act as Ministers of Christ when they prophesie for the edifying the Body of Christ by vertue of any Office-power so that they need not any such Election What follows is a Rhapsody of words that the ingenuous Reader knows proves nothing introduced to cast the â—dium of Irreligion-upon the men of his Contest The best is the Nation knows him to be at least in this matter a false Accuser He tells us 3dly That it may be doubted whether Christ be meant by the Door John 10. 1. Answ But why it should be doubted when Christ expresly tells us v. 9. that He is the Door I cannot tell That the Door v. 1 v. 9. is not the same Door is not probable and less probable that by the Door v. 9. should be meant the Scriptures of the Prophets who although they foretold of Christ yet can in no sense that I know of be said to be the Door through which he entred But this he is unwilling to abide by He adds 4ly That if the door be the same Joh. 10. 1 9. the entering in v. 9 cannot be entring into the Ministry by the lawful election of a particular Church for then it would follow that every one that so enters in shall be saved but that is manifestly false Answ 1. But if by saved he mean everlastingly saved this doth not at all follow he knows right well that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not alwayes to be restrained to such a signification 2ly The whole expression he shall be saved and shall go in and out and find pasture seems to intimate no more than this that he may expect the blessing of God with him the defence of God upon him in his Ministry that thus enters into it according to his mind according to Deut. 28. 6. So the Assembly Beza c. interpret the words which I think is so far from being manifestly false that nothing is more true Of immediate Calls to the Ministry and the wayes whereby men may prove themselves to be so called I shall not now turn aside to speak nor in what sense I asserted that persons receiving Commission immediatly from Christ to preach the Gospel will never be made good without the working of miracles it not being pleaded as I know of that the present Ministers have any such Commission nor do they pretend to it Of Petrus Waldo and other Reformers I think as honourably as this Animadverter They were worthy and eminent witnesses for Christ in their day no small part of their Testimony was against the Abominations pleaded for by Mr. T. in his Theodulia They admited nothing into their Church but what is written in the Bible no Decrees no Epistles Decretals nor the Legends of the Saints nor the traditions of the Church They held that the Preaching of the word of God is free to every man that hath received abilities from the Lord for that work That the Priests Vestments are little worth That no day a man may cease from his labour except the Lords day and not the feasts of of Saints Zanchy introduceth a certain Orthodox man speaking thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and afterwards adds the Churches are to be reformed according to the best form a better from of the Church cannot be invented than that which Christ and his Apostles in the beginning of the Church did constitute and appoint And afterwards all Doctrines of Worship and Discipline are to be examined not by the Lesbian rule of humane judgment but by the Touchstone of the Divine Word Zanch. de ver Eccl. reformand ration Johannes Gerson affirms That the authority of the Primitive Church was greater than now it is for it is not in the power of the Pope or Council or Church to change the Traditions taught by the Evangelists and Paul as some dream de vit Spirit animae Budaeus saith Canonum canities vel caries potius nulli jam usui est sed velut anus delira è foro explosa est de ponte enim jam diu comitiorum paracleti dejecta est disciplina Canonica ut annis sexaginta major atque etiam sexcentis de Translat Heclerismi lib. 2. And afterwards Navis nobis disciplinae à servatorâ— relicta est Ecclesiae conditore quae Cantico Ministerio instrumento miraculisque instructa fuit ab ipso aut ejus auspiciis These were some of the Witnesses of Christ in their day whom we honour as such that bear their Testimony against what Mr. T. thinks good for the present to espouse to himself 5ly This Animadv speaks of the proof of our Assertion that those that receive authority to preach the Gospel mediately from Christ have it from some particular instituted Church of Christ to whom power is solely delegated for the electing their own Officers according to Acts 6. 5. 14. 23. as weak and impertinent He tells us 1. That though this should be granted yet power may be given to others to choose send and ordain Preachers for the unconverted who are and may be heard as Ministers of the Gospel Ans 1. This we deny the Keys being given to the Church by Christ Mat. 16. 19. with 18. 17 18. we cannot conceive how any can legally choose or send forth persons to act by vertue of an Office-power in the preaching of the Gospel but the Church 2dly We never yet understood that Interrogations were sufficient Answers his may not for all this is no evidence that it may He adds Yea may not some others ordain Elders for particular Instituted Churches Answ 1. Without the Churches consent Election c. they may not 'T is true Titus was left by Paul in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Tit. 1. 5. but that he might do this without the choice election and concurrent act of the Church as a Diocesan Bishop as some fondly imagine is a fancy that as it hath over and over been confuted by many Godly Learned so Mr. T. will never be able to make it good 2ly Should it be granted which yet is most false contrary to the practice of those times and many years after that Titus ordained by himself without the knowledg counsel and approbation of the people Elders it doth not in the least follow that any persons may do so now For. 1. He had express warrant and direction from the Apostle to do what he did 2. He was an extraordinary Officer an Evangelist not limited to a certain Church the continuance of which office we have no direction for in the Scripture 3. The officers that were to be continued in the Churches are said to be Elders or Bishops which were not names of distinct officers but of the same Tit. 1. 5 7. to be confined or limited to oâ—e particular Congregation not having or exercising jurisdiction over many Phil. 1. 1. Acts. 14. 23. 20. 17 28. Tit. 1. 5 6 7. so that this instance makes little to his purpose When he proves his suggestion that there are any
which yet they do but rarely if at all is not the Succession pleaded for by our Prelates They care not for Preaching hinder oppose it many of them dreading it as the Engine in the hand of the Spirit that would shake their Kingdom and utterly overturn and demolish it so they may have their Lordships Pleasures and Pallaces 'T is not indeed Antichristian for me to confess the Apostles Creed because it is conveyed to our hands through the Papacy for however it cannot be so called because the Apostles were the Formers of it which they were not yet the matter thereof being except in one Article bottom'd upon the Scriptures I ought to confess it But this is remote from what he is pleading for viz. A personal succession of Bishops through the Papacy receiving their Power and Authority from the man of Sin which I say still whilst the Bishops pretend to they do therein proclaim their shame and yeeld the matter in controversie though their Advocate shamefully prevaricates that he may with a multitude of words cover their nakedness omitting the consideration of what was incumbent upon him especially to have removed out of the way viz. The Arguments produced to evince That the Apostles as Apostles had no successor in that their Office Which if it remain good the present Bishops most assuredly cannot be their Successorâ— as Apostles He adds 5thly That Bishops as a Superior order or degree above Presbyters were not dreamt of in the world for several hundreds of years after Christ he thinks can hardly be made good but he wisely reâ—reats with a Protestation that he will not enter the lists with respect to that point The truth is he knows it hath been proved and that with that strength of evidence that he cannot bear up against That Clemens his not takeing notice of them as distinct from Presbyters is ballanced by the passages in Ignatius his Epistles which I am perswaded he rejects as spurious and counterfeit I am sure it were easie to manifest them to be so it is already done by others is such a pitiful covert that a man would never fly to but in case of extreme necessity when he knows not what to say Lombards words import he grants that the order of Bishops above Presbyters was not known till after the Apostles dayes and if so they are no order of divine institution in which he once more perfectly yeelds the cause they are not of the institution of Christ in the Scripture Though he cannot prove that by the primitive Church Lombard means the Churches in the dayes of the Apostles his words seem to import somewhat more And Bellarmins himself acknowledgeth that the name of Elders was given in common to Bishops and Elders And Eusebius lib. 5. c. 24. calls Victor Anicetus Pius Telesphorus Xistus who was almost three hundred years after Christ Bishops of Rome Elders And the learned Whitaker ingenuously confesseth That betwixt an Elder and a Bishop there was of old no difference That such Bishops as are now in the Roman Church in the English Church we may as truly say were from the beginning is most false and can never be proved There were then more Bishops i. e. Pastors of one Church Act. 20. 17. contr 2. q. 5. c. 6. p. 284. But Mr. T. tells us 'T is enough for his purpose if the office be found in Scripture though not their Superiority Answ And is this your pleading for your Clients Seriously Sir you would discourage any person in the world from entertaining you as his Advocate when you are exposing your Client thus to ruin by your own pleadings at every turn The question is whether the office of Lord-Bishops which as such consists in there Superiority jurisdiction over the Priests and Ministers of England be of the institution of Christ Saith Mr. T. their Superiority is not Very good what needed so many words to no purpose 't is well however he will be so ingenuous as to confess at last that the juridicial office of lord-Lord-Bishop is not of Christs institution The words of Dr. Hammond he grants to be as we recite them but thinks we misapply them But certainly if as the Dr. saith a Primary Metropolitical seat was constituted over Episcopal Seats and Churches viz. such as are Diocesan that their state and frame may be accommodated to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations in the Empire he that hath but half an eye will see that hence it follows that the Primacy and Supremacy of the Bishops over these Churches was the result of the designs of men to accommodate the state and frame of the Church to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations But the truth of this Assertion depends not upon the Doctors concession it s notoriously known and acknowledged by several others The distribution of Churches ordinarily followed the destribution of the Common-wealth so that when some Regions were subjected to the Civil jurisdiction in any City the same were ordinarily subjected also to the Ecclesiastical and as they were reckoned to be of the same Province in respect of the Civil so were they of the same Church or Diocess in respect of the Spiritual Government saith Rainoldes Confer with Hart. And the Council of Constantinople decreed That if any new City by the Authority of the Emperor was erected that the order of Ecclesiastical things should follow the Civil and Publick form Hence by the same Council Constantinople receives the Primacy because it was New Rome Can. 5. which before Old Rome enjoyed for that very reason But that you may understand how the Pope incroached on Bishops by degrees untill of an Equal he became a Soveraign first over a few next over many at last over all I must fetch the matter of Bishops Metropolitans and arch-Arch-Bishops somewhat higher and shew how Christian Cities Provinces and Diocesses were alotted to them First therefore when Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church Act. 14. 23. through every City Tit. 1. 5. to feed the flock of Christ whereof the Holy Ghost had made them overseers Act. 20. 28. They to the intent they might the better do it by common councel and consent did use to assemble themselves and meet together In which meetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they chose one amongst them to be the President of their Company and Moderator of their actions And this is he whom afterward in the Primitive Church the â—athers called Bishop i. e. the President of the Presbyters who was thâ— Bishop of the chiefest City whom they called the Metropolitane For a Province as they termed it was the same with them that a Shire is with us And the Shire-town as you would say of the Province was called Metropolis i. e. the Mother-City In which as the Judges and Justices with us do hear at certain times the causes of the whole Shire So the Ruler of the
which one of their Reverend Prelates hath been moâ—e than once heard to say That the presence of Christ in the Sacramenâ— is not Symbolical but Realiter and upon that account we give adoration 't is like more are of his mind as horrible Idolatry as bowing before a Crucifix or Image 2. That Christ is not alone the Head of the Church 3. They seem to attribute greater efficacy to the Blood than the Body of Christ whilst they pray That their bodies may be made clean by his Body and their souls by his most precious Blood as they do in the prayer before that which is used at the Consecration 4. That Christ descended into Hell as if he descended into the place of the Damned as â—he Papists hold To which Mr. T. 1. 'T is in the Creed call'd the Apostles Answ 1. This is no part of Scripture Nor 2. ever composed by them whose name it bears Nor 3. is it certain when or by whom it was so done 4. To this very day it was never in any full and general Council confirmed and established So that its being in the Creed proves it not so authentick as that we are bound to believe it 5. What is said by Bishop Usher touching this matter I have not leisure to enquire since it 's put after his burial it can signifie no other descent but into the place of the damned which is as rotten a figment as ever was invented 3. Touching Man 1. They generally own I speak especially of them who are called the Church free-will And 2. an implicite Faith not in words but really and indeed whilst they say We must practise in Worship the determinations of the Church though we our selves see no reason for them because she hath determined them and that this is reason sufficient for our so doing i. e. We must in these things believe â—or Faith must preceed practice in the Worship of God as the Church believes 4. Touching Worship They hold 1. That Worship devâ—sed by man though abused to Idolatry is the Worship of God with which he is well-pleased 2. That God is more particularly to be worship'd in one place than in another and that these places being Consecrated are the Houses and Churches of God and upon that account holy and to be reverenced 3. That reading an Homilie or a few Prayers out of the Liturgie is a more excellent worship of God though no where commanded in the Scriptures than Preaching which must therefore give way to it 4. That none must be suffered publickly to worship God or privately except in their own Families but according to Forms of mans devising Which 5. they say Is the Worship of God 5. Touching the Sacraments 1. They seem to intimate that there are more than two when they say there are two only generally necessary to salvation 2. That Women may Baptize in casu necessitatis as the Papists hold and that such Baptism is valid 3. That Baptism is to be administred with a Cross in the fore-head 4. That all Children when baptized are regenerate and received by the Lord for his own Children by adoption Common-Prayer-Book of Publick Baptism 5. That Children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation and shall undoubtedly be saved 6. That all that are baptized have received remission of sins Confirmation before the imposition of hands 7. They seem to make the imposition of hands a Sacrament when they say 'T is a sign to certifie Children of Gods grace and favour towards them Ibid. in the Prayer after the imposition of hands Yea they really do so if the definition they themselves give of a Sacrament be right viz. That it is an outward and visible Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace 8. So they to make Matrimony by that expression used by them consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery in one of the Collects in the form of the solemnization of Matrimony 9. They adore before the Elements of Bread and Wine 10. That the wicked and ungodly may receive it 11. That though the most notorious offenders be partakers of it yet the People that joyn with them are not defiled thereby 12. That the Body of Christ was broken the blood of Christ was shed particularly for them 6. Touching the Church 1. That under the time of the Gospel there is a National Church 2. That the most wicked and their seed may be compelled and received to be members of the Church which is notoriously known nor have they the face to deny it though Mr. T. talkes as if they would to be consonant to their principles and practice 3. That 't is not lawful to separate from this Church whoever do so are Sectaries Schismaticks to be excommunicated imprisoned a bloody error 4. That the Clergie is the Church as is the Pope and his Conclave to the Romanists 5. That these is another Head of the Church besides Christ 6. That 't is not in the power of the Church to choose their own Officers 7. That 't is in the power of Kings to appoint the highest Church-Officers 8. That lord-Lord-Bishops are Officers of the Church of Christ though no where of his appointment 9. That lord-Lord-Bishops can give the Holy Ghost and power to forgive and retain sins 10. That 't is in the power of a Priest to absolve from sins In the Visitat of the Sick 11. That 't is not in the power of the Church to excommunicate but the Bishop 12. That Pastors and Teachers are to be ordained by lord-Lord-Bishops 13. That dumb Ministers are lawful Ministers of Christ 14. 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 Christians do allow it And this their practice preacheth forth 7. Touching things supposed indifferent 1. That 't is in the power of the Church i. e. the Bishops in their Convocation to make that which is in it self indifferent a necessary part of Worship 2. To devise what Rites it pleaseth and add to the Worship of Christ 3. That Marriage may be forbidden at certain Popish seasons as in Lent Advent Rogation week 4. That the Cope Surplice Tippet Rochet are meet and decent Ornaments for the Worship of God and ministry of the Gospel 5. That Altars Candles Organs are necessary and useful in the Church of God Mr. T. his thoughts are vain when he thinks that they will not assert this Certainly they will not be so imprudent as to aver that they lavish the Gold out of the Bag for the erection of that in the Service of God which is neither necessary nor useful 6. That there may be Holy Dayes appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist the Apostles all Saints and Angels together also with Fasts on their Eves on Ember dayes Fridayes Saturdayes so called heathenishly enough Mr. T. answers They will deny this to be their Tenent and câ—tes Whitgift c. telling
that if her Worship be Fornication the Worship of England being the very Worship of Rome is so too From which Mr. T. tells us in this Sect. without controversie the People of God were to separate and have no communion with any in So that Habemus confitentem reum He passeth sentence upon himself in having communion with and pleading for the Church and Worship of England and aquits the Innocent in their righteous Separation there-from in that very Treatise he designed to justifie the one and condemn the other That which is further is a most sorry begging of the Question a piece of Sophistry this Animadverter is frequently guilty of the sum is But neither the Texts alledged nor any other do require separation from the Worship of God or the Ministers of God that are in some things corrupt even in their ministration which he exemplifies in Samuels ministring before the Lord and Hannâ—h's presenting him and her self at the solemn Feasts when Hophni and Phinehas did corrupt the Worship of God And those of Judah were not to separate from the service at Jerusalem which was to God while there was burning incense and sacriâ—icing on the high-places and though there were sundry corruptions in the Church and Services of the Jews yet did Christ joyn in the publick Service of the Temple and perswaded the cleansed Leaper to offer the Gift Moses had commanded From whence he infers That though there should be some degree of corruption in Worship yet this is not sufficient to justifie our Separation from the Church and Ministers of England Answ 1. That every corruption in Worship that every diâ—order in Church-administrations is a sufficient warrant for separation from the Worship Church or Churches that are of Divine Institution as was the Worship and Church at Jerusalem I no where asserâ— never thought 2dly Whilest from hâ—nce the Animadverter infers That though there should be some degree of Corruption in Worship yet this is not sufficient to justifie our separation from the Ministers and Church of England He doth but like an unwise Souldier that not well heeding the ground he stands on is displaying his Colours till he sinks into the Earth There is one thing wanting to his Inference that makes it too light to pass with persons but of ordinary understanding viz. That the Church oâ— England is a true Church the Worship thereof the true Worship of God a strong supposition whereof instead of evident demonstration is the Basis upon which the inference is built For what though there were Corruptions in the Church and Worship of Israel in Samuels time in Christ's time What if notwithstanding these Corruptions it were noâ— the duty of persons to separate from that Church and Worship which was originally from God what is this to the case of separation from the Church and Worship of England which this Animadverter knows we deny to be of God which when he or any one for him shall prove to be I do faithfully assure him never to plead for nor practise separation more which I speak from an assured confidence they can never be able so to do Though otherwise upon supposition it could be proved a true Church at first rightly constituted according to the mind of Christ such corruptions are to be found upon it that are sufficient to jâ—stifie any mans peaceable separation from it Though every corruption in Worship and Church-Administrations as was said will not do so There is nothing in this 4th Sect. of that moment as to require our stay in the consideration thereof Whether those eight Positions asserted in S. T. touching the management of affairs of old be evidently comprized in the Scripture or no may be perceived by the examination of Mr. T. his exceptions against them let the Christian and judicious Reader judge I argue not from thence by way of Analogy though I conceive the Institution being founded upon some command of Christ in the New Test the only warrant for the practice of Gospel-Appointments To argue from the carriage and deportment of Saints to Divine Ordinances of old to the carriage of Saints towards New Test Institutions from parity of Reason is neither irrational nor unwarrantable which when Mr. T. proves it to be or attempts to do so his Arguments shall be considered his second and third Sect. in his second part of the review of the dispute about Paedo-Baptism to which he directs us spake not a word hereunto as he knows Sect. 13. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it imports Its acceptions in the Scripture 1 Cor. 12. 28. and 15. 9. Act. 4. 32. opened The Churches of Asia Galatia Judaea not National Diocesan or Provincial but particular Churches The foundation of Diocesan Churches Mat. 16. 18. and 18. 17. expounded By the Church not meant the Pope and his Cardinals a Synod the Bishop or Chancellors Court the Magistrate the Presbytery nor select Arbitrators but the whole Church consisting of Elders and Brethren proved IN Sect. 15th Mr. T. begins to consider the Queries in the Preface of S. T. and in answer to the first Query whether there be any National Church of the Institution of Christ under the Oeconomy of the Gospel he falls upon the consideration of the word Church and tells us in the New Testament it s taken for 1. An assembly of Unbelievers Act. 19. 32 39 40. 2dly For the Congregation of Israel in the Wilderness Acts 7. 38. 3 dly The Universal Church whether visible or invisible 1 Cor. 12. 28. Heb. 12. 23. Ephes 1. 22. 4 thly The visible Church indefinitely but not universally 1 Cor. 15. 9. 5 thly The Church Topical as of a City Town or House Act. 8. 1. Philem. 2. or of a Country or Nation and then it s put in the Plural Number as the Churches of Asia Galatia Judaea Answ 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to advocate or call out Because as saith Musculus in Rom. 1. 7. the Church is a number called out from the rest and in the general signifies any company of men singled out or separated from the rest for any end or purpose whatsoever That 't is of various acceptations in the Scripture cannot be denied some of which are rightly assigned by the Animadverter First 'T is taken for an Assembly of Unbelievers Acts 19. 32. 39. Secondly For the Congregation of Israel in the Wilderness Acts 7. 38. But Thirdly As touching the third acceptation of the word instanced in by this Animadverter we must crave leave a little to demur about it 1st If by the Universal Church visible he mean that which some call the Church-Catholick visible consisting of the universality of men professing the Doctrine of the Gospel and yeelding obedience thereunto throughout the World I do very much question whether the name of the Church be given to them throughout the Scripture The places instanc'd in by this Animadverter are remote from the proof of any
