture and approved Christians and such a one must suppose Preachers infallible every Communicant unblameable or each Christian to have power to excommunicate if the person faulty be not amended upon his reproof that he must know what Tenents his Teacher holds and what is the conversation of each Communicant ere he can warrantably hear the one or communicate with the other Which with sundry other superstitious conceits or unnecessary scruples put an intolerable burden upon mens consciences and will as well prove withdrawing from the Ministers and Churches Congregational necessary as from the Conformists As for the 7th errour it will be denied by them to be their Tenent that there may be Holy days appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist c. For though they
that are erroneous if they try them they may hear pretenders prophesying if they prove it much more those Ministers who preach the truth it is each Christians duty to try their doctrine nor their sin to hear their Sermons 29. This Authour himself ch 2. in the words before cited alowed the hearing of gifted brethren though not solemnly invested into office nor do I think he would think it unlawful to hear Parents or Masters Catechize or Readers in the University when they read Divinity Lectures or dispuâ—e in Divinity Schools and therefore by a like reason must allow the hearing of such Ministers who Preach the Gospel and are found in the faith and are regularly ordained according to the discipline of that Church in which they live and are taken for true Ministers by the godly and learned at home and the most able and pious Pastours and brethren of the Reformed Churches abroad 30. The reasons of this Authour and other Separatists against hearing the present Ministers may be retorted against themselves Mr. William Bradshaw having answered Mr. Francis Johnsons Arguments to prove this conclusion It is not lawful to hear or have any spiritual communion with the present Ministry of the Church-assemblies of England added Reasons or Arguments tending to prove That it is a sin to separate from the publick Ministry of the Church-assemblies of England directly contrary to Mr. Johnsons own Reasons and usually in that regard made in the same mood and figure which are to be seen in the unreasonableness of the separation p. 126. c. Printed 1640. in Mr. Gatakers Rejoynder against the Reply of Mr. John Canne And as for this Authours 12. Arguments it were no hard matter to prove That the Ministers of the separated Churches are not to be heard by some if not by all the middle terms he hath used to prove That the present Ministers of the Church of England are not to be heard As for instance That they come not in by the door but climb another way by usurping Ministry without any regular Ordination by other Ministers That they walk disorderly in separating themselves from true Churches they have Antichristian names or titles in being called Masters That they deny Christs Offices in submitting to and imposing Orders or Ordinances about worship not appointed by Christ as Church-covenant Paedobaptism c. That they are false prophets that deny them to be true Churches of Christ who hold the faith of Christ That some commands of the Ceremonial Law of Moses are Rules to us Christians That they are Babylon and Antichristian in their constitution and their practice in dividing from other Churches not submitting to their Teachers those who have begotten them through the Gospel without any well setled order among themselves that they therefore long agree not but crumble into many small companies and sometimes take them to be members of their Churches who dwell in remote places so that their gathered Churches extend as far some times as a Bishops Diocess that they ascribe the power of the keys to the whole Church confound Governours and Governed allow men not set apart to that function to teach publickly and that frequently if not constantly those to take upon them to prophesie who are no Prophets That they scandalize their brethren their Governours by their invectives That they partake of the sins of others in allowing them to usurp that power which Christ hath not committed to them That they cast contempt upon the ways of Christ to wit the Prayers and Preaching of the Ministers of the Church of England That they go to the places of false worship as Mr. Iohn Paget in his Arrow against the Separatists proves against Ainsworth that they cannot expect a blessing from God upon their separation it having no promise of God but is against the union that should be among Christians That it is a step to Apostacy is a forsaking of the assembly of the Saints to refuse to hear the present Ministers and to joyn in Prayers with them and too much experience hath proved what backsliding if not to Popery yet to other errours of Antinomians Familists Quakers Seekers Ranters hath been the fruit of Separation But I forbear recrimination and touching the sore which I rather desire may be healed and that our breaches may be made up and not widened to which this Authours reasonings tend 31. The grounds upon which this Authour and other Separatists deny the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers are either false or doubtful as That nothing is to be done in the worship of God and Church-discipline without a particular institution That onely a Congregational Church is of Christs institution That a true Ministry cannot be in a false Church That a prescibed form of prayer by men is unlawful That we may not use any thing in Gods worship which hath been composed by Popes or used in the Church of Rome with many more whereof many are shewed in this answer to be false or uncertain and insufficient for this Authours separation and the fallacy of them manifested in so many other Treatises of Conformists and non-conformists extant in Print that I need not add any more in this place 32. On the other side the Ministers of the Church of England have so sufficiently proved the truth of their Ministry against Papists and Separatists and so firmly by wrirting and otherwise opposed Popery even the Prelates whom the Separatists do so much cry down as Antichristian Popish c. that were not men resolved never to lay down a calumny they have once taken up they would lay this down and forbear pressing separation upon such exceptions and imputations as this Authour hath gathered together in this his dung-cart to furnish the inconsiderate though perhaps otherwise well-minded in matters of Religion to cast into their faces 33 If it be not lawful to hear the present Ministers because they are not rightly Elected Ordained in and by a Congregational Church according to Christs institution as this Authour conceives or because they use the Common-prayer-book are faulty in their lives or some evil consequences as offence of some Saints contempts of some ways of God by accident ensue thereupon then it will follow that every hearer before he hears a Minister must 1. be able to judge of the validity of these Reasons whether they can warrant his not hearing 2. He must be able to judge every Minister or Preacher he hears whether he be rightly thus Elected Ordained or qualified 3. He must actually examine him afore he hears him 4. He must have power either to silence or withdraw from him if he be not so qualified and must use that power But 1. Such ability is not in every hearer nor indeed is it as the estate of things in this life is ordinarily possible it should be 2. Then Ministers Preaching and Ministry should be at the will of their Auditors For if one may forbear hearing all may upon the same reason and so