Not one Provincial or National Church but seven particular instituted Churches First To each Church is there a distinct Epistle written Secondly Each Church had its particular Officer or Angel to whom each Epistle was directed to be communicated to the Congregation for to them in it doth Christ by his Spirit speak Rev. 2. 7 11 17 29. 3. 6 13 22. 3dly Each Church received its particular commendation bore its particular burden The Evils found in one are not charged upon the rest nor the Good found in either imputed to them generally but severally 4thly The power of Excommunication or rejection of Scandalous Offenders seems to be seated in each Church severally and apart therefore no Provincial or National Churches but Congregational For the neglect of which power some of them are expresly rebuked by Christ Rev. 2. 14 15 20. which our English Annotators apply and that truly to a non-rejection of them by excommunication and cite 1 Cor. 5. 2 6. Alas a National Diocesan Provincial Church was not then thought of Diocesan Churches were first founded as 't is said but it were no difficult task to evince that their original is antidated some scores of years by Dyonisius Bishop of Rome about 280 years after Christ or as some will about 251 he was the first that appointed the limits and bounds of Parishes Here in England they received their rise and original from one Honorius Bishop of Canterbury Polyd. Virgil. de Invent. rer lib. 4. c. 9. Nay the truth is the Churches mentioned were so far from being a Church of a Region or Nation that they were not all that lived in the same Place City or Town appertaining to the Church there As for the Church of Ephesus one of the seven Paul speaks of it as distinct from the rest of the Inhabitants Eph. 1. 1. so doth Christ of the Church of Pergamos Rev. 2. 13. I know thy works and where thou dwellest i. e. among what manner of people thine abode is Psal 57. 4. 120. 5 6. Ezek. 2. 6. Phil. 2. 15. viz. a wicked graceless ungodly people even where Satan's seat is where Satan dwelleth who were sure no part of the Church The like may be said of the rest of them 'T is strange to me that when God calls them Churches any person pretending to sobriety should dare to aver them to be but one Touching the interpretation of Mat. 16. 18. 18. 17. there are indeed great debates as our Animadverter saith betwixt Protestants and Papists amongst Protestants also and Protestants The exposition the Papists give of Mat. 16. 18. who from hence would infer that Peter and after him the Bishop of Rome was made Universal Bishop is so frivolous that 't is not worth the mentioning 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super hanc petram is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super hunc Petrum upon this Rock will I build my Church we English-men think to be very different from upon St. Peter will I build i◠The Faith Peter confessed we take to be one thing his person another 2. We find not notwithstanding this promise that Peter was the Prince of the Apostles at which lofty rate these Gentlemen love to speak or Universal Bishop If he had been so Paul much forgot himself when he said 2 Cor. 11. 5. For I suppose Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conclude for certain I was not a whit behind the chiefest Apostles And much more Gal. 2. 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed Strange that he should carry it with no more respect to the Prince of the Apostles and Universal Bishop and head of the Church-Catholick-visible 3. But if these were granted them what is this to their Pope Why Peter was at Rome Answ That is uncertain Yet should it be granted he was there it would not in the least advantage them in their present cause 'T is most certain he was at Samaria Antioch Lydda Joppa Cesaria yet no Primacy or Supremacy affixed to either of them upon that bottom 4. Yea but he placed his Chair at Rome fixed his Seat there Answ This is false and untrue nor can they ever make it appear that he did so Yet if this should be granted they are never a whit the nearer the mark except they prove 1. That a succession in this universal Unlimited Archiepiscopal power was entailed to the Church of Rome and that so that 1. Though those who ascended that Chair came to be invested therein by bribery cozenage cruelty bloo◠whilst they possessed it were Hereticks and declared by Councils to be so and their Successors Conjurers Adulterers Idolaters Atheists Blasphemers bloody Persecutors destroyers of bodies and souls of men the veriest Villains and Wretches that ever the Earth bore 2. Though this Succession hath been interrupted by a Vacancy or Interregnum of some years polluted by a Woman a Whore delivered with her Cardinals about her in solemn Procession whence Papa parit Papam peperit Papissa Papillum By the setting up of Anti-Popes two or three at a time contesting to the pouring out of much Blood wasting destroying Villages Towns Cities Cursing excommunicating one another and all that adhere to each other for the Popedom or St. Peter's Chair yet when in it and those that succeed them be they as bad or worse than they that went before must infallibly be his successor which when they prove I will be a Papist and before they shall effect this it being the grand Principle of their Religion or Superstition rather it would become all that have or would be accounted to have the least spark of Wisdom remaining in them to have nothing to do with such a generation For my part I am abundantly satisfied that the Church there is neither the Church-Catholick visible nor any particular Church as such but the Invisible-Church or Elect of God Tell the Church Mat. 18. 17. hath divers interpretations put upon it according as the interests of some lead and encline them In the language of the Episcopalians it is Tell the Lord Bishop and his Consistory but this is such an heterogeneous piece so wild an interpretation that it would put a sober man if concern'd in them to a blush to hear it mentioned 1. There were no such creatures at that day nor for some hundreds of years after Alas there was somewhat else to do than to think of erecting Episcopal Seas and Consistories when they were every day fighting with beasts and made a spectacle to Angels and men for the Truth and Gospel-sake which was the state of the Church of God for the most part for the first three-hundred years and upwards as is known 2. One man as saith precious Cotton is not the Church nor can he represent the Church unless sent by them but so is neither the Bishop nor his Commissary 3. The Bishop ordinarily is no member of the Church where the offence is committed
and what is his satisfaction to the removal of the offence given to the Church 4. The Parisian Doctors say truly Ecclesiam nunquam c. The Church cannot be taken for one person nor be govern'd by one Of which the Learned Chamier gives his reason How can it be that the Bishop should be the Church according to whose Ecclesiastical Authority things should be determined Mat. 18. when a long time after the Bishop himself by humane authority had his original of which Ambrose complains And as soon as the Lord had said tell the Church he speaks in the plural number all along afterward Verily I say unto you Whatsoever Ye shall bind on Earth c. Whence it plainly appears that the Church is not taken for one person but for many congregated together Pol. Eccles Yea Sutcliffe when disputing against Bellarmine saith Christ did not constitute the chief Tribunal in the hands of Peter but of the Church for not those who refused to hear Peter but those who refused to hear the Church were to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans De Pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 5 6. Besides in matters of controversie Peter himself was subject to the Tribunal of the Church But a superiour cannot be judged by an inferiour If any controversie happened amongst the Apostles that could not be defined by particular persons but a Council of the Church was to be congregated This we see done Acts 15. Now one would think our present Bishops should not be so arrogant as to assume that power to themselves which when disputing with the Papists they will not allow to Peter 2dly In the judgment of our Brethren of the Presbyterian way Tell the Church is tell the Presbytery But they are I humbly conceive somewhat wide of the mark too My Reasons are 1. The Church is sometimes put for the Congregation as distinct from the Presbytery or Elders and Officers Acts 14. 23. 15. 22. never for these as distinct from the Congregation throughout the New-Testament 2. The Presbytery may be the party offending and then you must tell the Church that the Church offendeth i. e. go tell themselves But the Scripture is express that after private dealing with the offenders themselves upon non-amendment the Church as distinct from them is to be acquainted with it 3. What if the Presbytery themselves be offended whom shall they tell must they tell themselves If they are the Church they can go no further 4. Besides we find 1 Cor. 5. not the Presbytery alone but the whole Church concerned in the matter of Excommunication of which our Brethren confess Christ here treateth This Animadverter manifests his good will to interpret it of an Assembly of the Jews in their Synedrium or if extended as a direction to Christian Brethren whether to refer it to their Assembly under an Ecclesiastical consideration or Political i. e. the Christian Magistrate he seems to demur with an apparent inclination to the latter To the first of these Mr. Cotton answers †Treat of the Keys p. 40 An. 3. It is not credible that Christ would send his Disciples to make complaint of their offences to the Jewish Synagogues for is it likely he would send his Lambs and Sheep for right and healing unto Wolves and Tygres Both their Sanhedrim and most of their Synagogues were no better And if here and there some Elders of their Synagogues were better affected yet how may it appear that so it was where any of themselves dwelt And if that might appear too yet had not the Jews already agreed that if any man did confess Christ he should be cast out of the Synagogues Joh. 9. 22. To which we add 2dly Christ knew that within a little while the Synedrim and whole Church-Policy of the Jews would be at an end And 3dly in the mean while charges his Disciples to have nothing to do with them Mat. 15. 14. Tell them that they would persecute kill them and think in doing so they did God good service As it fell out afterwards accordingly So that it cannot with the least shew of reason be imagined that Christ should direct them to appeal to them and stand to their final determination 2dly The second desires not a reply Go tell the Church i. e. go tell the Magistrate is so wild an interpretation that the bare naming it is the giving it too much honour 1. The Magistrate is no where called the Church 2dly The Magistrate quâ talis hath nothing to do in the stating and determining Church-Controversies 3dly Sometimes and for the most part they have ever since been for above three hundred years afterward they undoubtedly were no members of the Church but enemies to it destroyers of it Mr. T. adds that he can find no Institution by preception or command of a Church i. e. there is no such thing as an instituted Church of Christ under the Gospel but 't is left to the prudence of men c. to determine whether they shall be Domestick Congregational Parochial Classical Diocesan Provincial Patriarchal or Oecumenical which how derogatory to the Honour and Sovereign Authority of Jesus Christ to his love and tenderness to his Children to his Faithfulness with respect to the obligation that lay upon him as Mediator to reveal the whole will of the Father to them others will judge For my part I am fully of his mind who some while since said That there were particular Churches instituted by the Authority of Jesus Christ ordained and approved by him that Officers for them were of his appointment and furnished with gifts from him for the execution of their employment That Rules Cautions and Instructions for the due settlement of those Churches were given by him that these Churches were made the only seat of that Worship which in particular he expressed his will to have continued until he came is of so much light in Scripture that he must wink hard that will not see it Which is as much as we need to say to this Animadverter in this matter what he saith herein being meer dictates of his own without proof which when he shall be able to evince that Christ hath not the Government of his Churches upon his shoulders that he is not sole King and Lord over them or having so hath not given them Rules to walk by of his own but left them to the liberty of their own wills or which is worse the wills of such as by Providence are permited to ascend the Throne though such as whilst they profess to know God in works deny him being abominable and disobedient and to every good work reprobate he will be supposed to say something in way of confirmation But of this more in Sect. 15. 'T is true de facto Parochial Classical Diocesan Provincial Patriarchical and Oecumenical Churches by the prudence of men c. have had and yet have their being it the World and the Animadverter deals ingenuously in acknowledging that their original
is not from Heaven but the issue of humane pâ—udence c. So that to them or their Rulers and Officers as such we owe no tribute or respect by vertue of any Institution of Christ which they are as he acknowledgeth and that truly destitute of ' Tweâ—e easie to fill many pages with citations of Authors speaking to this matter Whereas originally there was a small uncertain number of Presbyters at Roms they were brought to a certain number and order by Cletuâ— and Evaristus Popes of Rome First Cletus reduced the Presbytery of Rome to the number of twenty five Afterwards Evaristus about the year of Christ 100 appointed and prescribed a several Parish to every one of these Presbyters which Parishes were afterwards â—nlarged and had their bounds and limits more perfectly and more exactly prescribed to them by Pope Dyonisius as was said about the year of Christ 260 After which time Marcâ—llus about the year of Christ 305 limited the number of those titles which anciently were first given to the Presbyters by Evaristus and did by Decree constitute That there should be in Rome 25 as it were so many Diocesses for the more convenient baptizing of such Gentiles as were daily converted to Christian Religion Onuphrius Panvinius de praecipuis urbis Romae Basiliciâ— And Selden in his History of Tythes chap. 6. Sect. 3. writes thus For Parish Churches it is plain that as Metropolitan See's Patriaâ—chats Exarchates in the Eastern Church Bishopricks these greater dignities were most usually at first ordained and limited according to the distinction of Seats of Government and inferiour Cities that had been assigned to the Substitutes or Vicarii of the Praefect Pratorio or Vice-Roys of the East and Western-Empire So were Parishes appointed and divided to several Ministers within the Ecclesiastical rule of these dignities according to the conveniences of Country-Towns and Villages one or more or less of such as being but small Territories might not by the Canons be Bishopricks to a Parish The word Parish at first denoting a whole Bishoprick which is but as a great Parish and signifies no other â—han Diocesâ— but afterwards being confined to what our common language restrains it The Curats of these Parishes were such as the Bishops appointed under him to have cure of souls in them and were called Presbyterii Parochiani i. e. Parish-Presbyters But thus far of this matter As touching what Mr. T. adds that there is no precept about the defining how many should go to a Church or be accounted to belong to one Church c. We answer 1. That 't is very impertinently produced by him tending not at all to the matter in hand such a visible non-sequitur as he will never be able to make good How many should go to a Church we have no precept of Christ directing and enjoyning us Ergo no Institution of a Church by preception or command But 2dly That we are in this matter wholly destitute of Law or Rule is a mistake of this Animadverter First Mat. 18. 20. manifests that the Church cannot well consist of fewer than seven For 1. there is the Brother offending 2dly Two or three reproving this offending Brother And 3dly the Church before whom the matter is to be brought for final determination which cannot be supposed to be fewer if so few as the persons bringing it before them Secondly That they be no more than can conveniently meet together in one place and so that they may hear and be edified which is the great end of Church-communion the Scripture plainly intimates 1 Cor. 14. 23. If therefore the whole Church be come together in one place ver 26. let all things be done unto edifying But if all cannot hear they cannot be edified So wide off the mark of Truth is his Assertion that neither Christ nor his Apostles have given us any Rule or Law of bounding or modelling Churches which though how many members may be added to a Church be not expresly prescribed he hath done That Text Mat. 18. 17. seems much to perplex this Animadverter what is meant by Church there he cannot tell 'T is uncertain he saith whether the Christian Civil Judicatory or Ecclesiastical Consistory or Congregational Assembly of Believers or some select Arbitrators be meant Of the three first of these we have spoken already and manifested that not the Jewish Synedrium but the Christian Church not the Christian Civil Judicatory or Ecclesiastical Consistory is intended by the Church here That select Arbitrators should be meant is the first-born of improbabilities 1. They are no where called a Church in the Scripture 2. The Church in the Text are such a company to whom the party or parties aggrieved may presently have their recourse which to select Arbitrators they cannot have they must first be chosen of which notwithstanding there is not the least tittle in the Text. 3. Here is no mention of the consent of the party offending in the election of the Arbitrators which of right ought in such cases to be 4. From the Church here there seems to lye no appeal 5. The Sentence pronounced by the Church is a Sentence confirmed in Heaven ver 18. which Mr. T. upon second thoughts will not say can be affirmed of the Sentence of his select Arbitrators Yea 6ly if the party offending will not hear the Church he is to be accounted as an Heathen i. e. they are to hold no religious communion with him and Publican i. â— withholding from them familiar civil communion but I much question whether it be my duty to carry it so to a Brother that shall refuse to submit to the sentence of Mr. Tombs his select Arbitrators especially if he had no hand in their election never referr'd his affairs to their arbitrement testifies his willingness to hearken to the Church and stand to their determination therein But 't is time we attend the reasons this Animadverter gives of his opinion The first whereof is The offence is private that might be remitted by the party offended Answ 1. If by private he mean such an offence as was only known to them two it 's granted The words are a direction from Christ to Brethren how to carry it each to other in case of secret and private scandals and offences for when the fact is open publick and notorious there needs not this private admonition another way of procedure is directed to and established 1 Tim. 5. 20. Those that sin viz. cum scandalo Ecclesia saith Piscator rebuke before all that others also may fear And the Church of Corinth without any such previous process was bound the fact being publick and notorious to excommunicate and purge out from amongst them that wicked person 1 Cor. 5. 2 4 5 7. but it follows not that because the offence in his sense is privâ—te that therefore by Church must be meant not a particular instituted Church but select Arbitrators But 't is more than probable by private he means such a particular
Arbitrators the vanity of each of which hath been evinced that therefore it is a particular instituted Church of Christ in the New Testament as Mr. T. knows the learned of old and of late have interpreted it So Ignatius who applies it to the particular Church of Philadelphia Chrysostome c. The judicious Casaubon Exercit. Lib. 15. p. 433. c. These things premised we attend his Answers to the Questions proposed in S. T. of which in the next Section we shall treat Sect. 14. Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel Mr. T. his answers hereunto considered Isa 49. 23 66. 8. explained That they are Prophesies that wait their accomplishment demonstrated Of the miraculous conversion of the Jews Zach. 12. 10. explained The Sign of the Son of Man Mat. 24. 30. What. THe first Quest in S. T. proposed by us is Whether since the Apotomie or unchurching the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of the People thereof may be accounted his Church Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel This Mr. T. is pleased to make two Questions though in it self but one the latter being only exegetical to the former 1st He grants That God hath not since the unchurching the Nation of the Jews espoused a Nation to himself as that the whole Body of the People thereof may be accounted his i. e. There is no National Church of divine Institution under the Gospel for if there be the Lord hath most assuredly visibly espoused that Nation to himself and they are to be accounted his What hâ— adds viz. We own no Church visible now but of Believers by their own personal profession we are not concerned to take notice of His mentioning the 9th Article of the Church of England by way of approbation and as if it were of the same mind with him touching the subjects of the visible Church is an abuse of it and the Reader 'T is known that the addition in the Confession of Faith of the Assembly Chap. 25. Art 2. Of Childrens Church-membership is the Doctrine of the said Church Of this matter we are not now treating Secondly In answer to the Question Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomy of the Gospel I say saith Mr. T. 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 virtue of their generation and 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 upon the account of their professing the Faith of the Gospel c. are and may be called the visible Catholick-Church of Christ Answ 1. But if Mr. T. thinks this to be an answer to the Question he will scarce find in this matter any Corrival Quaestio est de ollis Responsio de sepis We are not enquiring whether a company of Believers living in a Nation may be called upon the account of their Faith and Profession a National Church which by the figure Caâ—achresis it may be they may I am sure most abusively and improperly it is that they are so called Nor 2dly Is the enquiry de facto of what by the Providence of God is come to pass in which sense we grant there is a Natioâ—al Church under the Gospel the Church of England is so But 3dly Whether upon the account of a compulsed or education-Faith and Profession contradicted by the most assumed and professed by persons living in a Nation divided in several Parishes Diocesses under the conduct of their Parochial Ministers and Diocesan Metropolitan Bishops united together under one or more Ecclesiastical visible Head This company of People thus molded are or may truly be accounted a Church of Christ instituted by him under the Oeconomie of the Gospel Which whoever will undertake to demonstrate must I conceive attempt the proof of these few things First That a profession of Faith forced and compelled or at least in which men have been trained up from their Infancy as the Turkes are in the Doctrine of their Alcoran and that for the most part contradicted in their conversation is sufficient to give a man or woman a right and title to Church-membership Secondly That persons co-habiting or living together in a Parish are de jure upon the account of that their co-habitation at least if they make so much profession as to be able to say the Creed Lords-Prayer and ten Commandments though as was said contradicted by a course of debauchery c. are a Church of Christ or that Parish-Churches quâ tales are of the Institution of Christ Thirdly That the Subordination of these Churches and Ministers to Diocesan Bishops Archdeacons Consistories and Commissaries and these again to an Arch-Bishop or Metropolitan is of the same Original Fourthly That these Bishops Arch-deacons Commissaries Courts Ecclesiastical Metropolitical Head are of the Institution of Christ Which when Mr. T. or any one for him shall do I will be a Member of the Church of England But he knows an easier way 'T is but saying That there is no Institution of a Church by Preception or Command and he avoids he thinks the necessity of putting himself to all this toyl But seriously Sir very few considerate and judicious Christians will care to be Members of such a Church as is destitute of divine Institution and whether his Clients of the Church of England will thank him for this part of his Plea I am not certain In the greatness of his love he seems to be killing his Mother with kind embraces The Church of England is not he grants of the Institution of Christ for there is no Church that is so that there is no need to alleadge Isa 49. 23. and 66. 8. for the Institution of a National Church Nevertheless that the Prophesie Isa 49. 23. waits the time of its accomplishment is said by the author of the S. T. with more confidence than evidence Answ Well Mr. T. will not be guilty of the same crime what evidence brings he of this confident assertion Why many learned Interpreters among whom Mr. Gataker think otherwise But Sir we have not learned Jurare in verba Magistri to take any mans dictates for evident proof of any thing of this nature which we are sure they are not As learned Interpreters are of the mind of the Author of S. T. The truth of the Assertion is evident 1st The Prophesie hath respect to some time after the coming of Christ in the flesh of which he speaketh vers 1 3 4 5 7 8. which one consideration manifests the nothingness of
and they also which pierced him and all kindreds of the Earth shall wail because of him And Mat. 24. 30. Then shall appear the Sign of the Son of Man either per Synechdochen the great signs of Glory and Majesty which then shall compass him round about or the Son of Man himself as the sign of Circumcision is nothing else but Circumcision it self in Heaven And then shall all the Tribes of the Earth mourn and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the Clouds of Heaven viz. in Majesty and great glory The sight whereof shall be the meaâ—s of their miraculous Conversion Accordingly you have here in Isa 66. vers 5. The appearing of the Lord. The issue whereof is 1 The ruine of his enemies vers 6 14 15 16 where you have Christs appearance largely discoursed of Rev. 19. 2 The Conversion and Restauration of the Jews vers 7 8 9. 3 The concomitant Glory in the new Heaven and new Earth state or the time of the restitution of all things vers 10 11 12 13 14 22 23. All which considered I humbly conceive I had ground enough to assert That Isa 66. 8. is a Prophesie expresly relating to the Jews and their miraculous Conversion That because t is said Rom. 11. 25 26. When the fullness of the Gentiles is come in all Israel shall be saved Therefore I may find something of a National Church consisting of several Parish Churches bounded by old Customs Laws Constitutions c. in subordination to Diocesan Metropolitan Churches with their several Officers of Priests Arch-Deacons Bishops arch-Arch-Bishops on the head of them which is the National Church we are enquiring after in Isa 66. 8. is a Consequence I shall never see Mr. T. make good That he should do so is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the number of those things that are impossible And once for all I desire him when he writes next not to think so highly of himself as to conceit that his dictates must pass without controle but to remember he is as well as other men obliged to give us a reason of them else we shall not think our selves bound to take any further notice of them then to reject them as sayings of no weight or value Sect. 15. Of National Ministers Peter Paul Titus no National Ministers Ephes 4. 11 12 13 explained The Body of Christ there not the Church-Catholick visible but a particular Church of Christ proved Pastors and Teachers are only belonging to one particular Congregation If a man be a Minister by the appointment of Christ of a Church-Catholick visible he cannot be a Minister of Christ of a National Church The Ministers of Christ are either Extraordinary or Ordinary Of Saints Interest in each 1 Cor. 3. 22 23 expounded THE second Querie in the S. T. is Whether National Ministers are the Ministers of Christ Or Whether there can be a true Ministry in a false Church as a National Church must be if not of Divine Institution To this Mr. T. pretends to answer Sect. 16. And after conjectures of what I mean by National Ministers he gives us such a description of them as he could not sure think any man besides himself would subscribe to but it served his design he thought By National Ministers I mean such as are members of a National Church related to it as the Ministers thereof as such Ordained and set apart by National Officers bound up by its Canons and Laws in their Ministrations who when Mr. T. shall prove to be Ministers of Christ he will be supposed to say something in answer to the Querie which as yet he hath not done His ensuing Arguments speak not a word for such National Ministers himself being Judge 1st Peter though he had the Apostleship of Circumcision and Paul of the Gentiles were not National Ministers 2dly Nor Titus though left in Crete to set in order things that were wanting and to ordain Elders in every City Tit. 1. 5. Fâ—r they were First No members of a National Church Secondly Not related to it as the Ministers thereof Thirdly Not Ordained or set apart to their Office by Natinnal Officers Fourthly Not bounded and circumscribed in their Mâ—nistrations by any devised Institutions or Canons thereof None of which were then in being as is known He goes on and tells us 3dly They that may be Ministers of Christ though they be Ministers for the Body of Christ and all the Members thereof maâ— be Ministers of Christ though National But Pastors and Teachers are given for the edifying of the Body of Christ Therefore c. Answ 1. If by the Body of Christ Mr. T. means the Church-Catholick visible The Apostle Eph. 4. 11 12 13. speaks not a word of it not the Body of Professors or multitude of persons professing Faith in Christ is there intended but some particular Instituted Church of Christ Which we prove 1. The Body of Christ Eph. 4. 11 12 13. is the same with the Body and Church of Christ 1 Cor. 12. 27 28. as by the serious perusal of both places comparing the one with the other will to the sober and judicious be evident That there it signifies a particular Church of Christ we have demonstrated Sect. 13. therefore here it also so signifies 2. Here Pastors and Teachers are said to be given for the edifying of the Body of Christ i. e. particular instituted Churches of Christ and accordingly we find them ordained in every Church Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. and the whole of their charge limited to particular Churches Acts 20. 17 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Col. 4. 17. who are commanded to obey them in the Lord 1 Thess 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. from whom they might not upon every occasion nor without â—he consent of the Congregation upon any pretext whatsoever remove See Calv. Institut l. 4. c. 3. s 7. of which Mr. Paul Bains speaks in his Exposition on the Ephesians chap. 2. 3. p. 350 351. As the Lord doth give a Calling and Grace so a People towards whom it is especially blessed It is true the Apostle had a more large Flock the care of all Churches was upon him but wheresoever God giveth a Calling there he giveth a People of whom the Minister may say Toward you Grace is given me of God Acts 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. God hath assigned every ordinary Minister a portion of his People for this is the difference between extraordinary as the Apostles Evangelists the seventy Disciples and our ordinary Pastors The Apostles had an Universal Commission and the Evangelists were Delegates of the Apostles The Seventy if not Evangelists which some of the Ancients encline to yet they were illimited helpers and fellow-labourers in the work of the Lord. But ordinary Ministers the Lord commanded to fasten them to certain places Tit. 1. 5. Ordain Elders City by City And in the Council of Chalcedon chap. 6. Let none be ordained at large lest he prove a wandring
Jonathan Every Minister must be 1. Seperated 2. Authorized 3. have allotted to him a certain portion of people which may be instructed by him which the diminutive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may seem to insinuate Now as God doth give every Pastor his several Flock so he will that we travel in leading of them we must not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must not be Bishops in other mens Diocesses lest God say Who hath required this at your hands When the Lord lighteth Candles he doth find Candlesticks on which to set them c. The sum is 1. The Body of Christ Eph. 4. 11 12. is a particular Church of Christ for the edification of which Pastors and Teachers are given 2ly Ordinary Officers are limited to particular Churches From whence the vanity of this Animadverter's Argument is conspicuous to every eye If by Body of Christ he understand in his first Proposition the Universal Catholick Church 1. His Argument is naught consisting of four terms for we have manifested that the Body of Christ in the Minor which is the Apostles is a particular Church of Christ 2. Hiâ— Major is invalid It doth not follow that if men may be Ministers of Christ though they be Ministers for the Body of Christ and all the members thereof that they may be Ministers of Christ though National If he think Ministers for the Body of Christ and all the members thereof and national Ministers are aequipollent upon second thoughts he will be so ingenious as to acknowledge he was mistaken Nay 3dly The very truth is 't is so far from being true that upon supposition a man may be a Minister of the Body of Christ and yet the Minister of Christ i. e. by the appointment of Christ a Minister for his Body and all the Membeâ—â— Churches thereof That therefore he may be the Minister of Christ though National that ejus contrarium est verum A man cannot be a Minister of Christ if a National Minister or Minister of a National Church upon supposition that Christ hath instituted and appointed his Ministers to be Ministers for his Body i. e. his Church-Catholick-visible which is not sure confined within the narrow circumference of one Nation A mans residence wherein will be accounâ—ed but a pittiful discharge of his Ministry upon the supposition aforesaid But 4thly By the Body of Christ Ephes 4. we have proved a particular Church of Christ to be intended That there is any shew of reason in the Animadverters proposition They that may be Ministers of Christ though they may be Ministers of the Body of Christ i. e. a particular Church of Christ and all the Members thereof which by the appointment of Christ they are may be Ministers of Christ though National which none are but by the devisings of man and appointment of Antichrist he himself will not have the confidence to aver There are these things incumbent upon him to prove if he ever reinforce this Argument First That by Body of Christ Ephes 4. is not meant a particular Instituted Church of Christ Secondly That ordinary Church Officers for to run into a discourse of what was done by the Apostles extraordinary Officers who were not fixt any where nor could be whilest they made conscience of their Commission Mat. 28. 19. which was to Preach the Gospel to every Creature In which Office none are their Successors as we prove Chap. 4. is such a pittiful fig-leaf to cover ones nakedness with that every eye will see through are not limited to or fixed in a particular Congregation Thirdly Manifest the truth of this proposition shoulâ— it be granted him for disputes sake that by Body Ephes 4. is meant the Church-Catholick-visible They that may be Ministers of Christ though they may be Ministers of the Body of Christ i. e. the Church-Catholick-visible and all the members thereof may be Ministers of Christ though National The Bottom or Basis upon which it is built I must acknowledge my short-sightedness to be such that I cannot ken nor it may be a wiser man than either of us His Fourth Argument is like the rest 't is thus formed If any of the Saints as well as one particular Congregation have an Inâ—erest in all the Ministers of Christ so as that they are truly theirs then Ministers of Christ may be National But 1 Cor. 3. 22 23 Paul and Cephas and Apollos were all the Corinthians and all others who were Christ's Therefore Answ En cor Zenodoti en jecur cratetis What is most admirable in this Argument I know not A few things will manifest its nakedness to all 1st The Ministers of Christ are either such as were called extraordinary as were immediately sent by Christ or assumed to themselves by them who were so sent to be coadjutors or fellow-workers with them in that service and employment to preach the Gospel throughout the world and were fixed no where related as Pastors or Teachers to no one particular Congregation more than another or such as were mediately sent by Christ ordained in and set apart for particular Congregations Of the former sort were the Apostles c. Of the latter Pastors Teachers as we but now proved 2dly The having an interest in Ministers is either the having an interest in their gifts and abilities God hath given them or in their persons as Ministers appointed by the Lord to oversee instruct and watch over their souls as such that must give an account Heb. 13. 17. Now let him take Ministers in either sence for extraordinary or ordinary Ministers and an interest in them for an interest in their gifts or in them as Ministers appointed by the Lord to watch over and instruct them the consequence of his first proposition is most weak and invalid Though all the Saints in the world might claim an interest in Paul c. it doth not follow that they were National Ministers which 't was impossible they should be there being no such thing as a National Church from whence a National Minister hath his denomination And Mr. T. may as well surmise a King without Subjects a Father without Children or a Husband without a Wife as to surmise Paul c. to be National Ministers when there was no such thing in being as a National Church The like may be said of Pastors and Teachers in that day But 3dly If he take Ministers for ordinary Ministers as he must do if he speak to purpose extraordinary Ministers being ceased with the Apostles and their interest in them for their interest in them as Ministers to oversee and instruct them in the Lord by virtue of Office-power there is nothing more false than this that every Saint hath an interest in them as such none but that particular Congregation having in that sense an interest in them to which they are related as Ministers Nor doth the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 22 23. say that every Saint hath 1. All is yours is no more
as is made by marriage joyn our selves to the Lord c. so Isa 2. 3. Mich. 4. 2. Isa 44. 5. Zech. 8. 21 22 23. 2dly Accordingly we have the Churches of Christ in the New-Testament practising and commended for their so doing as acting therein according to the will of God Acts 2. 41 42. 2 Cor. 8. 5. 3dly The several names and titâ—es given unto particular Churches evince as much Every such Church is called 1. A Body 1 Cor. 12. 27. Col. 3. 15. Rom. 14. 4 5. Eph. 5. 30 32. Col. 1. 18 21. Now 't is not the multitude or number of members whether many or few that constitute or make a Body We say not if we come into a Field where a Battel hath been fought and find an Arm in one place a Leg in another an Hand in a third c. though we meet with as many members scattered up and down as are in the body yea though thrown together in heaps that here is a body no no 't is Rudis indigestaque moles Their union each with other and coalescency in one is that which gives them that denomination Particular Saints scattered here and there or casually coming together are not nor can they be called the Body of Christ their union each with other by their free and mutual consent is that which denominates them so to be 2. An House or Temple Heb. 3. 6. Ephes 2. 21 22. 1 Tim. 3. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Mr. T. knows who have thought the world was made by the casual confluence of Atoms he doth not sure think that a casual concurrence of people professing the Name of the Lord without more ado are or can become an House or Temple for him 3. A City a Kingdom Eph. 2. 19. Mat. 21. 43. Heb. 12. 28. Joh. 18. 36. That a man should be any way a member of these but by his free consent cannot be asserted with the least shew of reason 4. A Fraternity or Brotherhood Zech. 11. 14. 1 Pet. 2. 17. compared with chap. 5. 2 13. 5. A Candlestick in allusion to Moses his Candlesticks Exod. 25. 31. wherein though there were many shafts yet they did all coalesce in one Rev. 1. 11 12 20. All which as they import Aggregation or a solemn union so they clearly evince that this cannot be but by free and mutual consent 4. Besides we find Christ promising his Presence to his Church and People thus aggregated or gathered an Argument of his well-pleasedness therein Mat. 18. 20. which accordingly he makes good to the Churches of Asia as to the rest Rev. 1. 13. which we have proved to be particular Congregational Churches That they were separated from the World and its Worship gathered together by their own free consent for the worshipping God Mr. T. cannot deny There were no Laws to compel them hereunto but the contrary So that 3dly we may righteously retort this Animadverters Argument upon himself There cannot be a true Church where those things essential to a true Church cannot be found But in National Churches in general in the Church of England in particular those things that are essential to a true Church cannot be found Therefore The Major is Mr. T 's The Minor we prove Right matter and form is of the essence of a true Church both wanting in the Church of England 1. The right matter Mr. T. denies not to be visible Saints visible Drunkards Swearers Whoremongers covetous persons are not such yet of such as these is the Church of England mostly composed 2dly The form of a true Church we have manifested to consist in separation from Worldly Formal Antichristian Worshippers gathering together by free consent into a Church-state or particular Societies for the Worship and Service of God neither of which can be asserted of the Church of England Much of the Worship of the Nations of Antichrist at least their rites and modes of Service is retained in it And into that Church-state such as it is in which they are fixed did they never enter by their free and voluntary consent but by the Laws of the Kingdom were they at first I speak of their National-Church-state that the Gospel was early whether by Joseph of Arimathea or some one of the Apostles is not material preached in England that then a true Church or Churches were here planted I grant but this is nothing to their present frame as a Church-National compell'd thereunto and by severe Laws retained therein to this day From which as from the Lordly Prelacy the most sober People of the Nation do every-where groaning being burdened long to be delivered What follows will receive a speedy dispatch 1. 'T is true the defect of outward order i. e. of every outward order though of the institution of Christ doth not nullifie the Church but want of that order which is of the essence of the Church as we have evinced to be the case of the Church of England doth so 2dly Mr. T 's instances of the disorders in the Church of Corinth yet a true Church are so evidently impertinent that the bare mentioning them is confutation sufficient The Church of Corinth was a rightly constituted Church made up of visible Saints 1 Cor. 1. 1. gathered together into a particular body 1 Cor. 12. 27. meeting together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place for the Worship of God 1 Cor. 11. 20. 14. 23. Some disorders found amongst this Church did not nullifie it Ergo the defect of that Order that is instituted by Christ ad esse to the very existence and being of a Gospel-Church as is the case of National Churches doth not nullifie them will not in hast be made good When Mr. T. proves the sameness of constitution betwixt the particular Church of Corinth and the National Church of England his instance of disorders amongst the Corinthians will be acknowledged pertinent but till then he will not himself upon second thoughts say it is so The having of Natioâ—al Rulers Ecclesiastical either single persons or in a Synod or Convocation make not a false Church saith the Animadverter Answ 1. But should this be granted it would not follow that a National Church is not a false Church which it may be upon other accounts though upon the account hereof it should be acqâ—itted But 2ly National Officers or Rulers Ecclesiastical in whom all Church-power is stated as Arch-Bishop and from thence derived to Diocesan Bishops and by them communicated in part to the ordinary Parish-Priests as is the case of the National Ecclesiastical Officers of England are false and Antichristian Officers and Ministers we prove chap. 3. of the S. T. That a National Church so denominated from their subjection to these should be a true Church is beyond the reach of my understanding What he addeth touching Synods owned and submitted unto by those of the Congregational way and Churches of a greater number and at a greater distance than could meet in one place every Lord's day is
that a conformity to any thing that God had revealed and determined as our duty had upon that account been our bondage 'T is the liberty joy and delight of the Saints to do his will Psal 119. 45. 1 Joh. 5. 3. Psal 19. 8. 119. 111. Such kind of weak impertinent arguings asserted with state and confidence as is the manner of the man must he be content to deal with who undertakes the consideration of what is proposed by this Animadverter But to recite these Arguments had been Answer sufficient to the judicious and intelligent Reader We attend his further motion Sect. 20. God had designed his own Officers for the management of the affairs of his House Who they are may be collected from Ephes 4. 11. The Animadverter proves not that Arch-Bishops c. do the work of the Ministers of the Gospel are commissionated by Christ His apprehension when he took the solemn League and Covenant not the same as now The extensiveness of the Priviledges of the Saints under the Gospel-Oeconomie What things were wanting to the Jews under the second Temple which they had under the first The Election of Ministers the peculiar Priviledge of the Church That it was practised by the Saints in the first Ages granted by the Animadverter Many things charged upon the Saints then living that are false Neither former disorders nor present distempers amongst the Saints any sufficient Warrant for the changing an Institution of Christ. The Priviledge of Women asserted from Scripture and learned Writers Of the Decree of the Council of Carthage 1 Cor. 14. 34 35. 1 Tim. 2. 12. explained What is to be done in case of difference in the Congregation touching the election of Officers MR. T. in his 21. Sect. proposes the 5th Query in S. T. to consideration viz. Whether God hath not now as then under the time of the Law designed the several Officers and Offices his wisdom thought sufficient for the management of the affairs of his House so that the Invention of new ones by the Sons of Men is not only needless but a daring advance against the soveraignty care and wisdom of God over his Churches To which after a large harangue touching Moses the 70 Elders Joshua the Judges David and other Kings the Prophets Aaron and his Sons with the Levites whom the Lord appointed for the management of the affairs of his House having also learnedly told us that God hath not in the Christian Church designed such Officers and Offices as these the twelve Disciples and amongst the rest Peter to whom he seems to assert a Primacy by way of promise to appertain He resolves the Question in the affirmative Tells us that who the Officers of Christ's designing are may best be gathered from Eph. 4. 11. of which we have formerly spoke in Chap. 3. of S. T. As for what follows when Mr. T. shall prove 1st That the arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops c. of the Church of England do the works enjoyned by Christ and his Apostles to the Ministers of the Gospel 2dly That every one that doth those works though not Commissionated by Christ thereunto nor performing them after the order appointed by him is a Minister of Christ 3dly That its lawful for the Sons of men to make more degrees of Ministry one above the other under new Names Titles with maintenance forreign to the maintenance of Christ employed in works he no where charges upon them to do than Christ ever instituted appointed shall look upon our selves as concerned in what he offers in this Section But till then we shall neither trouble our selves or Reader with his Lordly dictates which being tendred without proof may righteously be rejected by us Only thus much I would tell him in his ear That if he had when he took the solemn League and Covenant the same apprehension of this generation of men he now seems to have he did very wickedly to swear to endeavour the extirpation of Prelacy i. e. as in the Covenant is explained Church-Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops their Chancellours and Commissaries Deans Deans and Chapters Archdeacons and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchie What Durst he sware to extirpate the Ministers and Ministry of Christ as he now supposeth them to be But Tempora mutantur nos mutamur in illis In Sect. 22. Mr. T. takes notice of the 6th enquiry in S. T. touching the extensiveness of the Priviledges of the Saints under the Gospel whether not commensurate with theirs under the Law which if understood of Saints in appearance or the visible Church he tells us The visible Church of the Jews had in some things greater Priviledges as those mentioned Rom. 9. 4 5. 3. 1 2. and are they not as much committed to the Church and People of God now so that these Texts are little to his advantage together with Gods revealing his mind to them by Urim and Thumim extraordinary Prophets and many more which he not being pleased to particularize to us we shall not turn aside to make enquiry after But to those instanced in we Answer First That the Church and People of God are destitute of some of the Priviledges mentioned is granted and so was the Church of the Jews after their return from the Babylonish Captivity The Rabbies tell us That in the second Temple there were five things wanting which had been in the first 1. The Ark with the Mercy-Seat and Cherubims 2. The fire from Heaven 3. The Urim and Thummim Ezra 2. 63. Neh. 7. 65. whereby the Lord never answered them more 4. The Majesty or divine presence whereby they seem to mean the Oracle in the most holy place where God hath dwelt between the Cherubims Psal 80. 2. Numb 7. 89. 5. The Holy Ghost or the Spirit of Prophesie which was not in the Prophets after the second year of Darius after Haggai Zechariah and Malachie had finished their Prophesies Secondly The Inference of the Animadverter is weak Believers or visible Saints under the Gospel have not some things with which the Church of the Jews was priviledged therefore their Priviledges are not as extensive which notwithstanding they might be yea abundantly more extensive The first Temple upon many accounts was more glorious than the second which wanted as was but now remarked many things wherein its glory lay Yet Hag. 2. 9. the Prophet tells them that the glory of the latter house should be greater than of the former which it was though it had not the same things for its ornament and glory upon other accounts viz. it s being honoured with the bodily presence of Christ there c. Of the Priviledges of the Gospel-Churches and their super-eminency with respect to the Old-Testament-Church we shall not now treat They are delivered from the Yoke of Ceremonial Observances have the Gospel unvailed preached amongst them 2 Cor. 3. 18 c. Nor need we the intendment of our present enquiry being only this Whether the solemn deputation of
amongst the Congregated Churches if but once 't is too often Though Mr. T. his expression intimates as if a frequent case which I cannot but tell him is a meer calumny 'T will not one day be for his credit however it may at present serve his design that he walks so much by that rule Calumniare fortiter aliquid adhaerebit 2. When it happens the exercise of those Rules of Condescention Love and mutual forbearance enjoyned by Christ upon his Disciples would soon put an end to the differences suggested But 3. If this will not do the calling-in the help of some Sister-Church may quench the flames Yet 4. If nothing will do but through the prevalency of corruption Schisms remain amongst them and separation at the last each from other ensue to prevent this we must not lay aside an Institution of Christ 5. Besides the imposing a Minister upon a People by a Patron with a Bishops Institution and Induction hath more frequently and I am sure more justly and warrantably been the occasion of the offence and difference intimated Sect. 21. Of a visible instituted Church and its security from Apostasie What Errors and Corruptions unchurch a Church Of the National Church of England Of the Governours and Officers of a collapsed Church The condition of England's Church-Officers Of Separation from a collapsed Church Of Communion with a Church not rightly constituted and compulsion thereunto IN Sect. 23. Mr. T. transcribes the 7th Query in S. T. Whether any visible instituted Church in the world hath greater security against Apostasie 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 â—hat it may lose the essence of a Church and justly be disrobed of that appellation To which he answers in the Affirmative and tells us that they justly plead it against the Church of Rome and that the promise Mat. 16. 8. doth not belong to any particular instituted Church in the World but to the invisible Church of Gods Elect. And we are of the same mind with him in this matter But lest any reflection of disparagement should from this Concession happen to the Church of England as a very dutiful Son he adds That not every no nor many corruptions of some kind do unchurch but such Errors as overthrow the foundation of Christian Faith Corruptions of Worship by Idolatry in life by evil manners utterly inconsistant with Christianity Answ 1. Nor did we ever assert that every or many corruptions of some kind did unchurch So that in this matter Mr. T. might have saved his pains Nor 2dly had we the least occasion to do so with respect to the Church of England which we deny to be a true Church not because dreadfully degenerate from what at first it was but because in its first Constitution as National which it received under the Paâ—acy it was never a true Church of Christ Though 3dly such fundamental Errors such corruptions in Worship and evil manners are to be found upon it that are inconsistant with the power of Godliness or Christianity and therefore such as by Mr. T. his Concession were enough to unchurch it To the eighth Query in S. T. viz. Whether the Ecclesiastick and Spiritual Rulers Governours and Officers of such a collapsed Church may not righteously as of old be accounted and esteemed as false Prophets that go about to cause the people to forget the Name of the Lord or his pure Worship by their lies or unscriptural Traditions Innovations and ceremonious Pageantries Mr. T. pretends to answer Sect. 24. which he fronts with this Every Error makes not a false Prophet which no one saith it doth And further by way of reply having placed in the Van 2 Pet. 2. 1. Jude 4. 1 John 4. 1. 2 John 7. 1 John 2. 22. which speak of false Prophets and Antichrist but advantage him not in the least in his present undertaking as we have manifested He adds that so long as they teach the Worship of Christ in his Name are without Idolatry in their Worship and Heresie in their Doctrine they are not to be accounted false Prophets Answ But this as to the present Ministers of England will not be granted They practise not the Worship of Christ but of Antichrist as we prove ch 7. of S. T. They come not really in Christ's Name though they pretend to it but in the name by the authority of the most profest enemy he hath in the world as we evince ch 3. of S. T. Though the Doctrine of the Church of Engl. be the most sincere part the greatest care of our Reformers at first being thereabout yet they own and preach false Doctrine the most of them are greatly degenerated from the Doctrine of the Church of England in not a few points as touching Election Free-will the extent of the Death of Christ c. as might be evidenced from their Sermons and printed Papers Of this we have spoken chap. 10. of S. T. The addition of this Animadverter of In Te ipsum cudetur faba as if guilty of the same things or such like as we charge upon the Ministers of the Church of England I challenge him to make good else he doth but calumniate His 25th Section is an Answer to the 9th Query in S. T. about separation from a Church so dreadfully collapsed as to lose the essence of a Church The sum is 1. Separation by reason of some corruptions is unwarrantable Answ And we say so too but this is not ad Rhombum we are speaking not of corruptions of any kind but of such as destroy the essence of a Church as is evident from the 7th Query in S. T. upon which this hath a dependance He adds 2dly Separation from a Church somewhat erroneous in judgment and corrupt in worship and conversation that is not Idolatrous nor heretical nor requires that to their Communion which would be sinful especially if from all attending on Ministers and Ministry at all times is unjustifiable Answ 1. All this might be granted without the least disadvantage to the Cause we are pleading 2dly By his own Sword is the Cause he undertakes the defence of wounded under the fifth rib We prove the Church of England Idolatrous Heretical She requires that to her Communion that is sinfull viz. Conformity to the Mass-book I should have said the Liturgie from thence stolen bowing at the Name of Jesus communicating with a Drunken Parish-Priest and a company of Swearing Drunken Parishioners whereby persons become one Bread with them kneeling at the act of receiving having their Children signed with the sign of the Cross which we are apt to think are things sinful and till Mr. T. is pleased better to inform us are like to abide in our present apprehension thereabout from
for the Saâ—nts in matters of Instituted Worship to practise what there is no warrant for in the Scripture because so to do 5thly pours out contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament-Churches as if it were less to these than to that under the Law and the Oeconomy of the Gospel as not so compleat as that of old the whole of whose Worship Orders and Ordinances as was said was bottom'd upon pure revelation To this saith Mr. T. 1. This pours out no contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament-Churches as is before proved in answer to the Preface Sect. 20. Answ What Mr. T. there dictates for he proves little we have already considered and removed out of the way in our reply thereunto 2dly He begs of us to yeeld him that Circumstantials of Worship as such are liable to variation are not bottom'd upon pure revelation divine but in many things left to humane prudence Answ 1. But be he never so importunately precaâ—ious herein we cannot yeeld it him but demand his proofs hereof else we judge he speaks injuriously both to Christ and Saints 2dly We cannot but demur a little upon that expression pure revelation divine upon which he saith these circumstantials of Worship are not bottom'd I hope he doth not think his Antagonists own any Revelation but that which is Divine Though as touching the Ceremonies he is under the notion of Circumstantials pleading for they are not indeed built upon Revelation Divine but Diabolical diametrically opposit to that which is Divine The language whereof is that nothing be offered up to God but that which is of his own prescription 3dly In many things he saith these Circumstantials of Worship are left to humane prudence Answ 1. Would he had told us in what things 2. Thought it incumbent upon him to prove his dictate 3. Manifested how we might be able to discern if an exect enumeration of particulars is not to be obtained betwixt those many that are left to humane prudence and the some that are not 4. Discover to us what security we have that if a protestant-Protestant-Bishop impose on us some of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome under the notion of Circumstantials and Accidentals of Worship though they are indeed such strange accidentals as were never heard-of in the world before viz. such as without which the Worship must not be performed that if the Papists should ever bear sway which is not impossible his Holiness the Pope shall not impose upon us all the rest that are as yet behind the Curtain upon the same pretentions 4. He tells us 'T is an effect of God's love and care over the New-Testament-Churches that he hath not tied them in so many things to external rites as he did the Jews Answ And we say so too but herein Mr. T. speaks not pertinently The Question is not Whether the Lord 's not tying us in so many things as he did the Jews to external rites be an effect of his care and love or no which we say it is but whether it be consistant with that his care and love in delivering us from these not to determine the whole of our Worship as he did determine the whole of theirs but leave us to the wills lusts and inventions of men to be ordered and ruled by them according as they should think meet and convenient Which when Mr. T. shall think himself able to perswade any but the blind when the Sun shines in its strength that it is not day he may attempt the proof of 5. He adds The Occonomy of the Gospel is not less compleat than that of old for this cause This reasoning if he understands the Apostle Col. 2. 8 9 10. is either the same or very like that of the Philosophical Judaizing-Teacher Answ 1. But Mr. T. his Assertion is no proof If the whole of the Worship of the Jews was compleat without humane additaments being built upon pure Revelation and ours be not compleat without many things that are left to humane prudence to determine relating to Worship as such ours is most assuredly less compleat than theirs 2dly Mr. T. his abilities of understanding I have little to say to Bernardus non videt omnia And he hath a strange faculty of discerning that can see our reasoning to be the same or much like to the reasoning of the Judaizing Teachers Col. 2. 8 9 10. 1st They diâ—puted for Jewish observances we argue as well as we can against them 2dly They asserted that they were not nor could be compleat without them this we oppose and affirm the contrary That neither our Persons or Worship are or can be any whit the more compleated by them or any other Observances in the world not instituted by Christ in the New-Testament Mr. T. indeed asserts that there are some Ceremonies left to be ordered by men according as they shall see convenient Which is somewhat like to the Doctrine of these Judaizing Teachers which the Apostle cautions the Church of Colosse against v. 8. That by the Rudiments of the world is meant Jewish Riâ—es we may grant the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Traditions of men seems to be somewhat else viz. humane Additions to Divine Institutions such as were those amongst the Jews that Christ calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 15. 3 6. which he interprets v. 9. to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Commandments of men Whether our reasoning or the Animadverter's be more like that here of the Philosophical Teachers is left to the judgment of the Judicious to deâ—ermine 3dly How little to Mr. T. his purpose this Scripture-citation is he already may discern how much it makes against the grand Design he is labouring to advance the proposing of one or two Arguments from it will fully evince 1. Those Traditions and Rudiments that are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after Christ i. e. according to the Doctrine and Institution of Christ which only ought to take place in the Church as say our Annotators upon the place are not to be complied with but to be watched warred against as such that do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lead us captive from Christ But the Rudiments Mr. T. pleads for are such as are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the Institution of Christ if they are let Mr. T. produce the place where they are so Therefore 2. If the Church at Colosse was so compleat in Christ that they needed not to subject ought not to do so to the Jewish Rites and Traditions of the Elders then much less need we to subject to the Rudiments of men or any of the accursed Rites and Ceremonies of the Papacy These Rites are much more weak and absurd than the former as never being of the Institution of the Lord but the devising and imposing of his profest enemy Therefore 6thly The Assertion That it 's lawful to practise any thing in Instituted Worship without warrant from Scripture we say
what is practised in his Worship without any warrant from him I must confess I know not what is Is not You shall sign with the Cross in Baptism kneel at the Sacrament wear the Surplice c. an adding to the Word of God when he is altogetheâ— in the Scriptures silent in these matters Mat. 15. 9. speaks of the Inventions of men with respect to accidental parts of Worship as Mr. T. accounts them The essentials of Worship as praying hearing c. they had from the Lord these things were not what Christ condemns in them as the Doctrines of men What was it then Mr. T. in his Fermentum Pharisaeorum on Mat. 15. 9. shall answer for me But in this place saith he that which our Saviour objects to them is That they sought to establish the Traditions of men chiefly that they taught men to observe things praeter Legem besides the Law in stead of Gods Law as the washing of hands before meals the washing of Cups and Potts with many such like Traditions inveâ—ted by men And afterwards Sect. 5. tells us That Bowings Duckings and such like Gestures Usages and Rites invented by men to express Humility Devotion and Reverence to God he contemns as Childish Apish Theatrical and ridiculous And Sect. 7. he adds That this teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of men intrencheth on Gods Prerogative who is the only Law-giver to his Church Jam. 4. 12. for his Worship and that with respect to the fashion and way of Service 'T is an injuring God whilest we conceive him to be so childish as to be affected with pomps and shews gestures and carnal Rites which he never appointed It opposeth Gods Word his Law his Gospel because it brings in another Rule of Worship than God's Law viz. Tradition of Elders Custom Example contrary to Deut. 4. 2. Pro. 30. 6. It opposeth the manifestation of the clear light of the Gospel as shadows the light of the Sun Look into the places where there is so much preaching of Ceremonies and Church-orders and such a regular observation of them as in places where the Cathedral and Canonical Preachers and officiating Priests do bear sway there is little spiritual understanding and lively feeling of the Doctrine and Grace of Christ to be found Sect. 8. with much more to the same purpose Lev. 10. â— Jer. 7. 31. expresly assert that their sin lay in doing that which God commanded them not which had he done it had been lawful Let Mr. T. shew where the offering of strange fire was expresly forbidden and he may be supposed to say somewhat that is pertinent Mr. Ainsworth whom he cites on Lev. 10. 1. is against him Strange fire he tells us is other fire than God hath sanctified on his Altar fire not commanded And the Assembly upon the place say rightly In God's Worship his Command not man's wit or will must be our rule The citation of Josh 22. 34. 2 Chron. 20. 3. 30. 23. Esth 9. 27 31. by this Animadverter is impertinent Josh 22. 34. gives us an account of their building an Altar but they expresly affirm it was not for burnt-offerings nor for Sacrifices not for an Ecclesiastical but a Civil use v. 22 23 24 26 28. Had they built it for the Worship of God it had in the judgment of the whole Congregation of Israel been Rebellion against him ver 16. So that this Scripture instead of supporting cuts the throat of his dying cause nor can Mr. T. ever satisfactorily answer this Argument 'T is great wickedness to commit a trespass against to turn away from following to rebel against the Lord But the doing or practising any thing in his Worship besides what God hath enjoyned to be done is to commit a trespass against him to turn away from following to rebel against him Therefore The Major no sober Christian will deny The Minor is evident from v. 16 18 19. Nor will Mr. T. his old shift of Essential and Accidental parts of Worship serve him in this case For 1. The erection of an Altar he supposeth to be but an accidental part of Worship 2. He produceth this Scripture to prove the lawfulness of mens orders in and about the Accidentals of Instituted Worship As for his other Scriptures 2 Chron. 30. 23. hath been already considered and answered in our Answer to Prof. Sect. 5. 2 Chron. 20. 3. Esth 9. 27 31. speak only of the Proclamation and Decree or Purpose of the King and People to observe and keep certain dayes unto the Lord upon the account of such signal providences that the Lord had brought them under wherein they judged he was calling them thereunto To what is added in S. T. touching the judgment of the Ancients Mr. T. replies but so jejunely that it deserves not to be taken notice of As for Cyprian's testimony 't is full up to the matter in hand the foundation upon which he dealt against the Aquarii being no other than what we are pleading-for that Christ alone is to be heard in matters of Instituted Worship as Mr. T. will grant the Sacrament to be I stand amazed at the confidence of the Animadverter in asserting that Beza's words on Phil. 1. 1. are to be understood of things determined in the Scripture when he expresly speaks of giving the title of Bishop for Polities sake peculiarly to him that did preside in the Assembly whereof he tels us the Devil began to lay the first foundation of Tyranny in the Church of God and then he adds Behold of how great moment it is to decline from the Word of God though but an hairs breadth if it be but in giving titles peculiarly to persons which are not so given to them in the Scripture And much more do I wonder if he did without blushing write that Luther is to be understood of Doctrines and Decrees if he oppose these to Church-Ceremonies which if he do not he yeelds his Cause when he expresly saith he means that nothing with respect to external Rites which he calls Traditions and the mixing the Worship of God with foolish Gewgaws is to be taught without the express words of God for our warrant 'T is true Dr. Whitakers words are meant of the Popish use of Oyl in their Sacraments but the ground of his opposing it is plainly the same with that we are contesting about viz. That nothing is to be added to the Instituted Worship as a part thereof without warrant from the Scripture for saith he we acknowledge no Oyl because we read nothing of Oyl in the Scriptures To these I say many may be added Take a few instances instead of many Whatsoever things men find and fain without the Authority and Testimony of the Scripture as if they were from Apostolical Tradition are smitten by the Sword of God saith Hierom Comment in Hag. c. 2. And again Men are saith he set to eat their meat without Salt when they are commanded any thing that hath no relish from the
where it cannot be otherwise interpreted therefore we must depart from the proper notation of the word where the context of the place doth induce us and the practice of the Church and People of God in after-generations to abide by it is not tolerable arguing His next Exception is 3dly None are said to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Paul and Barnabas and they are said to do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for them viz. tâ—â— Church or Disciples Answ 1. Nor is it necessary that we affirm any other so to do They herein presiding over them and regulating the whole affair according to the instructions received from Christ bear the name of the whole work though the Votes and Suffrages of the Disciples were in it also The Apostles ordained by Suffrages viz. the Suffrages of the Church Elders for them But this proves not that the Vote of the Disciples was excluded it rather evinceth the cantraâ—y Yet 2dly Why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be rendred creating by Suffrages or ordaining for them I do not understand It may every whit as properly be rendred with them viz. with the Church or Disciples For so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently rendred so Mat. 13. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye root up also the Wheat not for but with them Act. 17. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasoâ—ed with them Heb. 8. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for finding fault with them and in many places besides That it should be so rendred here is evident 1. 'T is consonant to the practice of the Saints then and in after-generations as is known 2. How Paul and Barnabas may be said properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ordain by Suffrages alone by themselves every understanding is not able to reach render the word with them i. e. with the Disciples and the câ—se is plain â—nd evident viz. the Apostles with the Church or Congregation of Believers by Suffrages and Votes ordained Elders which is the matter enquired after So that whatever this Animadverter is able to say to the contrary this Scripture proves the power of particular Churches to elect their own Officers and therefore if the present Ministers have not received a Commission from Christ thus mediately by the election of some one or other particular instituted Church of Christ if they pretend not to it have it in derision come barely with a presentation from a Patron Ordination Institution and Induction from a Lord-Bishop things forreign to the Scripture and impose themselves upon the People whether they will or no as it may most truly be affirmed of them they are not Ministers of the Gospel nor may be heard as such But Mr. T. hath somewhat more to adde he tells us 1. That it will be hard for us to prove that the Parish-Churches in England are not particular instituted Churches of Christ Answ 1. Of what is hard or easie for us to do or any man else our Animadverter seems a very incompetent Judge 2dly He is not ignorant that this is already done to our hands by several learned men and 't is sure no difficult task actum agere to do over again what we find done to our hands before He further affirms 2dly It will also be hard to prove that the Ministers of England are imposed on the People whether they will or no. Answ 1. The generality of the People of England will attest the verity hereof who for the most part know not their Minister till he comes to them with his Orders nor is their Consent touching his Reception desired or at all significant with respect to his exercising an Office-power over them 2dly What they do in London and some few particular places where the Inhabitants it may be are the Patrons is not considerable or worth the minding 1. For the most part they are imposed upon the people whether they will or no. 2. Were they chosen by their Parochial Inhabitants they were never the nearer Ministers of Christ Because 1. That their choice hath not the least influence upon their being constituted such 't is the Bishops Ordination that in this matter doth all 2. The parish-Parish-Churches of England are not true Churches of Christ which we demonstrate 1. Where there is not the true matter of a Church there is not a true Church But in the Parish-Churches of England there is not the true matter of a Church Therefore The Minor which alone is capable of a denial is evident That only is fit matter of a Church which corresponds to the matter of the Primitive Churches planted by the Apostles These were Saints Ephes 1. 1. Col. 1. 2. Holy Brethren 1 Thess 5. 27. Such â—â— were not of but called out of the World Joh. 15. 18 19. whom God had received Rom. 14. 3. Such as please Christ and are dearly beloved by him Eph. 5. 29. are built upon the foundation of the Prophets anâ— Apostles Eph. 2. 20. have the Spirit of Christ Eph. 4. 4. are built up together an holy and spiritual House to God 1 Pet. 2. 5. God 's House 1 Tim. 3. 15. Heb. 3. 6. are living Stones a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood an holy Nation a peculiar People v. 9. faithful in Christ Jesus Eph. 1. 1. The sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty 2 Cor. 6. 17 18. Christ is said to be their Husband their Head They his Bride Eph. 5. 23. Col. 1. 18. his Temple 1 Cor. 3. 16. Now he must have a brow of brass that shall affirm that these Characters are applicable to the Parish-Assemblies of England when they themselves will confess they appertain not to them Are Drunkards Swearers Revilers Persecuters of God and Holiness loose prophane scandalous livers of which these Assemblies for the most part are constituted and made up Saints holy Brethren such as are called out of the World c. None will dare to aver it 2dly Where there is not the true form of a Church there is not the true Church But in the Parish-Assemblies of England there is not the true form of a Church Therefore The Minor which is alone liable to exception is evident The form of a Church consists in the free and voluntary embodying together of Saints giving up themselves to the Lord and one another according to his will as we have already proved Now this cannot be asserted of the Parish-Assemblies Those Civil divisions for they are no others were of the institution of man as we have demonstrated And to this day they are held together by penal Statutes and Ordinances such as never came into the heart of Christ to establish 3dly There where there is not the Church-power that of right belongs to a true Church of Christ there is not a true Church of Christ But in the Parish-Churches of England there is not that Church-power nor as such are they capable of it Therefore The Minor which alone is to be proved is perspicuous 1. The power of electing their own Officers
they have not This belongs to Patrons Lord-Bishops c. 2. The power of admission of Members and ejection of the Scandalous by excommunication they have not The first a man hath by buying or renting a piece of Land in the Parish and dwelling there the other is managed in the Bishops Courts by a sorry thing call'd a Chancellor it may be as deboist as the worst that is brought before him Now that with respect to these things Christ hath entrusted his Church with power we evince chap. 2 4. of S. T. 4ly That company of men that are not capable of performing those duties and cannot answer that end that Christ requires of his Churches for which he instituted them are not a true Church of Christ But the Parish-Assemblies of England are not capable of performing those duties Therefore 'T is the Minor needs proof The duties Christ requires to be performed by them the end he aimed at in instituting his Churches was 1. To set forth his honour and praise Eph. 3. 21. 1 Pet. 2. 9. 2. To promote the true Light and Knowledge of God Ephes 1. 8. 1 John 1. 6 7. 3. The mutual edification of one another in the things of God 1 Thess 5. 11. Eph. 4. 29. 1 Cor. 14. 26. Jude 20. I appeal to any unbyassed man in the world whether he thinks in his conscience that the Parish-Assemblies of England can perform these duties answer this end The contrary is most evident and too notoriously known to be true than to admit of a denial But I shall not enlarge on what is already so judiciously asserted and argued by others which Mr. T. is not able to evert The Ordination of Lord-Bishops of which he next speaks is forreign from Scripture if the Office it selâ— be This we prove chap. 3. of S. T. and Mr. T. once swore to extiâ—pate it as such and I am sorry to find him now pleading for it Whether I have abused John 10. 1 9. neither Mr. T. nor I must now be judge the judicious Reader will judge for us both and I doubt not according to truth Sect. 4. The Ministers of Engl. not to be heard as gifted-Brothren Judas not particularly declared by Christ Joh. 6. 70. to be a Devil The Animadverter abuseth the Author of the S. T. in affirming he â—ies up Saintship to particular Churches whom the Scripture makes Brethren Mr. T. reduceth the Brotherhood to a smaller scantling than we We cannot perform the duties of Brethren to the Ministers of Engl. and why If we own the best of them for Brethren we must own the worst Of Judas his receiving the Sacrament The mixt multitude making acclamation to Christ of joyning with other in Worship We separate no more from the Church of England than they do from us 1 Cor. 5. 1â— 'T is not lawful to break Bread with the visibly prophane proved Iâ— what sense the Bishops are styled Reverend Fathers They are not to be owned as such The Ministers of Engl. disorderly walkers proved They engage against Scripture-Reformation 2 Thes 3. 6. explained Of Obedience to Ministers Rom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 7. opened We ought not to hear those from whom 't is our duty to withdraw Mr. T. his Aâ—guments to the contrary answered IN Sect. 4. our Animadverter replies to the proofs produced in S. T. for the confirmation of the second part of our Minor Proposition viz. That 't is not lawful to hear them as gifted-Brethren because 1. The most of them are not gifted nor 2. Brethren being Canonical Drunkards Swearers c. To this he saith 1. That any of them are such is to be bewayled in a Christian way the persons guilty are to be rebuked Lev. 19. 17. not to be thus charged in print in a Book vented in the dark tending to make them odious Answ 1. When he shall be pleased to manifest the Rule of Christ I have trangressed in thus charging them I shall as publickly acknowledge my error Those that sin rebuke before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. is some part of what I have to plead for my so doing 2. If the Book were vented in the dark I may thank them for it who would have such things stifled that their works may not be made manifest 3. I make them not odious they have made themselves so throughout the Nation 4. Mr. T. his hoping this is not true proves nothing the contrary is manifest to thousands He adds 2dly Were all this and more true yet they might be heard preach the Gospel as Brethren gifted Answ But knows he what he saith We affirm that they are not gifted nor Brethren that this should be true and more too and yet they might be heard as gifted Brethren is such a Paradox to me that comes but a little short if a little of down-right nonsense i. e. there are some may be heard as Brethren gifted that are neither gifted nor Brethren That Judas was declared by Christ to be a Devil John 6. 70. as he suggests is false He saith one of them was so but names him not 'T is true John tells us ver 71. that he spake of Judas but this neither he nor any of the rest knew till afterwards We add in S. T. 3dly The best of them cannot by Saints in respect of Gospel-communion be accounted Brethren For 1. There was never any giving up our selves each to other whence such a Brotherhood doth result To this Mr. T. answers 1. By Saints he means such as are members of a particular instituted Congregational Church distinct from the Presbyterian for such only are accounted Saints by him as give up themselves each to other c. Answ False and untrue I am amazed to see with what conscience this matter is managed by him no regard seems to be had to truth and honesty so he can cast dirt upon his Antagonist 2. 'T is contrary to my avowed principle and practice 3. I do verily believe that there are many Saints in England that are neither for the Presbyterian Parochial or Congregational way yea with Dr. Ames Trip. p. 523. afterwards cited by him I doubt not to say according to my conscience that amongst those which live under the tyranny of the Popâ—s and do not utterly separate from him through ignorance there be many Christians belonging to the true Catholick Church and so to be accounted our godly Brethren viz. upon the account of their Catholicism and so I believe there are in the Church of England somâ— amongst the Ministers thereof of whom I say still I deny not but they may be good men But yet we say 4. That upon the account of Gospel-Communion they cannot be accounted by us as Brethren because they are as Mr. T. saith rightly no members of a Christian Church i. e. any particular instituted Church of Christ That which is added by him makes much against him 1. 'T is false That the Scriptures make all who hold the same Faith and are Baptized into Christ
to be Brethren and Members of all the Churches in the world Gal. 3. 26 1 Cor. 10. 16. and 12. 12 Eph. 4. 4. They make them to be Brethren only of those particular Churches to whom those Epistles are directed as the serious reading them will evince 2. Were what he saith true He would reduce the brotherhood to a narroer compass than we either do or dare For if his notion be true only those that are baptized into Christ can be so accounted but Mr. T. thinks that only such as are baptized at years of discretion are thus baptized into Christ Therefore only such are Brethren and then I am sure the Ministers of England are not to be so accounted Thus frequently doth he wound to the heart the cause he undertakes the management of with his own sword We add in S. T. Secondly We cannot as things stand perform the duties of Brethren to them according to Mat. 18. nor will they or can they in the state in which they stand to us What Mr. T. hath answered to Maâ— 18. in his answer to the Preface Sect. 15. we have refuted in the Vindication thereof Sect. and have evinced a Congregational Church is there meant 'T is no Argument of hatred as Mr. T. according to his wonted candor suggests that we cannot perform the duties of Brethren to them 1. They are a Church of such a Latitude that 't is almost impossible we should do so 2. We are in no Church-state together 3. Should we reprove them we could do no more therefore we cannot perform the duties of Brethren required by that Scripture which indoctrinates us in case of non-repentance to bring it before the Church we know no Churth to whom we may complain The Parochial Assemblies have no power to deal with them The Bishops Court is no Church of Christ yet thither must we appeal if any where and we have little encouragement to do so it consisting of persons altogether â—â— vicious and deboyst as those we are to complain of We say further in S. T. Thirdly If we acknowledge the best of them for Brethren we must acknowledge the worst of them For 1. They are all members of the the same Church 2. They profess themselves to be one Brotherhood To which Mr. T. pretends a Reply in a Rhapsodie of words little or not at all to purpose He tells us 1st Of a twofold Communion Private or Publick and that the worst of the present Ministers are to be accounted as Brethren in respect of private Gospel-Communion i. e. we are to restore them as Brethren open our hearts to them according to Gal. 6. 1. Mal. 3. 16. Jam. 5. 16. I industriously omit his Scoffe of Pharisaically minded reputed Saints which he must shortly account for to him who will reckon with men for their hard and reproachful words to his Children And to what may be thought of any moment in this his Answer we Reply Answ 1. His distinction of Private and Publick Gospel-Communion is impertinent as is his discourse of the lawfulness of holding private Gospel-Communion with them 'T is of Communion with them in preaching c. that we are treating which he accounts Publick Communion 2. Not one of the Scriptures produced but condemn what he would have them justifie The Brethren Paul speaks of Gal. 6. 1. were Members of a particular instituted Church Gal. 1. 2. Such as had received the Spirit Chap. 3. 2. The Sons of God by Faith Vers 26. Baptized into Christ putting him on Vers 27. Sons into whose hearts God had sent forth the Spirit of his Son crying Abba Father Chap. 4. 6. Heirs of God through Christ Vers 7. Such as knew God were known of him Vers 9 c. Mal. 3. 16. Speakes expresly concern-such as feared the Lord in opposition to the proud and them that work wickedness such as those mentioned Jam. 5. 16. which Mr. T. knows in his conscience cannot be affirmed of the worst of the present Ministers Certainly the forementioned Characters fit not the drunkards swearers adulterers that are known to be of that Tribe Nor 3. Am I able to make any tollerable sence of what follows that concerning this it follows not if we acknowledge the best of them as Brethren we must also acknowledge the worst of them he having asserted and introduced the Scriptures but now requoted to prove it that concerning this The worst of the present Ministers are to be accounted as Brethren 2dly As touching publick Gospel-Communion he tells us It consists in hearing them praying with them receiving the Lords Supper c. Answ Very well How proves he that with respect hereunto we mâ—y own them as Brethren Why 1. Judas might be heard as an Apostle was perhaps a Communicant at the Lords Supper It 's therefore lawful to hear and joyâ— in the Lords Supper with the worst of the present Ministers Answ 1. Of the case of Judas that is repeated usque ad naâ—sâ—am we shall have occasion to speak hereafter At present we shall only say 2. He was an Apostle sent forth by Jesus Christ which the present Ministers of England are not 3. He was a visible Saint carried it so well that but immediately before his betraying his Lord the Disciples seemed rather to suspect themselves than him which cannot be affirmed of visible Drunkards 4. That he received the Communion is uncertain If he did they were in a Church-state he was a visible Saint no actual crime or evil could be laid to his charge so that this instance makes not aâ— all for Communion with the worst or best of the Ministers of England who are not in a Gospel Church state c. He further tells 3dly A mixt multitude made acclamation to Christ yet our Lord justified their joyning together in their praying and praising God Mat. 21. 16. Luke 19. 39. Answ 1. This was but one act 2. Out of a Church-state 3. From an extraordinary impulse of Spirit 4. They joyned with the Disciples were not the mouth of the Disciples to God and therefore reacheth not at all our present Casâ— 5. Mr. T. Can never prove this Consequence valid The Disciples sing Hosanna to Christ and others a mixt multitude by an extraordinary impulse of Spirit sing so to Ergo It 's our duty to joyn with the present Ministers as Brethren in praying preaching receiving the Sacrament c. which yet he must make good or confess he hath hitherto proved nothing He adds 4thly 'T is no sin to joyn in the true Worship of God wâ—th any if we have no command to withdraw from that Service because of their presence nor power to exclude them and yet bound to the duties then performed Believers might prophesie and hear it though unbelievers came in 1 Cor. 14. 24. Answ 1. This Animadverter takes for granted what we deny First That the true Worship of God is performed in the Parish Assemblies All praying and preaching is not the true Worship of God The offering
disorderly we prove Those that walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles and from the Primiâ—ive Church for above 300 years after Christ but according to the traditions of the old Bawd and Strumpet of Rome are such as walk disorderly But the present Ministers walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles but after the traditions of the Whorish Church of Rome Therefore The Major is bottom'd upon the express words of the Apostle in the place instanc'd in and were it not no person of ingenuity would have the confidence to deny it The Minor we prove by particular instances They have no Apostolical written Tradition for Liturgies Surplice Cross in Baptism c. If they have let them produce it and we are satisfied if not they are disorderly walkers and to be seperated from that they are such 2. cannot be denied by such as pretend to Reformation if submitting to ordination or reordination by a lord-Lord-Bishop covenanting and protesting with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scriptures and the best reformed Churches be so In answer to which Mr. T. tells us 1. That it belongs not to him to speak for the present Ministers but to themselves Answ 1. And indeed many sober minded persons think so too It very ill becoms any man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to go about to build again the things he once destroyed But yet 2ly It s not the part of an Advocate thus to desert his Clients in open Court If he undertake their defence it appertains to him to answer for them to what is objected against them However he acquaints us 2ly what he conceives they would say for themselves 1. That they do not covenant and protest with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture and the best reformed Churches Answer The whole of my intendment in that expression was to intimate their renunciation of that Covenant wherein the Reformation intimated was solemnly engaged to be promoted whicâ— what is it less then to protest against the Reformation therein asserted and enjoyned That they did this is evident from their subscription of the declaration or acknowledgement following I A. B. do declare that I do hold there lies no obligation upon me or on any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in it self an unlawful Oath That they did because they judged the matter of the Covenant at least with respect to reformation of the Church by purging it of the Hierarchie to be sinful I do suppose they will not deny nor that they renounce sin without detestation So that the Author of S. T. will in the judgment of sober minded persons be soon acquitted froâ— being in this matter a Calumniator He tels us 2ly He conceivs they would justifie their submitting to Ordination or reordination by a lord-Lord-Bishop their owning and reading a Liturgy in the Church their wearing the Surplice Crossing in Baptism c. Answ 1. No one doubts but they would nor can any other be expected from them who are in the practice of these things But that because they will justifie them therefore they are no disorderly walkeâ—s is not in my poor judgment an argument of the least weight The Papists will justifie their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Image-worship and the rest of their abominable idolatries and bring Scripture to prove it lawful too Gregorius de Valentia tels us there is some worship of Images lawful and proves it from 1 Pet 4. 3. because the Apostle would there deterre them from the unlawful worship of Idols yet I hope Mr. T. will not affirm they are not disorderly walkers and to be separated from as such 2ly We say not that they themselves will confess that they are disorderly walkers but that such as Mr. T. who have covenanted against Bishops and pretended to be for Reformation cannot deny but that they are indeed so with respect to the matters instanced in which he must acknowledge to be true for they are the very things they covenanted against as intolerable disorders and abuses to remove out of the way So that however they might call me an egregious false accuser which yet were but a sorry answer to the charge laid against them yet one would not have expected such language from Mr. T. These things are disorders or they are not If they are not why did this Animadverter Covenant Preach Print against them glory that he was one of the first that in print testified his dissatisfaction touching them If they are most assuredly those that practise them are with respect to them disorderly walkers And is Mr. T. of late grown such a fond Admirer of them that a man cannot speak truth of them but he must call him an egregious false accuser I am afraid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and seriously to review with what spirit he writ such passages as these He adds 3dly These practices except the first are not of such a degree of pravity whether justifiable or sinful as that barely for them they should be reputed in the number of Disorderly walkers and so after due process to be separated from by vertue of positive precept from Christ Mat. 18. 2 Thess 3. 6. For 1. Mat. 18. 15 16. is meant of personal injuries the Separation permitted is a Separation only from civil eating and familiar reception not from Gospel-communion Answ 1. This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath already been fully confuted 2dly He further affirms that the disorderly walking 2 Thess 3. 6. must be understood of sins of greater pravity than the particulars instanced in and charged upon them except the first which they will deny Answ 1. But the first we have proved against them therefore they are disorderly walkers according to this Scripture by Mr. T. his confession and so to be separated from 2. Every sin is a disorderly walking if persons will stand in justifie plead for any sin they are to be separated from by vertue of this Apostolical precept But 3dly If the sins charged upon the present Ministers be too small to constitute the disorderly walking here mentioned what are the greater that do so The gross sins he tells us of of any Brother not a Minister who was bound to work v. 10. such as those 1 Cor. 5. 11. 2 Cor. 12. 20 21. Answ 1. Why the gross sins of a Brother not a Minister Is not the Ordinance of private admonition Church-Censures an Institution of Christ out of the abundance of his love for the good of his Children Is a Minister exempt from it more than others he will not sure say so 2dly Why such gross sins as those mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 11. 2. Cor. 12. 20 21. doth the Apostle charge the Church of Thessalonica with any such evils as those there mentioned nothing less These are instanced in because the Animadverter supposeth at
would have them I think saith he 't is not without example in the best ordered Churches Answ 1. I remember Pope Leo the 10th in the Lateran Council Ses 2. decreed That none should preach concerning the coming of Antichrist but if the Lord shall reveal some things to others as by Amos he promiseth to do they ought not to divulge it before the Sea Apostolick hath examined it or if that cannot commodiously be the Bishop with some others he that doth otherwise let him be excommunicated From whence the Reader may easily conjecture from what quarter the present practice of the Bishops in this matter doth arrive 2dly 'T is true the Apostle would have Timothy to abiâ—e at Ephesus that he charge some that they teach no other doctrine 1 Tim 1. 3. and Titus to reject an Heretick Tit. 3. 10. and saith 1 Cor. 14. 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by the first must hold his peace But that because Paul took all the care he could to hinder the spreading of error and the preventing disorderly prophesyings as more than one speaking at once therefore 't is lawful for the Bishops in an Antichristian way by force and violence to hinder the free passage of Gospel-truths is like the rest of this B. D. Logick for which I dare say the least Smatterer in that kind of learning will say he needed not to have taken any degree in the Schools 3dly That the practice instanced in is not without example in the best ordered Churches after an unusual rate of modesty with him our Dictator tells us he doth think but he might easily have informed himself otherwise 'T is such a piece of tyranny that â—ell ordered Churches cannot bear that persons sanctified and taught by the Spirit of the Lord sound in the Faith called also according to the appointment and way of Christ to preach the Gospel should noâ— be suffered so to do without the licence of an Antichristian Foundling a dumb Idol of the Popes make call'd a Lordain I should have said a Lord Bishop Many of the worthies of the Lord have protested against as the renowned John Hus the Churches in Bohemia the most eminent in the Council of Basil as abominable and Antichristian But Mr. T. further tells us that if the Prelates silence persons when they should not they are accountable to Christ but it is no proof that their Ministry is not from Christ who submit to the commands of men who have power over them forbiding them to preach some truths Answ 1. That the Prelates are accountable to none but Christ as this Animadverters expressions intimates I am sorry to hear from him the most flattring Canonist would not say more of the Pope himself 2ly 'T is a proof that the Ministry is not of Christ that is so bounded if Pauls words be true Gal. 1. 10. 3. That Lord Bishops have any power over the Ministers of Christ by vertue of any institution of his he cannot prove the submission of Ministers unto them in things Ecclesiastical when they are distitute of such authority is so far from being an extenuation that it is an aggravation of their crime We add in S. T. 3dly That the admission of the present Ministers into their Office by a Lord Bishop without the consent of the Congregation in which they act as Officers is also forraign to the Scripture What Mr. T. hath before said in opposition hereunto is already answered What he hath further to argue shall be now considered He tells us 1. The admission of the present Ministers hath not alwayes been by Lord-Bishops some have been made by Suffragan Bishops Answ 1. The most of the present Ministers Mr. T. denyes not nor can he have their admission from a Lord-Bishop 2dly The very truth is they all have so the Suffragan Bishops he speaks of is but the Lord Bishops Deputy who represents his Lordships person in that act of Ordination and therefore what is done by him is done by the Lord Bishop 3dly Admission by a Suffragan titular Bishop is forraign to Scripture as well as admission by a Lord-Bishop He proceeds 2dly Where the Parishioners are Patrons there is the election of the Congregation Answ There are but few Parishes that as Patrons present their own Ministers and yet those that do must not have any Minister but whom the Lord-Bishop pleaseth his admission is still from him He further tells us 3dly In others there is an implioit consent in their Ancestors yielding that power to their Patron to present and an after-consent by receiving him that is instituted as their Minister Answ This is a vanity not worth the minding 1. He cannot produce any authentick Writing testifying such a reddition by our Ancestors 2. If he could though it may be supposed they may alienate what of right belongs to us as men which yet in many cases is false 't is impossible they should do so with respect of what appertains to us as Christians 3. The after-consent signifies nothing they must consent whether they will or no if they do not but testifie their dissent by abstaining from hearing them they are presented into their Ecclesiastick Courts excommunicated imprisoned ruined He adds 4thly But whether these usages be right or wrong notwithstanding them yet may the Offices of the present Ministers of England be from Christ Answ 1. This is a dictate without proof which we reject 2. That a Minister should in their names office and admission thereunto not symbolize with the Ministers of Christ and yet be his Ministers is absur'd and irrational to imagine This we have proved of the present Ministers and add that in all these they symbolize with the Popish ordeâ— of Priests which we at large demonstratâ— in S. T. what Mr. T. excepts against it shall be considered in the next Section Sect. 3. The present Ministers of England symbolize with the Popish order of Priests Of the name Priests The abolition of names once abused to idolatry Hos 2. 15. Zâ—ch 13. 2. explained Baali what it signifies Exod. 23. 13. Psal 16. 4. opened Of Orthodox Antiquity 't is no sufficient justification of what we do in divine things The Testimony of the Ancients M. T. his arguing and Baronius the Papist alike Ignatius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The book of ordering Priests and Deacons is stolen out of the Popes Pontifical as is evident by the parallel drawn betwixt them THat the present Ministers of England symbolize witâ— the Popish order of Priests we evince in S. T. under several considerations 1. They are both called and own themselves Priests which being a term borrowed either from the Priests of the Law the assertion of such a Priesthood being a denial of Christ come in the flesh or from the Priests of the Heathen from whom the word Orders is undoâ—btedly borrowed or from the Antichristian Church of Rome such idolatrous superstitious names being commanded by the Lord to be abolished Hos 2. 15 Zech
God and before God 9. Postremo Lastly the Bishop takes and delivers to them all the Book of the Gospel saying Receive power of reading the Gospel in the Church of God 10. Pontifex The Bishop shall say the Ministers and Chaplains answering Lord have mercy upon us O God the Father of Heaven have mercy on us O God the Son Redeemer of the world have mercy on us That it may please thee to blesse sanctifie and consecrate these elect ☞ We beseech thee hear us 11. They sing one and the same Hymn only the one is in Latine the other in English Veni Creator Spiritus Mentes tuorum visita c. 12. Pontifex The Bishop shall lay his hands upon the heads of each of them kneeling upon their knees before him saying to every one Receive the Holy Ghost whose Sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose Sins thou dost retain they are retained 13. Pax The Peace of God be alwayes with you the blessing of God Almighty the Father Son and Holy Ghost descend upon you English Pontifical 1. We decree that no Deacons or Ministers be ordained but only upon the Sundays more heathenishly spoken then the Pope in his Pontifical immediatly following jejunia quatuor Temporum commonly cald Ember-weeks Constit Can. Eccl. can 31. 2. And this be done in the Cathedral or Parish Church where the Bishop resideth and in the time of Divine Service in the presence not only of the Archdeacon but of the Dean ibid. 3. And here it must be declared unto the Deacon that he must continue in that office the space of a whole year except for reasonable causes it shall otherwise seem good unto the Bishop The Book of ordering Priests and Deacons 4. The Bishop before he admit any person to holy Orders shall diligently examine him in the presence of those Ministers that shall assist him at the imposition of hands Can. 35. 5. None shall be admitted a Deacon except he be twenty three years of age and every man which is to be admitted a Priesâ— shal be full twenty four years old The Preface to the Form and Manner of making Priests and Deacons c. 6. The Archdeacon or his Deputy shall present unto the Bishop sitting in his Chair near to the holy Table such as desire to be ordained Deacons each of them being decently habited saying these words Reverend Father 7. The Bishop Take heed that the persons whom you present unto us be apt and meet for their learning The Arch Deacon shall answer I have enquired of them and also examined them and think them so to be 8. Then the Bishop shall say to the people Brethren if there be any of you who knoweth any impediment or notable crime in any of these persons let him come forth in the name of God and shew what it is 9. Then the Bishop shall deliver to every one of them the New Testament saying Take thee authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God 10. The Bishop with the Clergy and People shall sing or say the Litany O God the Father of Heaven have mercy upon us miserable sinners O God the Son Redeemer of the world have mercy on us That it may please thee to bless these they Servants ☞ We beseech thee to hear us good Lord. Come Holy Ghost our souls imspire And lighten with Celestial Fire c. 12. The Bishop shall lay their hands severally upon the heads of every one that receive the order of Priesthood the Receivers humbly kneeling upon their knees and the Bishop saying Receive the Holy Ghost whose Sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose Sins thou doest retain they are retained 13. The Peace of God and the Blessing of God Almighty the Father Son and holy Ghost be amongst you and remain with you always Amen To which it were easie to adde other parallel particulars but these upon a slight view of the Roman Pontifical offering themselves being sufficient to confute that assertion of Whitgift and Mr. T. that the Book of ordering Ministers and Deacons is almost in no point correspondent to the Roman Pontifical we content our selves with them From whence the ingenuous Reader will soon determine to whom ignorance and rashness may justly be imputed We add 6thly 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 the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye forgive they are forgiven whose Sins ye retain they are retained which exactly accords with the fashion of ordaining the Priests of England To which Mr. T. replies in a long harangue not at all to the purpose giving us an account what Whitgift and Hooker say to this prâ—ctice confesses at last they offer some force to the Scripture to which they allude tells us those words may be used prayer-wise Answ 1. The Question is Whether in the particular instanc'd in there be an exact symmetry betwixt the Ordination of the present Ministers of England and the Priests of Rome This Mr. T. denies not but leads the Reader to the consideration of somewhat else 2. The use of the words John 20. 22 23. he grants to be an offering force to the Scripture and if so it is wicked and abominable to wrest the Scripture to our private interpretation is undoubtedly so 3. That they should be used prayer-wise is a most ridiculous evasion the manner of expression evinceth the contrary 4. Mr. Richard Hooker Eccles Polit. lib. 5. sect 77. as câ—ted by our Animadverter interprets it of the collation of the gifts of the holy Ghost which if we should interpret of the Office of Ministry it belongs as we have said to the Church not to such a thing as a Lord-Bishop to collate We proceed in the Parallel 7thly The Popish Priests are not ordained in and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests but in some Metropolitan Cathedâ—al City So the Priests of England To which Mr. T. replies 1. This is not alwayes so Answ I challenge him to give one instance of the contrary for these six or seven years last past 2dly It may be before the Congregation to whom the person is to be Priest Answ What may be is one thing what is another We say not only that it may be but that it ought to be yet we know it is not 'T is added in S. T. 8thly The Popish Priests take the care of Souls though nâ—t elected by them from the presentation of a Patron by the Institution and Induction of a Lord Bishop so the Ministers of England To which our Animadverter This is not always so nor when so Popish Answ 1. The first is most notoriously false and we challenge Mr. T. to make it good if he can 2. the latter remains to be proved by him to assert it is not Popish is a piece of beggary this Animadverter is much used to What he hath before said is
already answered We add 9thly The Popish Priests wait not the Churches call to the Ministry but make suit to some Prelate to be ordained Priest and giving money for their Letters of Ordination so the Priests of England Mr. T. replies To offer a person's self for ordination is in some case a duty 1 Tim. 3. 1. Isa 6. 8. Answ 1. The Scriptures produced prove not his assertion Isa 6. 8. is sufficiently remote from any such thing there 's not the least mention of Ordination therein it s only a testimony of Isaiah's readiness to obey the voice of the Lord in going forth to bear a testimony for him against an untoward rebellious people 1 Tim. 3. 1. only tels us that he that desires the office of a Bishop desires a good work i. e. as say our Annotators is inwardly moved by the Spirit of the Lord thereunto which he may do and yet I hope wait the Churches call thereunto Besides 2ly Should this be granted it signifies little till he prove that it 's the duty of any with the neglect of the Churches call to this Office to seek ordination thereunto from an unscriptural Prelate which is that we charge upon them which Mr. T. knows they do He tells us 2dly Giving money for their Letters of Ordination is only Wages to the Register for writing Answ 1. Be it so that they give money for their Letters of Ordination is all that is asserted by us which Mr. T. grants they do 2. 'T is well if there be no Simony as it 's call'd found amongst them 3. If provision be made against the Registers exacting over-much by the Canons of the Church of England he informs us that the same provision is made by the Popish Trent-Council The Parallel in this particular holds good We say 10thly The Popish Priests are ordained to their Office though they have no Flock to attend upon So the Priests of England Mr. T. replies The Priests of England are not to be ordained without some title according to Can. 33. even the Trent-Council hath made some provision thereabout Answ 1. Mr. T. doth well to consociate the Canons of the Church of England and the Church of Rome in the Trent-Council together they are in not a few things near of kin 2. However I cannot but stand astonished at his confidence in telling us that the Priests of England are not to be ordained without some title according to Can. 33. when that Canon saith expresly That they may if a Fellow or in right as a Fellow or to be a Chaplain in some Colledge in Oxford or Cambridg if a Master of Arts of five years standing that liveth of his own charge in either of the Universities if to be shortly admitted either to some Benefice or Curatship then void or if the Bishop do after his admission into the said office keep and maintain him with all things necessary till he prefer him to some Ecclesiastical Living 3. But it may be the Animadverter by title means some one of those things mentioned To which I shall only say that if so he doth openly prevaricate pretends to answer to what he speaks not one word such Titles are supposed to be without a Flock to attend upon What he adds of Ministers being necessary for Armies c. is nothing to the purpose This proves not that they may be ordained Ministers without a Flock to attend upon which they may have and by them be sent forth for the works mentioned for a season We know it hath been the practice of the Churches so to do 2. Privâ—te Brethren may act for the supply of the services mentioned and frequently have done so nor indeed do I conceive how any can act therein in any other capacity Which is not incongruous to Acts 23. 2. as this Animadverter suggests which speaks not a tittle of their ordination to the Office of Ministry which they had before but only a solemn commending of them by Fasting and Prayer to the Blessing of the Lord by the Church in the Service they were now setting upon in which they testified their consent by the laying on their hands as say our Annotators To the 11th Parallel viz. That the Priests of England must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary as the Priests of Rome Mr. T. only saith That 't is true at their institution into Benefices they do so but it is so bounded that it is not intolerable 't is nothing like that which is required of the Papists Answ 1. The Parallel herein betwixt the English and the Popish Priests is acknowledged which is all we affirm 2. That the Oath is tolerable that 't is nothing like the Oath of Canonical Obedience tendred to the Popish Priests is only affirmed by Mr. T. without proof that was the copy and pattern of this as he cannot be ignorant The 12th Parallel touching their leaving their Benefices for advantage-sake without consent of the People The 13th touching their special Licence to preach without which they must not from â—he Prelates though thereunto before ordained The 14th touching their subjection to be silenced by the Prelates betwixt the Ministers of England and Rome he grants to be true nor saith he any thing by way of reply that deserves the taking notice of To the 15th viz. the Popish Priests are not of like and equal power degree and authority amongst themselves but are some of them inferiour to others herein as Pastors to Archdeacons Archdeacons to lord-Lord-Bishops lord-Lord-Bishops to arch-Arch-Bishops so the Priests of England Our Animadverter replies 1. Inequality is judged to be in the Elders of the Primitive Churches by the inscription of the seven Epistles to the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia Answ But this rather proves there equality to each is a several Epistle directed whereas had there been one Arch-Bishp or Superintendent over them one Epistle had been sufficient and had been no doubt directed to him He adds 2dly It hath been in some sort in all well-ordered Churches and is necessary to setled order Answ These are his dictates which he is not at leasure to prove The Church of Rome in the Apostles dayes of Corinth Ephesus were as I remember well-ordered Churches yet cannot be manifest any inequality amongst their Elders No Superintendent lord-Lord-Bishop or Arch-Bishop as I read of 2dly What thinks he of the Church of the Waldenses were they well-ordered Churches They were from the beginning without this Superiority of Elders one above the other The like may be said of most or all the Reformed-Churches The Churches of Helvetia reckoning up the degrees of Arch-Bishops Suffragans Metropolitans Deans Subdeans tell us plainly they are not sollicitous about them That the Apostles Doctrine touching Ministers is sufficient for them cap. Confes. Helvet poster c. 18. And afterward there is one and the same equal Power and Function in all the Ministers of the Church and though in process of time one was chosen from amongst the rest to preside in
Synods yet was he not set over others nor endowed with greater power than the rest cap. conf Helvet prior Arti 15. the French Churches say We believe that all true Pastors wheresoever they are placed are endowed with equal authority under that only head high and sole universal Bishop Jesus Christ and therefore it is lawful for no one Church to claim authority and dominion over another cap conf gal Confes. Art 30. So say the Belgick Churches Bely conf Art 31. So that Mr. T. out of his great love and dutifulness to his Mother the Church of England is not sparing to cast dirt in the face of the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves and most or all the Reformed Churches at this day who own no such inequality as he pleads for and therefore were are all of them not well-ordered Churches in comparison at the least to her and the Church of Rome where the Hierarchie is established To the 16th parallel about holy Vestments he is able to object on-thing worth the considering The 17th is The Popish Priests are tyed to a book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man for their Worship and Ministration so are the Ministers of England and that to such a one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis To this Mr. T. replies 1. The Assembly of Westminster prescribed a Directory for Worship Answ 1. Quid hoc ad Rhombum I am not in the least concern'd to justifie all that was done by that Assembly and am apt to think they might in that matter have spared their pains 2dly The same Assembly abhorred the Common-Prayer-Book Service as a most detestable and filthy Idol preached printed against it procured its Abolition 3dly Every one that knows any thing knows that upon various accounts there is no likeness betwixt these two None were compell'd to the use of this or that form of words by the Directory as in the Book of Common-Prayer He adds 2dly Those prayers and portions of Scripture which are holy and good are never the worse because they were in the Popes Portuis no more than the acknowledgement of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God is the worse because the Devil used it Mar. 5. 7. Answ 1. Of the Scriptures and that glorious Truth of Christ's Eternal Deity as the Son of the most High God and the Common-Prayer-Book-Service there is not the same reason They were from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit originally Divine this of man devised upon the prevailing of Apostacy upon the Churches of Christ imposed with threatnings cruelties and slaughters upon the Children of Christ by his professed Enemy abused by a confessed Idolatrous generation of men if there be any such in the world That because the abuse of the Scriptures and the Truths contained in them doth not render them the worse therefore a devised Service that it the best is wicked and abominable in its imposition intolerable used by Idolaters is not the worse I chalenge Mr. T. to make good 2. Though the Scriptures are not the worse because portions of them are read in the Romish Idolatrous Service yet the following the Romish Synagogue in curtailing the Scriptures reading one part of a Chapter at one time another at another and manifestly misapplying them causing them also to give place to the Apochryphal Writings is abominable He goes on 3dly That which is suggested as if the Common-Prayer-Book now in use were little different from the Popes Missal he tells us is untrue Answ 1. The Animadverter is a little mistaken We affirm in S. T. that the Common-Prayer-Book-Service used in King Edward the 6th's dayes and the Popes Missal were not much different And for the proof of that we produced the Testimony of the King and Council which we thought M. T. would never have questioned That the Common-Prayer-Book now in use and that then used is not much different every body knows 2dly 'T is true all that is in the Pope 's Missal is not in the Common-Prayer-Book nor did any one ever assert this but the most that is in the Common-Prayer-Book is stolen out of the Popes Missal The Epistles and Gospels the Prayers or Collects the rites and usages therein joyned are so and this Mr. T. denyes not I had thought to have represented the truth of this to the eye of the Reader by exhibiting our English and the Popes Latine Masse at one view to him which I have by me faithfully collected and compared together But the swelling of this Treatise unexpectedly and the difficulty of printing any thing of this nature that is voluminous through the tyranny of the Prelates makes me wholly to lay aside that intendment to a fitter season if need be The summe of what we have been offering in this matter we say in S. T. is this 1. Those Ministers that in their names office admission into their offices are not to be found in the Scripture are not Ministers of Christ act not by vertue of an Authority Office-power Calling received from him 2. Those Ministers that in their names office admission into their office are at a perfect agreement with the Ministers of Antichrist such are the Popish Priests acknowledged to be are not the Ministers of Christ But such as have been abundantly demonstrated are the present Ministers of England Therefore The Minor Mr. T. saith is manifestly false he hath said nothing to prove it in the main Answ This is soon said had he proved it manifestly false be had done somewhat Whether any thing considerable hath been offered by us for the proof of the Minor others besides Mr. T. and I will now judge Sect. 4. The present Ministers of Engl. proved Antichristian They act from a Power Office and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop whose Office is Antichristian The opinion of the Learned touching them Their Office is not to be found in the Scripture Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Tim. 3. 12. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5 7. Acts 20. 28. know them not They were not known in the Church for some hundreds of years after The Office of Lord-Bishops wherein it consists Of Diotrephes his asserting Supremacy Our Bishops neither Evangelists nor Pastors nor Teachers nor Apostles proved Mat. 28. 19. explained Of the Rise of Episcopacy The Testimonies of Dr. Hammond Whitaker Reynolds Eusebius c. touching it WE further prove in S. T. The present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichrâ—stan Power Office and Calling Because 2dly That they act from a Power Office and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop whose Office is Antichristian This the summe To which Mr. T. replies That neither himself nor any sober Writer judged them Antichristian Answ 1. Whether he once so judged of them his taking the Covenant to extirpate them wherein they are condemned as Antichristian will evince 2. What he or I judge them is not material that no sober Writer or considerate man that
ever he met with hath judged them Antichristian must be imputed to the shortness of his memory He haâ—h I suppose met with Zuinglius Keckerman who say little less The former Art 34. p. 254 255 tells us That for any to claim any Rule Power or Superiority over any Church of Christ which we know out Bishops do is Devilish Proud and Popish Arrogancy And Aretius in his Problems producing Christ's prohibition of Superiour power to his Apostles Mar. 10. 5. Luke 22. 25. saith None but Antichrist dare be so fancy as to usurp it Marlorat on Rev. 17. 3. saith That Arch-Bishops are in Office under Antichrist And on Chap. 19. The tailes of Antichrist Bale on Rev. 17 saith That Canterbury and York are the Beastly Antichrists Metropolitans And on Chap. 13. That Arch-Bishop Diocesan are very Names of Blasphemy Of these we spake pag. 28. S. T. who I dare say were sober Writers and considerate men Mr. T. his answer to their Testimony viz. That they writ thus against the Romish Hierarchy is ridiculous they writ against the Offices of Arch-Bishops as such which are not a whit the better because they constitute the English Hierarchy We mention Cartwright the seekers of Reformation in Queen Elizabeths dayes proclaiming them to come out of the bottomless Pit of Hell to be Antichristian Devilish These also must pass in the Roll of inconsiderate fellows yet others as wise as Mr. T. think otherwise of them For the proof of the Antichristianism of the Office of Lord-Bishops I propose a few things briefly in the S. T. as 1st That Office that is not to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ but is contrary to express Precepts of his is Antichristian But the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures is contrary to express Precepts Therefore The Major Mr. T. is nibling at but he doth but think he tells us if Universal it is not true The Office of the Religious Votaries he talks of is Antichristian If there be any Antichristian Office in the World that must needs be so that is introduced into the Church of Christ though not of his Institution directly contrary to express Precepts That this Assertion should necessitate any one to affirm every sin to be Antichristian though in a large sence as Antichristian signifies that which is against Christ every sin every errour is so is absurd to imagine The Minor I say consists of two parts 1. That the Office of Lord Bishops is not to be found in Scripture of the Institution of Christ This I manifest by considering the most remarkable places where the Officers and Offices that are of Christs appointment are enumerated in which we have a total silence of them Ephes 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Tim. 3. 12. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5 7. Acts 20. 28. I add also that they were never dreamt of in the world for some hundreds of years after Christ We introduce the Testimony of Clemens Lombard Dr. Hamonds acknowledgment of their Rise To which Mr. T. answers The whole Discourse is impertinent the thing to be proved was that the Office of Lord-Bishops was not to be found in the Scriptures and the whole Discourse is about the Superiority of Order above Presbyters Primacy or Supremacy of Degrees among Bishops Answ 1. We have examined the particular places wherein mention is made of the Officers of Christs Institution and find no Lord-Bishops instituted in any of them which manifests that they are not If this be not taken for proof I know not what will If this be not to the purpose I am in dispair of producing any thing that he will account so 2dly The Office of Lord-Bishops as such consists in the Primacy Superiority and Supremacy mentioned as is known If Mr. T. grants this not to be found of the Institution of Christ in the Scripture he gives away the Cause 3dly They themselves do own and avow a great part of their Office to consist in the foresaid Primacy Jurisdiction And if this be not it I am sure some of them are seldom or never minding their Office these things are what is most attended by them Of whom we may complain as Bernard of old Vides omnem Ecclesiasticum Zelum forvere prâ— sola dignitate tuenda honori tantum datur sanctitati nihil aut parum Si causâ requirente paulo submissius agere aut socialius to habere tentaveris absit inquiunt non decet tempori non congruit majestati non convenit quam geras personam attendito De placito Dei ultima mentio est pro jactura salutis nulla cunctatio quod sublime est hoc salutare putamus quod gloriam redolet id justum De Considerat Lib. 4. His following Exceptions are not worth the heeding I mention Diotrephes in S. T. and say That some appearances of a Spirit striving to ascend into this Chair of wickedness was seen in him and others in the Apostles dayes To this Mr. T. But this was not the usurping the Superiority of Order of a Bishop above a Presbyter Answ Nor do I say it was I expresly affirm the contrary whâ—n I say that such a Superiority was not in the world for some hundred of years after Christ we only say that some appearances of that Spirit was seen in him which the Apostle affirms John Epist 3. Vers 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He loveth the preheminence among them attempts the Primacy so Beza Which if it be not an appearance of the Spirit mentioned I know not what is he endeavoured to rule all himself carried it proudly pragmatically arrogantly over the Church the Brethren John himself who was an Elder saith Mr. T. He that cannot see somewhat of our Episcopal Spirit in this is I fear willfully blind I am fure he must wink hard He takes notice that in reciting Ephes 4. 11. I twice leave out Evangelists which he knows not the reason of Answ Nor do I my self possibly it was an oversight it may be an omission of the Amanuensis However it was it was not I assure him any fear I had that he or any one could justly plead that our Prelates were Evangelists 1. I know that Title is declined by Pleaders for Episcopal Jurisdiction 2. Our Bishops do not the works of Evangelists They had no setled residence but travelled up and down with or after the Apostles to help forward the work of Christ that was set on foot in the world by them We find Titus who was an Evangelist somtimes at Crete Gal. 2. 3. At Dalmatia 2 Tim. 4. 10. appointed to meet Paul at Nicopolis Tit. 3. 12. Sent to Corinth 2 Cor. 12. 18. At Macedonia 2 Cor. 7. 5 6. Such an itinerant laborious life that our Bishops are unacquainted with 3. Evangelists were such extraordinary Officers as ceased with that Age for we find no directions given touching their future Election in in the Churches Mr. T. tells us Our Prelates
chalenge the term of Pastors and Teachers this I had said was too great a debasement of their Lordships he tells us This is a Satyrical Sarcasm no proof Ans 1. However it is evidently true Pastors and Teachers we have already proved are Officers appertaining to one particular Church 'T is certainly a debasement of their Lordships who preside as petty Princes over hundreds of Pastors and Churches so called to be reduced to a laborious over-sight over one 2dly I had said in S. T. That their Parochial Priests over whom they preside are supposed to be Officers in that degree The Argument is this which Mr. T. may take time to answer If the Parochial Priests over whom the Bishops of England preside be such Pastors and Teachers as the Scripture mentions then the Bishops of England are not cannot be such for they are an Order and Degree above them to them as their Superiours they promise and swear fealty But tho former according to the judgment of the Church of England is true Therefore The Story he after tells us of a Presbyters having in case of infirmity Assistants who notwithstanding may be called a Teacher is so remote from the business in hand that though some would cry out Quis temperâ—t a risu For my part I heartily pitty him 1st This is known not to be the reason of the Bishops having Parochial Priests under them were they never so strong it were impossible they should perform the Office of Pastors to the several Congregations in England 2dly The Presbyter is not an Order above his Co-adjutor as is the case of the Bishops he is a Co-Presbyter one of the same degree with himself So that of this we shall I suppose hear no mere We add in S. T. That they pretend to be and are so accounted by some the Apostles Successors but if they derive their sâ—ccession through the Papacy 't is an evident Argument they are Antichristian if the Pope be the Antichristian head over many Countries as Protestants affirm In respect of their Office we prove they are not their Successors Because 1. The Apostles were immediately sent by Christ 2. Extraordinary Officers sent forth to preach the Gospel throughont the Nations of the world 3. We find no Apostles after them 4. None appointed by them to succeed them 5. None are qualified with gifts for the discharge of such an Office and Christ sends not forth servants in any imployment but he furnisheth them with gifts suitable thereunto This the summe To which our Animadverter pretends to answer Sect. 5. Chap. 3. 1. Apostles he grants they may not be reckoned yet 2. They may be their Successors 1st Dr. Owen of Schism Cap. 6. Sect. 55. grants That persons adhering to ordination by succession from Popish Bishops may be right worthy Ministers of the Gospel but not upon the account of that their Successional Ordination but the eminent gifts God hath vouchsafed them and the Lords people submitting themselves to them in the administration of Ordinances And the Author of S. T. denies not they succeed them as Christians and if so they may be heard as gifted brethren which was denied by him Chap. 2. Answ 1. How all this proves the Bishops of England to be the Successors of the Apostles in respect of their Office which was what he pretends to attempt the proof of I know not 2. I deny indeed that they may be heard as gifted Brethren Chap. 2. and give my reasons of my so doing which I have vindicated from this Dictators exceptions That we are to have communion with all that we cannot deny to be Christians in that wherein they act not as such but by virtue of an Office-power we know they have not received from Christ Mr. T. will not in hast attempt the proof of He asks Why may they not succeed them in Office Answ I wonder he should ask such a Question En Tabulas The reasons thereof are given in the place he undertakes the confutation of They were it seems too weighty for him he wisely lets them alone without burthening himself so far with them as to attempt their removal The Apostles Office was indeed no other than that mentioned Mat. 28. 19 20. Mar. 16. 15. but that was 1st An Office of Preaching not of Lording and Loytering 2dly Into it they were immediately invested by Christ 3dly They were to preach the Gospel through the Nations of the World not to stretch themselves upon Beds of Ivory in a Lordly Pallace which was as much their Office as Preaching the Gospel upon the account whereof Paul saith He was a debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians Rom. 1. 14. Christ its true promiseth his presence with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But 1. I am not satisfied that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Consummation of this world is any more than the winding up or perioding of that Age. I am sure the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the space of 70 or 100 years and sometimes not near so many as Mark 13. 30. which came to pass within 50 years And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no more than the perioding of the Jewish Paedagogie or Church state Heb. 9. 26. 2. I hope Christ is with them now so that there needs not a succession of persons in the same Office which we have proved there never was to whom Christ may make good his promise 3. The Lord promised Joshua never to leave him nor forsake him Josh 1. 5. This Promise he will not say doth necessarily suppose a succession of Officers in the place of Joshua which upon all accounts there was not The Apostle applies it to the Saints Heb 13. 5. And I am of the mind Christ doth as really fulfill that Promise Mat. 28 20. made originally to the Apostles when he vouchsafes his presence to the Saints to comfort quicken uphold defend them according as their exigencies do require as ever he did to the Apostles themselves So little reason is there of asserting the necessity of Officers as successors of the Apostles in their Office of Apostleship to vindicate the faithfulness of Christ in that Promise of his The succession we speak of which the present Ministers pretend to is a personal succession through Papacy i. e. that the Apostles ordained Bishops these ordained others downwards to this day a Catalogue of whom from time to time some pretend to That when Antichristianism overspread the world and the Pope as the Head thereof ordained and sent forth Ministers from whom they received their Office-power these should be notwithstanding not Antichristian is a fond conceit He could not communicate that he had not that he had any true power any other than a false Antichristian Office-power Mr. T. will not have the consideâ—ce to aver So that the whole fardle of words that ensue are not at all to the purpose A succession in doing the same work after them and preaching the same Gospel
Province with them did minister Justice and made his abode there ordinarily Whereupon by reason that men for their business made great concourse thither the Church was wont to furnish it of Godly Polity with the worthiest Bishop eâ—dued with gifts above his Brethren And they reposed in him such assiance that they did not only commit the Presidentship of their Assemblies to him Concil Antioch â—an 20. Chalced. can 19. But agreed also that none throughout all the Province should be made Bishop without his consent nor any weightier matter be done by them without him Concil Nic. can 4 6. Concil Antioc can 9. Now the Roman Empire was governed in such sort that the Circuits of the Lord-Presidents had many Provinces within them and were called Diocesses Through occasion whereof the Bishops of those Cities in which these Lievtenants of the Emperor were resident The state Ecclesiastical following the Civil Wolfgang Luzu Comment Reip. Rom. l. 2. c. 2. did grow in power too Neither were they only named Arch-Bishops and Patriarks of the Diocess i. â— the chiefest Bishops and Fathers of that Circuit which the Lieutenant ruled but also obtained that the Metropolitans of the Provinces in their Diocess should be likewise subject and obedient to them as Bishops were to Metropolitans So the Arch-Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch had Prerogatives given him through the Diocess of the East wherein were seven Provinces Concil Const 1. can 2. Concil Antio in exord So nothing could be done in the Diocess of Egypt which under the Bishop had ten Metropolitans without the consent of the Arch-Bishop and Patriarch of Alexandria Conc. Chalc. Act. 4. so it was granted to the Arch-Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople that the Metropolitans of the Diocesses of Pontus Asia Thracia within which were twenty eight Provinces should be ordained by him Finally so was it decreed that if a Bishop had any matter of Controversies with the Metropolitan of his own Province the Patriark of the Diocess should be Judge thereof Concil Chalced. can 9. 17. as also if any man did receive injury of his own Bishop or Metropolitan Thus were the Roman Popes as they are called now first Bishops over Elderâ— within their own City next Metropolitans over Bishops within their own Province Then Arch-Bishops and Patriarks over Metropolitans within their own Diocess And this is the Princely Diocess which I meant when I said that the Pope in the time of Pelagius was become Arch-Bishop of the Princely Diocess but he was yet but an Arch-Bishop He was not universal Pope and Patriarch of the whole World For although the Patriark of Constantinople being puffed up because in his City the Emperor himself was resident he would be called the Patriark of the whole world as the Emperor was called the Lord of the world Greg. Regist l. 4. Epist 39. yet the Roman Patriarks Pelagius Gregory did withstand his Pride Rainolds Confer with Hart c. 8. Beza also Thes Geneves tells us that the Fathers in the distribution of Churches under Bishops Arch-Bishops c. followed the type or pattern of the Roman Emperor And the learned Brightman in Rev. 13. 4. tells us that they are the worshipers of the Dragon in the Beast who wonder at the Pâ—imacy for the Political Majesty of the Dragon granted by the Councel of Chalcedon Act. 16. Indeed in Clements Constitutions we find if possible a more filthy source from whence their original is asserted In the place where they were before first-Flamines Petâ—r commanded Patriarks to be placed and in Cities where before were Arch-Flamines Arch-Bishops the rest were only Bishops That we had hâ—re in England twenty eight Head-Priests which they called Flamineâ— and three Arch-Priests among them which were called Arch-Flamines which had the oversight of their manners and were as Judges over the rest is known hence the pattern of our Arch-Bishops and Bishops Sect. 5. The office of Lord-Bishops contrary to express precepts of Christ Mat. 20. 25. Mark 10. 42. Luke 22. 25. 1 Pet. 5. 3. considered Of the titles of Dr. of Divinity c. The office of Lord-Bishops derived from and only to be found in the Papacy The Popes of Rome the head of Antichrist No lord-Lord-Bishop till after Constantine Of the first Nicene Council whether there were any lord-Lord-Bishops before what difference betwixt lord-Lord-Bishops then and now Of the retention of the same office in the Greek Eastern Russian Churches The difference betwixt the Superintendency of the Lutheran Churches and our Bishops An Objection answered The Bishops of England act not in the matter of Ordination as Presbyters THat the office of Lord-Bishops is contrary to express precepts of Christ in the Scripture is the second part of our Minor Proposition which in S. T. we prove from Mat. 20. 25. Mark 10. 42. Luke 22 25. 1 Pet. 5. 3. To which Mr. T. answers 1. That we shoot wide of the mark Answ This we have already replied to His instance of the Titles of Doctor of Divinity in the Schools is not at all to the purpose They pretend not to any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Elders and Churches by vertue of their being invested into such titles as our L-Bishops do 2dly He considers the particular Scriptures instanced in to which what to reply he seems to be much at a loss 1. He would have the words of the Evangelists not to be a precept shewing their duty but a prediction manifesting the event of what should be Answ 1. This is expresly contrary to the letter of the Text. 2. The Lordship Supremacy Superiority call it what you please is a Lordship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst themselves over one another that is interdicted and forbidden by Christ that it was lawful for them to exercise such a Supremacy this Animadverter will not say now this must be supposed if the words be not a precept but a prediction 3dly He expresly tells us in his Romanism discussed Art 7. Sect. 8. p. 174. l. 14. That Superiority is in these words plainly forbidden 2ly He is inclined to think that if it be a precept it is a precept to the Apostles only not to others Answ 1. Then not to the Pope then Mr. T. palpably abuseth this Scripture in his Roman discussed Art 7. Sect. 8. p. 173. where from hence he argues and enveighs against the Pope's Supremacy But 2ly as good he may say that the great Doctrines of Self-denial frequently pressed by Christ upon the Apostles is a precept only to them 3ly We find the Apostle charging the same thing upon the Elders 1 Pet. 5. 3. who knew the mind of his Lord in this matter it 's to be thought as well as Mr. T. He tells us 3dly If it be a precept to others besides the Apostles whether to all Christians or only to Ministers of the Gospel and whether it forbid simply Dominion at all or tyranical Dominion is doubtful Answ And yet the first he positively affirms within ten or eleven lines
afterwards and here and in his Roman discussed asserts that 't is not tyrannical Dominion but the Dominion of one Apostle over another that is interdicted So that the same thing is doubtful and not doubtful with Mr. T. in the writing a few lines And this he proves by no fewer than ten reasons in his Rom. discussed 2dly Here he tels us that 't is an affectation of the Rule which a person may have and lawfully exercise that is forbidden there that the Dominion or Rule it self is interdicted which he would do well to reconcile and answer his Arguments he there produceth for its confirmation The sum whereof is Christ would have none amongst them superiour but all equal he forbids not only tyrannical Dominion but also any Dominion at all over one another which is saith he apparent 1. From the occasion of the words Christ forbids what they sought for but they sought for chief Dignity Seniority and priority of Order as do the Bishops of England 2dly From the Subjects whose Dominion is forbidden viz. Kings that had lawfull Authority and therefore such Rule is forbidden as the best Rulers used amongst the Nations 3dly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although sometimes meant of meer lordly forcible Rule against the will and good of the person ruled yet here it cannot be so meant sith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use Dominion at all and to have power at all over one another is forbidden Luke 22. 25. 4thly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used still of Rule without abuse is forbidden 5thly It is forbidden to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to affect that title which implies one to be under another and to be beholden one to another as persons that could gratifie one another which doth imply superiority in some sort 6thly The additional speech of Christ commanding in the stead of Dominion Mat. 20. 26 27. rather Ministry and Service shews he would have none among them superiour but all equal 7ly Christ's propounding himself as their example only in service 8â—y He requires such a mutual debasement as takes away the taking to themselves priority of order or place or rule over one anotheâ— Mat. 20. 26 27. Mark 10. 43 44. Luke 22. 26. 9ly This is confirmed by other places upon a like occasion Mat. 18. 1 2 3 4. Mark 9. 33. Luke 9. 46. In which Christ resolves them that they should be as a little child that assumes not Empire but is humble and accounts others as equal to him 10ly From Luke 22. 28. that Christ having forbidden superiority in any of them among themselves promises them a Kingdom afterward in recompence of their abiding with him in his temptations All which manifest 1. a Superiority interdicted 2. That the Superiority interdicted is not interdicted to all Christians as he would in his Theodulia bear us in hand for then Christians should be forbidden to exercise Civil Dominion and Power as Mr. T. his ten Arguments manifest But 3. a Superiority of order over one another as the Bishops of England exercise over their fellow-Ministers That the Apostles exercised any such Superiority over the Church of God or Ministers of a lower order as the Bishops of England exeâ—cise over them this Animadverter will never prove And if he were able so to do this would not justifie the Bishops in their exercise of such Superiority who are invested with no Apostolical Power that I know of 'T is true a rule over the Faith of Saints is disclaimed by the Apostle 2 Cor. 1. 24. but that this is not the whole of what is interdicted in the places before-cited he hath himself proved by ten Arguments but now repeated by us As for 1 Pet. 5. 3. he tells us what the Assembly in their Annotations say on the place viz. that is not imperiously commanding your own inventions in the stead of the Doctrine of the Gospel not carrying hemselves insolently and magisteriously towards Gods People 3 Joh. 9. Answ 1. All this is known to be practised by the present Bishops They command imperiously their own inventions to which the preaching of the Gospel must give place when there is not time for both as in the case of Liturgy-worship is known to be true How insolently and magisterially they carry it towards the people of the Lord the whole Nation is witness 2. The Elders being interdicted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to exercise Lordly Rule over the Heritage of God is certainly an interdiction of the introduction of any such Officer into the Churcâ— of God as against the will of the Lord's People should by vertue of an Office-power exercise a Lordly jurisdiction over them and their Ministers as a superiour order of Priesthood and certainly more forbidden than the office of an Elder Jurisdiction is not an abuse of our Prelates Office as is known though they too often abuse it by exercising it exorbitantly even contrary to their own Canons but a great a chief part of it wherein they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise dominion over the People of God and that against their will by fore and violence to their utter undoing and that in execution of that office they have received and exercise according to their Canon Laws in their Courts Ecclesiastical We further prove in S. T. That the office of lord-Lord-Bishops is Antichristian because derived from and only to be found in the Papacy none of the Reformed Churches have retained it the Woman in her flight into the Wilderness carried it not along with her it 's rejected by the true Spouse and Witnesses of Christ in all ages We instance in several as Hierom the Churches of Helvetia c. To this Mr. T. replies 1. Though the latter Popes viz. from the time of Boniface the third about the year 606. be the head of Antichrist yet it doth not follow that the office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian there having been bad Officers perhaps derived from good Popes and continued only in the Church of Rome Answ 1. That the Popes of Rome were not the head of Antichrist till the time of Boniface the third this Animadverter will never prove 2dly Should it be granted him what good Popes he will find from the time of Sylvester about the year 320 I know not nor what Officers were derived from them Lord-Bishops there were none till afterwards When Constantine coming to the Throne the Man of Sin began by little and little according to the prophesie of Paul touching him 2 Thess 2. 7. to shew himself in the following Popes The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Letter viz. the Roman Pagan Emperours being removed out of the way about which time many report a Voice was heard Hodie Venenum c. This day Poyson is poured forth into the Church of Christ And from this time the noble and renowned
Witnesses of Christ the Waldenses state the Defection of the Church Catal. Test 1509. From which time at least whatever Offices or Rites were introduced being introduced by the Antichrist that was now gradually revealing himself are justly to be accounted Antichristian 3dly Would Mr. T. had told us what Officers they are that are only continued in the Church of Rome that are of divine appointment that we might have considered the truth of his suggestion Lord-Bishops we prove are not such He further tells us 2dly That it is not true that the office of Lord-Bishops is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy 1. It is manifest in the first Nicene Council can 6. that then and before were Patriarchs Metropolitan Bishops and Lord-Bishops with their Office Answ 1. That they were before is not so easily proved Hither as to their source and spring are they usually referred The learned Hooper tells us A Bishop ought to be a Bishop only of one City it is to be lamented that the Episcopal Office is so greatly degenerated Iâ— was not so from the beginning when Paul commanded Titus to constitute Bishops through every City And certainly if the ancient love toward the people did flourish in us we should confess that there is more to be done in one City than can easily be performed by the best 'T is sufficiently known that the primitive-Primitive-Church had no such Bishops as were over more Cities or Congregations than one before the time of Sylvester the first In whose time was the first Nicene Council 2dly That because the first Nicene Council acknowledged Metropolitane and Lord-Bishops therefore they are not derived from the Papacy is not so easily demonstrated This Council was in oâ— about the year 315. Long before the Spirit by which the body Antichristian is animated visibly manifested it self not once nor twice aâ— is known What other spirit shewed it self in Victor who excommunicated the Eastern Bishops for not keeping Easter with him at the same time which brawl continued till the first Council of Nice which sides with Victor an Argument that they were acted by the same spirit 3dly What assurance will our Animadverter give us that this Canon as well as some others which confessedly are is not foisted into the Acts of that Council by persons of after-ages He is not ignorant that Protestants plead this against the Papists who for the establishment of the Tyranny of the Roman Primacy produce a fictitious Canon of the Nicene Council 4thly 'T is incumbent upon him to prove that such Metropolitane Bishops and Lord-Bishops as are now in England were in and before the first Nicene Council which he knows to be false and untrue 1. The English Episcopacy is an order above the order of Presbyters then Episcopacy and Presbytery was accounted one and the same order 2. Ruledom and Jurisdiction is the peculiar flower of the Garland of our English Episcopacy of that it was not so As the Presâ—yters were to do nothing without the Bishop so neither was the Bishop to do any thing without the Presbyters He adds 2. That in the Greek Eastern Russian Churches the same Office is continued Answ 1. Nor do we affirm the contrary that we should do so is not necessary The Greek-Churches were at the first involved in the same Apostasie with the Roman at least with respect to the matter in debate betwixt us 2. We only say that 't is only found in the Papacy with respect to the Reformed-Churches none of them have continued it He therefore adds 3. That it is also pleaded that the Lutheran Churches Reformed that have separated from the Papacy in Germany Denmark Swethland have retained the same Office under the name of Superintendents Answ 'T is indeed thus pleaded by Downham c. who 't is like took up the story of Hadrianus Saravia a known Patron of the Popish Hierarchy who asserts it in a way of reproach to the Lutheran Reformation whether it be truly pleaded or otherwise Mr. T. tells us not though he cannot be ignorant of the contrary The Superintendency of the Lutheran Churches is exceeding different from the Office of our Bishops 1. Their Superintendent is only as a President or Chairman for the preservation of order in an Assembly 2. He is only so during the Session out of it he exerciseth no authority at all more than the rest of his Co-Presbyters as do the Bishops of England 3. He is subject to the Presbytery our Bishops Lords over them 4. He differs not in order and degree from the rest of the Ministeâ—â— as do the Bishops of England 5. He is but a Pastor of one particular Church our Bishops are of scores hundreds He proceeds after the same rate of confidence and verity 4. That it is false that the true Spouse and Witnesses of Christ have in all ages utterly rejected the Office of lord-Lord-Bishops and that it hath its entertainment only by the false Antichristian Church Answ 1. 'T is much he doth not produce one instance of this Assertion and yet so confidently avers it which could he have done he would as well have proved it false as said it was so 2dly For the confirmation of the truth of what he saith is false we have produced several Testimonies his Answer thereunto such as it is we have already taken notice of it and manifested its lightness and vanity He adds This is manifest by the many Epistles written to the English Prelates by their reception at the Synod of Dort Answ 1. What the Epistles are he intends what the Reception mentioned is not of such import as to spend our time in enquiring thereabout 2dly That they have rejected the Office of Lord-Bishops is known they have published their dislike and detestation of it in their Confession to the world What respect any of them give them either in point of civility or as Messengers or persons sent from the King or perhaps not being truly informed what the Jurisdiction and Office is they exercise in their private Letters or otherwise is not considerable in the matter in hand The Office of Lord-Bishops or a superiority of Order above Presbyters or Elders they absolutely condemn as we have proved We add in S. T. One Stone of Offence must be removed out of our way It is said that 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 ordained as Presbyters To which Mr. T. subjoyns 1. There is nothing replied to the allegation that Bishops ordain with Presbyters Answ 1. Nor is there any such allegation in the objection proposed 2ly If there were it s not so considerable as to deserve to be taken notice of They are only assistants to the Bishop 't is he not they that sets them apart admits them into Sacred Orders as they heathenishly call them He adds 2dly Nor to this that some of the Bishops have acknowledged Episcopacy
into the Jewish Synagogues c. we shall speak in its proper place Though we have no command to separate from the true Worship of God and the professors of the true Faith walking suitable thereunto yet we have express precepts to have no communion in Worship that is of the devising of man the Pope Antichrist with persons as members of the same Body and that have the very Lineaments of Satan the portraiture of Hell upon them with whom Christ doth not will not walk The Scriptures but now instanced in evince as much Rev. 18. 4. commands separation from a false Church false either in constitution or by apostacy The Church of England Rome is so as we have proved and the false Worship thereof of this we have already spoken Let the Reader seriously consider the Scriptures he will find it to be so In a word the Babylon mentioned our Animadverter will grant is the Roman Church Chap. 17. 1 2 3. The scarlet coloured Beast is th Civil Power not once represented under the notion of Beasts Dan. 7. 3 17. by which she hath ever been supported from the beginning The seven Heads are the seven sorts of Governments viz. Kings Consuls Dictators Decemvirs Tribunes Caesars Christian Emperors and the seven Mountains upon which Rome was built Rev. 17. 9 10. The ten Horns are the ten Kingdoms which her abominations and filthiness of her fornications did overflow of which England was one as is known and generally granted vers 12 13. The coming out of her is a separation from the whole of her Abominations Ministry Rites Inventions which if we do not we come not out of her she hath in the ten Kingdoms by the power of the Civil Magistrate that supported her erected and by external force and violence compelled persons to bow down to with respect hereunto she is represented as drunk with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs of Jesus This is all we plead for from this Scripture We would not have the Institutions Inventions of this old Bawd and bloody Strumpet imposed upon us and subjected to as if from Christ Let the Animadverter or any one for him prove the Hierarchy of arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Chapters c. their parish-Parish-Churches as such Organs Singing-Service bowing before Altars Candles there placed Copes holy Vestments Service-Book to be of the Institution of Christ and we are ready to stoop to them and own those that practise them but if they have no other foundation but what â—he Mother of Harlots compelled the Civil Powers to give them when she rid them at her pleasure and made them serve her Lusts to the muâ—thering of millions of the Servants of Christ in the Nations as most certain it is they have not as it would be the honour of the chief Rulers of the Nations to eradicate them they remaining as a badge of their old slavery to the worst of Strumpets So it s eminently the duty of the Children of God by virtue of express precept from this Scripture in the mean while whatever they may suffer to separate from them The Church of England i. e. the best and most enlightned amongst the chief of the Nation thought it their duty in dayes past to separate from the Doctrine of the Papacy and some of her Trinkets to cast over-board we plead but for separation from her Discipline and Ministry and the rejection of the rest of her fopperies that as we profess our selves Christians we may have not the Canons of Rome but the Laws of our dear Lord for our Rule and sole guide in this matter which one would think above many Mr. T. might permit one peaceably to do 1 Cor. 5. 12 13. Phil. 1. 5. Act. 2. 41. and 17. 4. were brought to prove it the duty of Saints as such to walk together distinct and apart from the world not to distinguish of the duties of Pastors and People nor to prove any written Church-Covenant which we were not treating of So that in what follows in this Sect. we are not at all concerned We have thrown no dirt upon the face of the Church of England as he is pleased to talk we only tell her what diâ—t and filth is there that evety body sees but her Admirers Nor are we solicitous touching his throwing dirt in the face of the separated Churches from the Writings of any railing false accusers God will plead their Cause and bring forth their Righteousness in the fit season The third Institution of Christ mentioned in S. T. is this That he hath intrusted his particular Churches with power for the carrying on the Worship of his House to choose Officers admit Members excommunicate Offenders Acts 1. 23. and 6. 3 5. and 14. 23. 2 Cor. 8. 19. Mat. 18. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 4. The Ministers of the Church of England own not conform not to this Institution of Christ we manifest in the said Treatise Mr. T. his Reply hereunto is 1. The Election Acts 1. 23. was of an Apostle and that by Lot and contains no Institution of Christ we are bound to follow Answ 1. This last is Mr. T. his dictate which 't is fit should be rejected till he proves it especially considering that the Churches for some hundreds of years afterwards chose their own Officers 2. Though it was the Election of the Apostle yet he was I hope an Officer of Christ and that to the Churches 3. His being chosen by Lots doth not evince that he was not chosen by the Church they gave forth the Lots seems to be expressive of the way they took to manifest the person whom they chose What he hath said of Acts 6. 3 5. and 14. 23. is already answered The Election 2 Cor. 8. 19. being of a person imployed in service by them manifests that none are to do services for the Church but by their appointment Of Mat. 18. 17. we have at large spoken already and vindicated it from Mr. T. his Exceptions That 1 Cor. 5. 5. is more than Excommunication practised by the Churches of the Saints he cannot prove his turning Mat. 18. 17. also to another sence is an argument of his denial of any such Institution of Christ to be practised by the Churches in the World 1st That 'T is a Church-Act is evident from the words vers 4 5. The Church is to be gathered together for this end to deliver the Incestuous person over to Satan But no Church saith Mr. T. had power over unclean Spirits to command them to cruciat the Bodies of persons Therefore say we that cannot be here intended 2dly The Church comes together to do that which Paul condemns them that they had not done before stirrs them up to set about vers 2. Now it had been absurd to have condemned them for not doing that which they had no power or Authority to do 3dly That which he calls here a delivering to Satan he calls a purging out from among them the old leaven vers 7. 4thly To the working of
Miracles by the Apostle there had been no need to have assembled the Church but it was necessary that to the doing of this act the Church be assembled vers 4 5. 5thly He is to be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved which is not likely to be effected by Satans Ministry 6thly 'T is more than probable the Church did what the Apostle commanded them to do Now this is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the publick rebuke inflicted by many which many cannot signifie the Apostle but the Church of Corinth all which evince that it was a Church-act and no more than what is practised by the Churches of Christ at this day Though 't is true it is more than the ordinary Excommunication of the Church of England by a Chancellour or Proctor several miles from the Parish-Church to which the person is related and it may be unknown to them an argument they own not this Institution of Christ We add in S. T. as another Institution of Christ 4. That the Officers of his appointment are only such as these Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons Widows or Helpers who as they are in one particular Congregation so they have not any Lordly authority over each other Ephes 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7. and 16. 1. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. Acts 6. 5. and 15. 2. and 20. 17. and 28. 21 28. 1 Tim. 3. chapt and 5. 9 10 17. This Law of Christ they subject not we say unto set up other Officers and Offices To which Mr. T. 1st There were other Officers given by Chrst besides these mentioned viz. Apostles therefore these are not the only Officers of his appointment Answ 1. Had he said therefore These were not the only Officers of his appointment he had spoken more properly Apostles were of his appointment are not now as we have proved 2. We are speaking of ordinary fixed Officers in the particular Churches of Christ which the Apostles were not so that his instancing these and inference thereupon is frivoâ—ous and impertinent If these had Superiority over others it will not advantage the Animadverter except he can prove the Bishops in respect of Office to be their Successors which he will never be able to do That because the Elders mentioned 1 Tim. 5. 17. must be accounted worthy of double honour therefore they were of a Superiour order of Ministry to lord it over the rest is one of Mr. T. his Consequences that a youth of half a years stâ—nding in the University would be ashamed of Besides Sir the double honour is due to the working Presbyter not the lording loytering Bishop as is the custom of England The person mentioned 2 Cor. 8. 19. was chosen by the Churches for the present expedition was no standing fixed Officer amongst them therefore appertains not to our present disquisition He adds Whether all the Officers and Offices be rightly ordered in the Church of England is not our present inquiry Answ But this is no small part of our present enquiry for if they are not rightly ordered they are not Officers of Christ if they are not such 't is evident they reject this Institution of his set up other Officers and Offices What he tells us is notoriously false viz. That the present Ministers of England have neither Name nor thing required by Christ in this Law is manifestly true Their Parish Ministers are called Priests not Pastors or Teachers 'T is true they have those are called Doctors which signifies Teachers but that is a School not a Church-Title they are call'd so with respect to an Academick degree not with relation to any particular Church or Churches in whom they are placed They have those thaâ— are called Deacons but they are not such Officers as Christ calls so those that come nearest to these are those they call Church-wardens oâ— Overseers of the Poor But they have the thing the Office of preachâ—ng the Gospel continues with them Answ 1. 'T were well if it could be said of many of them that they preached the Gospel Alas they understand it not 2dly However they have not the Office as we prove whilest he suggests the contrary he doth but beg the Question Whether the Assertion That they set up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of Christs Authority be very unrighteously said others will judge I am sure as was said in S. T. They are such of which it may righteously be said he did at no time command them neither did it ever enter into his heart so to do And I challenge Mr. T. to give an instance of the contrary We remark a 5th Institution of Christ in S. T. viz. That these Officers be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ according to Acts 1. 15 23 26. and 6. 1 2 3 5. and 14. 23. and 9. 26. which we find the Church in the practise of for some Centuries of Years As the Epistle of Clemens to the Church of Corinth Martin Luther Cyprian Lambard Peter Martyr Bullinger Gualter Zanchy Calvin Beza the united Brethren of Bohemia manifest Of which at large we there treat This Institution of Christ we say the present Ministers conform not to Mr. T. replies 1. He finds not this to be an Appointment of Christ in the Scriptures mentioned Answ Whether it be or not let the Reader judge the impertinency of his Answer to the three first we have already shewed Acts 9. 26 27. proves thus much That 't is in the Churches power to reject any one or refuse to receive him as a Preacher amongst them till they have received satisfaction touching him which doth not a little demonstrate the power of Election of their own Officers to be seated in them For he assayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to joyn himself to the Disciples as a Brother in the fellowship of the Gospel as the word signifies Acts 5. 13. 1 Cor. 6. 16 17. but they would not suffer him so to do till better informed of him and then he comes in and goes out at Jerusalem ver 28. i. e. is owned received by them What follows is a repetition of what he had before said Sect. 22. in answer to the Preface to which we have there spoken Clemens speaks fully to our purpose Ministers must be appointed by famous and discreet men with the good liking and consent of ALL the Church without which it seems they could not be constituted In that which follows in Clemens his Epistle touching a readiness in the Elder or Pastor to depart or return according as the multitude of Believers should determine We have sure a proof that the choice or rejection of a Pastor is seated in them That Luther Bullinger meant no more than the not obtruding unable Ministers on the Churches of Christ is Mr. T. his mistake They both assert the Churches priviledge in the choice of their own Pastors Their voice saith
must either justifie their Canons or manifest that they themselves do not Secondly 'T is notoriously known that that the present Ministers justifie the aforesaid Canons Ecclesiastical and dare not but do so He adds 2dly 'T is not said Caâ— 7. That the Orders and Offices of arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops c. are Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ nor is it required therein that Ministers promise subjection and obedience to them Answ 1. But the former of these is fairly implied in the foresaid Canon which saith T is a wicked Error to assert them to be Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God for which persons are ipso facto to be excommunicated 2. The latter they actually do when they are Ordained Ministers And in Artic. 36. They are to subscribe to this That the Book of Common-Prayer and of Ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons contains nothing contrary to the Word of God and that it may lawfully be used and that they themselves will use the Form in the said Book prescribed in publick Prayers and administration of the Sacraments and none other Whence it follows that they own submit to whatever is contained in the Canons Ecclesiastical though in every particular Canon it is not said they do and the Common-Prayer-Book-Service the Orders and Rites thereof with the Orders and Rites of the Book of Ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons So that when we prove this or that to be contained it this or that Canon we prove their submission thereunto Canonical Obedience or Obedience to these Canons being what at the time of their Ordination as was said they promise to the Bishop which is a sufficient answer to all that Mr. T. asserts in this Sect. In Can. 4. The Liturgy-Worship is asserted to be the Worship of God whoever affirms It is a corrupt superstitious and unlawfull Worship of God is to be excommunicated They promise at the time of their Ordination as was said To use the Form in the Common-Prayer-Book prescribed in Publick Prayers and none other which if it be not a sufficient proof that they own and submit to it I must profess I shall for ever despair of ability to prove any thing His exceptions to the Third Particular touching their engaging to conform to the Rites of the Common-Prayer Book are not worth the mentioning They own Fourthly The Office of a Deacon to be the first step to the Order of Priesthood inasmuch as this is asserted so to be in the Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons to which they are to subscribe by Can. 36. and Can. 32. It 's fairly intimated also Fifthly That no person be admitteâ— to expound the Scriptures though judged worthy of the Cure of Souls withâ—ut License from the Bishop thereunto is plainly asserted Can. 49. Though the words judged worthy of the cure of Souls be not expressed they are evidently implied the Cure they there speak of can be no other thâ—n that they so call Sixthly That there be some lawful Ministers which are no Preachers And Seventhly That these unpreaching Ministers may lawfully administer the Ordinances of Baptism and the Lords Supper is fully asserted Can. 49 57. So is the Eighth particular touching the sentence of Excommunication to be passed upon such as refuse to have their Children Baptized or to receive the Sacrament from such dumb Ministers Ninthly Though it be not said in so many words That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops is an Ordinance of God Can. 6. yet it is fairely implied and in the Common-Prayer-Book they bottom it upon the Apostles practice which fully evinceth they esteem it as such That it Tenthly appertains to the Office of Ministers to Marry the regulation of the Ministers therein by Can. 62. clearly manifests Eleven That the Bishop of the Diocesse may lawfully suspend a Minister from his Ministry for refusing to bury the Dead Mr. T. grants is presupposed Can. 68. So is 12thly The unlawfulness of Ministers Preaching and administring the Communion in private Houses except in time of necessity And 13thly The unlawfulness of appointing Fasts holding Meetings for Sermons Can. 71 72. I wonder he dare aver the contrary Whether 14thly It be not said Can. 74. That Ministers ought to be distinguished by their Vestments and Apparrel as Gowns Hoods c. Let the Reader satisfie himself by the perusal of the said Canon to which their practice is known to be correspondent Having instanced in these 14 particulars we add in S. T. Are any of these Ordinances of the appointment of Christ when and where were they instituted by him To which this Animadverter replies 1. That he might answer by cross interrogations Are the Church Covenant-gathering-Churches in the Congregational way election of Ministers by the Church c. Ordinances of Christ when and where were they instituted Answ 1. He may so indeed but he must not imagine that any one besides himself will take this for an Answer to what is proposed and argued in this matter by us 2. Of the particulars instanced by him we have hinted somewhat in S. T. and more largely in this Treatise proving them to be Ordinances of Christ Cotton Ainsworth Bartlet Robbinson Canne c. have distinctly proved these matters at large When Mr. T. or any one else is able to say half so much for the particulars instanced in we will openly acknowledge our errour and mistake But 2dly He grants They are not Ordinances and Institutions of Christ. Answ Ingeniously said Church-Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops and the rest of that Hierarchy is no Ordinance of Christ then are they not Ministers of Christ for none are such but by his Institution The Lyturgie-Worship Rites enjoyned in the Common-Prayer-Book the Office of a Deacon as the first step to the Priesthood denial to expound the Scripture without the Bishops License unpreaching Ministers or bare Readers administration of Sacraments by such Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops the Marrying of persons burying the dead by the Priest are no Ordinances of Jesus Christ is acknowledged by Mr. T. Yet all these and much more as a National Church are owned and submâ—tted to by the present Ministers Therefore they do own and submit to Ordinances that are not of the appointment of Christ their own Advocate being judge We add in S. T. That these are Posts set by the Lords Posts of which he complains Ezek. 43. 8. who sees not To which Mr. T. replies I see not I think him in a dream or phrensie that saith he sees it no Interpreters that I have met with so expâ—und the place Answ 1. 'T is no disparagement to Mr. T. that he sees not every thing though some think he sees further than he is pleased to own in his Theodulia or at least hath done so and are sorry to find him at that toilsom work of building again the things he once destroyed Nor am I 2dly concerned with his thoughts touching this matter If I am in a phrensie 't is through grace an holy one
and I would be more phrenetical for the Interest of my dear Lord Sorne think these expressions might have been spared though for our parts Contenti sumus hoc Catonâ— 3dly What Interpreters he hath met with I know not The Assembly in their Annotations upon the place are of our mind Their setting of their thresholds by my thresholds i. e. adding their Traditions to my Precepts Isa 29. 13. So is Mr. Greenhill c. We further propose in S. T. an Objection to consideration viz. That though these Canons and Constitutions owned by the Ministers of England be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ in so many words yet by consequence they may rationally be deduced from thence As where it is commanded that all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14. 40. which 'tis the duty of the Church to make Rules and Constitutions about which when it hath done it is the duty of every Son thereof to own or subject to them without questioning its Authority To this Mr. T. Sect. 3. subjoyns 1. He asserts not that the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England may rationally be deduced from Scripture Answ Goodly Constitutions surely that cannot rationally be deduced from Scripture but have their Original singly from the bloody Canon-Law of the Papacy and worthy to be submitted to by such as profess themselves Ministers of the Gospel what greater contempt any one could pour forth upon them I know not But 2dly Whilst Mr. T. refuseth to assert this he plainly relinquisheth his concern in the Objection proposed by us and tells us He will not stand up in its defence However 2. This he asserts in the room thereof That Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Divine Worship and Church-Government may be made by Governours if not opposite to such Rules as are in Scripture about Gods Worship and the Rule of his Church and be indeed subservient and conducible to the well-ordering of such Worship and Rule which 't is the duty of the Members of such a Church to obey Answ 1. But I would be informed whether by Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Divine Worship he means only Canons touching the spreading the Table at the Communion with a linnen Cloth the Sermons beginning at the Reading of the Text at which rate he speaks in Sect. 4. Or whether he means Canons and Laws for the Institution of considerable parts of Worship together with such accidentals as he calls them that must be submitted to by such as are admitted to the publick managery of Worship without which they shall not be permitted so to do If the first he doth but trifle we have not been taking notice of things of such an inferiour allay If the latter I desire to be satisfied by what Law any Rulers or Governours do assume to themselves such an Authority which when Mr. T. shall be pleased to shew us we shall further consider it Heb. 13. 17. speaks not a tittle thereunto Of the vanity of its Application to the Governours of the Church of England we have already spoken The Reasons of his Assertion are these 1. Without such Regulations Church-Societies cannot be continued by reason of the difference of miâ—ds Answ 1. The contrary is manifest before ever such constitutions as those he speaks of were in the World Church-Societies were continued One of the first open breaches amongst them was because of them as he knows fell out betwixt Victor Bishop of Rome and the Eastern-Churches about the observation of Easter All the confusion differences breaches that have been in the Churches so called is for the most part to be charged upon their Impositions 2dly The Animadverter supposeth That without such Constitutions the Churches should be wholly destitute of Regulation but falsly 'T is derogatory to Christ the Scriptures perfection a pitiful begging the thing in question As Christ hath a Church in the world he hath Laws with respect to external politie by which he rules it needs not be beholding to Antichrist for his 'T is impious scandalous to conceive endite such dictates He further adds 2dly All sorts of Churches have had their Synods to this end Answ 1. To what end To make Laws and Constitutions for an Order of Ministry that Christ never established to impose a Lyâ—urgical Worship upon his Churches to set up an unpreaching Ministry in his House Mr. T. knows that these things are false and untrue If he mean not these I would advise him to speak pertinently in hâ—s next These are the Institutions we charge the present Ministers wâ—th submitting to 2. That all sorts of Churches have found it necessary to have Synods is more than Mr. T. can prove The Learned Whitaker tells us That they are not simply and absolutely necessary De Concil q. 1. p. 22. and I am sure they may be well enough without them Licinius interdicts them Euseb de Vit. Constant l. 1. c. 44. yet the Câ—urches continued aâ—d in a flourishing sttate 3dly That few or no Synods that ever were yet in the World have had a right Constitution were a facile undertaking to demonstrate The Synod so called of the Câ—urch of England by which the Laws we mention were out of the Popes Canon-Law collected was not so A right Synod is constituted of the Messengers of the Churches upon the account whereof they are said to be the Churches Representatives sent by them with Instructions from them touching matters to be debated in that Convention This cannot be affirmed of the aforesaid Synod nor of any Synod that ever was in the World since the Apostles fell asleep So that whilst our Animadverter is discoursing of them as necessary he is talking of the necessity of â— Non-ens a meer Chimaera 4thly The Churches of Christ had a perfect Discipline before ever the Synods he speaks of had a being in the World Nor 5thly had these ever from Jesus Christ any Authority and what they have not from him is not Obligatory to impose any thing upon the Churches to be observed by them by virtue of an Authoritative power seated in themselves 'T is a Yoke not to be endured by the free-born Subjects of Christ that any of the Children of men should impose upon them in the matters of their God The Synod of Jerusalem did not do so as we have proved His third Reason is down-right begging the thing in question Christ hath left nothing relating to the Worship and Government of his House as such undetermined against which I advise him not to talk so confidently in his next till he hath proved the contrary The Texts mentioned by him 1 Cor. 14. 40. Heb. 13. 17. prove no such thing as the lawfulness of additional Institutions in matters of Church-Polity as a part thereof to the Institutions of Christ 1 Cor. 14. 40. is afterward in S. T. Heb. 13. 17. hath already been considered That because Paul gives direction in some
cases to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 11. 34. and tells them the rest he will set in order when he comes to them therefore 't is left to Church-Governours to institute de novo Ordinances and Institutions of their own and impose them upon the Churches is such a Conseqâ—ence that would put a modest concern'd person to a blush to review we have no Apostles none acted by an infallible Spirit as they In answer to the Objection as proposed by us we say that the whole of it is built upon such false suppositions as these 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 derogatory to the Scriptures perfection to the Wisdom and Faithfulness of Christ diametrically opposite to the Scripture 1 Cor. 14. 40. instanc'd it of which we give this brief account The Apostle having condemned them for their irregularity in the matter of Prophesying vers 26. He gives direction touching its regular performance And that 1. Generally vers 26. 40. 2. Particularly by telling them how they ought to manage this affair in a way of decency and edification vers 27 28 29 30 34 35. That from hence a power invested in the Church for the binding the Consciences of men touching Ceremonies in Worship should be regularly deduced is the first-born of improbabilities 1. Paul speaking by an infallible Spirit adviseth the Church of Corinth That all things be done decently and in order 2. Tells them wherein that decency and order lies therefore such as pretend not to such a Spirit may of their own heads bind our Consciences by Laws of their own in the Service of God is such a non-sequitur as will not in hast be made good To this Mr. T. pretends to answer Sect. 4. The sum is Christ hath left many particularities undetermined in his Worship and the Rule of his Church to be determined by Governours Answ 1. If by particularities of VVorship he mean such as relate to it as such of Church-government such as are special parts thereof as the things mentioned by us are made to be this hath been often denied and disproved by us 2. He egregiously trifles in the matters instanc'd in by him though I think it horrible wickedness not to be born for Ecclesiastical Governours by penal Laws and Statutes to impose even those things upon the Churches That it should be criminal at the Communion not to have the Table spread with a Cloth That the Service begin with the recital of the Institution or otherwise as he speaks and beseech this Animadverter if he resolves again to draw the Saw of this Controversie that we may agree in this not to multiply impertinencies and so prove what we say I know not any of the Sons of men that have power to bind my Conscience where Christ hath not But this Mr. T. proves because 1. Parents are charged to bring up their Children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord Ephes 6. 4. 2. We are to pray for Kings that we may lead a quiet and peaceable Life under them Ergo Antichristian Church-Officers or Governours Ecclesiastical have power to make and impose Constitutions for Church-Government upon the Saints Apage ineptias That the Reader should suppose such arguings as these worth the considering I cannot be so injurious to him as to imagine whilst I conceive him to be one not bereaved of his understanding Much after the same rate that some admirers of the Gentleman at Rome are wont to argue for his Supremacy above Princes because 't is said God made two great Lights the Sun to rule the Day and the Moon to rule the Night Doth Mr. T. at present argue for the power of the Rulers of the Church of England in matters of Worship and Government without authority from Christ Yea but 3dly The Bishop must take care of the Church of God 1 Tim. 3. 5. Answ 1. But this is a christian-gospel-Christian-Gospel-Bishop a Pastor of a particular Church which our Bishops are not 2. It remains to be proved that his taking care of the Church of God is his imposing institutions of his own upon them A forced Interpretation to say no more We read Luke 10. 34. that the Samaritan took care of the wounded man and v. 35 bid his Host take care of him yet I am perswaded neither the one nor the other called Synods to establish Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical to impose upon him The whole work of a Bishop is not surely to Rule and Govern he is to instruct exhort admonish rebuke with all longsuffering and meeâ—ness to strengthen the weak comfort the comfortless and in all to have respect to the will and appointments of his Soveraign Lord and King not to act exorbitantly according to his own will and pleasure What he adds by way of Answer to what we assert that the conceit that Christ hath not determined in the Scripture how the affairs of his House should be managed is a derogation to the perfection of the Scripture and the faithfulness of Christ is already fully replied to and removed out of the way Only whereas he cites 2 Tim. 3. 15. and intimates that the sufficiency there ascribed to the Scripture consists in affording Doctrines of Faith and Rules of Life we crave leave to tell him That his Assertion is 1. Papistical exploded by our Protestant Divines 2. False and untrue the Apostle expresly asserts their sufficiency with respect to Church-Politie to instruct Timothy wherein is no small part of his design in this Epistle He goes on and tells us That we give not a true account of the Apostles dissertation 1 Cor. 14. 1. He asserts not the Liberty of Saints in Prophesying Answ Of the truth of this let the Reader inform himself from vers 31. 'T is not material as to our present purpose whether by Prophesying he meant a particular gift of fore-telling things to come or an Exposition of Scripture for the edification of the Saints whether it were the one or the other those to whom the gift was given were to improve it and this the Apostle expresly asserts to be their Liberty and duty He tells us 2dly It is not right that the Apostle vers 40. represseth his direction vers 26. Answ The serious perusal of the Chapter will evince the contrary to this dictate of his Yea but 3dly saith he If it were so there is nothing to prove that no particular wayes of decency and order are permitted to the care of after-Rulers Answ 1. We are answering an Objection not proving a Position or Doctrine 'T is enough that we manifest that the Scripture produced warrants not Governours to introduce New Orders and Institutions an endless company of ridiculous Ceremonies under the notion of Decency and Order which whether we have evinced or not let the Reader judge 2. That he waves the Controversie about Ceremonies as Cross Surplice
common consent Which that it was observed by the Apopostles of Christ the sacred History testifies Acts 15. And this is the Opinion of the most famous Doctors of the Canon-Law saith Durandus De Sanct. Minist Lib. 1. c. 11. He saith more truly perhaps than he was aware That as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod and no otherwise Now we know that the meeting of a company of Knights Gentlemen at Westminster is not the Parliament the Representative of the Kingdom Their free Election by the Body of the People of the Nation renders them so In like manner the Convention of a company of Prelates and Priests make not a Synod by our Animadverters own Argument but their Election by the People to meet and sit in Council together as their Representees which the Synod so called at London One thousand six hundred and three nor any National Synod ever since had not the Choice of the People was never minded never was their consent required So that in the sence he takes the word Church which yet is forreign to the Scripture as we say in S. T. the Church of England was never yet concerned In what follows in this Section Mr. T. himself will acknowledge I am not further concerned Sect. 2. The present Ministers oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ whilst they own Laws contrary to the Revelation of Christ That they do thus evinced by the induction of particular instances Acts 8. 27. â— Tim. 6. 15. Jer. 51. 26. Luke 11. 2. Mat. 6. 7 8 9. Whether Christ there instituted a form of Prayer Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. Mark 14. 18 22 23. opened That Christ sate with his Disciples in the celebration of the Ordinance of breaking Bread evinced Of Kneeling The reason of its first institution It s opposition to 1 Thes 5. 22. manifested Of forbidding to Marry and commanding to abstain from Meats IN Sect. 6. Mr. T. proceeds to the examination of what is further produced in S. T. for the manifestation of the guilt of the present Ministers in their opposing the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ which we further prove because they own submit and subscribe to Laws Constitutions and Ordinances that are contrary to the Revelation of Christ This we prove by particular instances They own 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. 22 25. 26. To which our Animadverter replies 1. They do not acknowledge them in opposition to these Scriptures Answ But that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. T. may be ashamed of such pitiful beggery He adds 2ly They do not acknowledge arch-Arch-Bishops over the whole Church as the Pope but in their own Province Answ This is not at all material the authority of arch-Arch-Bishops over a Province is as much against the Texts mentioned as over the whole Church 'T is not the extent of Authority Lordship that is therein condemned but the thing it self 3ly He further tells us They have no such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5. 3. Luke 22. 25 26. Answ 1. This is again to beg the thing in question 2ly We have proved the contrary He adds 4ly They are not Lords in the Church but in the Kingdom and Parliament Answ False and untrue I wish he speak not against knowledge in this matter 1. When invested into their Episcopal Sees they are stiled Arch-Bishops of such a place or Province Lord-Bishop of such a See 2. The Priests submit to them pray for them as their good Lords 3. They have Power Authority Precedency as such over the rest of the Clergy give forth Laws and Canons to rule and guide them to whom they promise obedience at their Ordination 4. They exercise jurisdiction authority over their respective Diocesses in their Ecclesiastical Courts and Consistories as such all evident Ensigns and Demonstrations of Lordly Dignities even in and over that which they call the Church That which he 5ly adds of the Eunuchs being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 8. 27. without contradiction to 1 Tim. 6. 15. where Christ is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frivolous 1. The Eunuch is not said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Potentate with respect to the Church of God over it he was not such but with respect to the Kingdom of Aethiopia where he was a Noble Man a Governor under Candace the Queen Our Bishops are Potentates in and over that which they call the Church of Christ 2. That any other besides Christ should exercise Lordship and Authority in the World is not interdicted as is their so doing in the Churches of Christ in the Scriptures mentioned He saith 5ly He hath not shewed that what is acknowledged is a Law Constitution or Ordinance nor the Ministers own it by subscription Answ True indeed I did not do so for I thought it needless to demonstrate that the Sun shines at noon-dayes Are not the Offices of Arch-Bishops Lord-Bishops Constitutions and Ordinances Have they not their Foundation and Establishment by Law Doth not Mr. T. know it Is he onely a stranger in our Israel Of the Truth of this there are not many in the Nation that are or can be ignorant That the Ministers own these whether by subscription or otherwise is not considerable Mr. T. deals injuriously whilst he suggests I say they own these with the rest of the particulars mentioned by subscription when I assert onely That they own submit and subscribe to i. some of them they manifest they own by Subscription others other wayes but they own submission to them all is too notorious to admit of a denyal They do so in their Ordination when they promise Canonical Obedience to them in their prayers for them subjection to their precepts from time to time transmitted to them which they dare not transgress 2ly That men may and ought to be made Ministers onely by these Lord-Bishops is we say in S. T. owned by the present Ministers which is contrary to Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1 7. 13. 20. Acts 14. 23. with 6. 3 5. What Mr. T. adjoyns hereunto touching Ordination by Suffâ—agan Bishops hath already been removed out of the way How much they own a Presbyterian Ordination of which he speaks many good men in the Nation feel and find Of these things we have already spoken That Ordination by Lord-Bishops is established by Law is known and that exclusively to any other without them Hereunto the Ministers subscribe Can. 36. The Scriptures instanc'd in prove this to be contrary to the Revelation of Christ Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1 7. 13. 20. manifestly evince That who-ever undertakes to be a Minister of the Lord in his Church must
be called of sent by him So was Aaron Acts 14. 23. 6. 3 5. manifest that the Way of the Lord's mission is not by lord-Lord-Bishops but by his Churches and People What he tells us he hath said in answer to any of these Scriptures we have replyed to Chap. 2. We add in S. T. 3ly That Prelates their Chancellors and Officers have power from Christ to cast out of the Church of God is owned by them contrary to Mat. 18. 16 17. 1 Cor. 5. 4. To which our Animadverter subjoyns He finds no such Law Answ It may be he is willingly ignorant hereof This he cannot but know that in the Name of Christ the Officers mentioneâ— do excommunicate out of the Church so call'd of Christ Do they do this without Law Is it not one of their Church-constitutions that they may do so Do not the present Ministers own them herein Whilst they cite present persecute their Neighbours for not coming to Divine Service as they call it it may be for refusing to pay them a four-penny-due in the Ecclesiastical Courts even to an Excommunication whose Act therein they afterwards publickly denounce and declare once and again in obedience to them What more evident The weakness of his answer to Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. we have already manifested We say further in S. T. That they own 4ly that the Office of the Suffragans Deans Canons are lawful and necessary to be had in the Church 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 v. 12 13. In what sense the forementioned being not one of them of the Institution of Christ may be owned as lawful and necessary without an high contempt of the Wisdom and Sovereignty of Christ I am not able to conceive this is the sum Mr. T. replies 1. He knows not where this imagined Ordinance is Answ That there are such Officers and Offices in the Church of England established by the Laws thereof he cannot be ignorant To say They are Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God is censured by the Canons thereof Can. 7. That the Ministers own submit to some of them is known The vanity and impertinency of Mr. T. his pleading for them not to mention his perjury therein is discovered in our present Vindication of Chap. 3. from his exceptions against what is by us therein argued We say they own 5thly That the Office of 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. Mr. T. replies 'T is not contrary to Christ's Revelation that they should be imployed in those works Ans 1. But when Christ hath instituted the office of Deacons for this end to attend Tables or look after the provision and necessities of the Saints That any persons may own an Office of Deacons in the Church to be imploy'd by virtue of Office-power in any other work than that for which they are intrusted by Christ and called unto Office without an advance against that Institution of Christ is absurd to imagine 2. That the present Ministers own such an Office he doth not deny 3. What he speaks of Stephen and Philip he had said before and to it we have replied already and need noâ— add more A sixth Law or Ordinance that we say they own is this 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. Acts 2. 42. and 20. 7. To which Mr. T. This is not easily proved from the Scripâ—ures instanced in Answ Whether it be or not is left to the judgment of the judicious Reader to determine I am weary in pursuâ—â—g him in his impertinencies He grants a Communion is proved in that Sacrament 1 Cor. 10. 16. but vers 17. and 1 Cor. 12. 13. prove the Communion to be rather with all Christians Of which yet there is not one word in either of the places In vers 17. He speaks of the Church of Corinth that was one bread one body The other Scripture speaks nothing of Saints Communion one with another in this Ordinance 1 Cor. 11. 33. Acts 20. 7. he confesseth prove That it should be administred when all the Communicants Church or Brethren he should say are come together Whether its administration to one alone be not diametrically opposite hereunto as also to the very first Institution of this Ordinance Mat. 26. 26. let the Judicious judge Though it be said Act. 2. 46. that they brake bread from house to house it doth not follow there was none beside the Minister and the sick man the words import the contrary We manifest further in S. T. That they own 7thly a prescript form of Words in Prayer that a ceremonious pompous Worship devised â—y man and abused to Idolatry is according to the will of God and may lawfully be used under the New Testament Dispensation contrary to Mat. 15. 9. and 28. 20. John 4. 23. Deut. 12. 32. Jer. 51. 26. Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. By this prescript form of Words this ceremonious pompous Worship the Common-Prayer-Book Collegiat-Worship and Service is intended This I say is devised by man the owning whereof is contrary to Mat. 15. 9. and 28. 20. Deut. 12. 22. abused to Idolatry The owning hereof is opposite to Jer. 51. 26. It is Ceremonious and Pompous the abetting whereof is adverse to Joh. 4. 23. as is the owning of a prescript Form of Words to Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. To which our Animadverter replies 1. He should have told us what part of the Common-Prayer-Book was abused to Idolatry Answ The whole of it is so being Worship not appointed by the Lord and used in that Church that is the most Idolatrous Church in the world What he hath said in this Chap. Sect. 3. or in Chap. 3. Sect. 4. We have already answered His great out-cry of our abuse of Jer. 51. 26. produced to prove it unlawful to use any thing in the Worship of God abused to Idolatry will soon be evinced to be an empty sound Vox praeterea nihil 1. We have for our Companions in this Exposition persoâ—s not contemptible for wisdom and holiness who make conscience of applying Scriptures and abusing the Reader 2. Of all men Mr. T. iâ— the most incompetent for the management of this charge who most egregiously perverts Scriptures in this Treatise contrary to former Interpretations given by himself to them and to the plain intendment of the Spirit therein As we have in part manifested and may do further in our Appendix 3. He egregiously abuseth the Reader in this very passage whilst
said to be the Bodies of their Governours Whether the Apostles were the Heads of the Church Ojections answered Mr. T. his Exceptions thereunto considered 1 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13. expounded Whether the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church Isa 44. 28. explained The Government of the Church and State proved distinct WE further manifest in S. T. That the present Ministers deny the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ thus 3dly Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office But the present Ministers of Engl. do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ Therefore To which Mr. T. Sect. 11. The Author of S. T. speaks darkly and thence falls to conjecturing what I mean by the Head of the Church Answ To satisfie this Animadverter once for all By the Head of the Church I mean the King and Bishops that as Heads and Law-givers thereunto assume unto themselves a power to institute Laws and Ordinances of their own and create Officers in the Church which were never of the appointment of Christ which Danaeus and others make to be some of the essential parts of Church-Government and they are indeed so And if the owning such an Head-ship be not a denial of his Kingly Authority I must profess I know not what is This Mr. T. denies But 1. without giving us the least reason of his so doing 2. In contradiction to what is affirmed by himself p. 119. chap. 4. of his Theodulia 3. 'T is avowedly condemned by many sober judicious Protestant Writers and Churches as Rivet Calvin c. He tells us 2dly That no such Headship is owned by the present Ministers as the Pope claims Answ 1. The question is not whether such an Headship be owned by them as the Pope assumes but whether such an one as is not a denial of the Soveraignty of Christ 2. With respect to the extent thereof it is acknowledged there is no such Headship owned by them The King is not Universal Monarch of the Church Yet 3. For the kind of it it is the same i. e. Henry the 8th having cast off the Popes supremacy rests himself with it in his own Dominions Hence the learned Fuller in his History of the Church of England tells us That the King became the Popes heir at Law And it was indeed evidently so 1. Did the Pope claim a right to that Title Summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo The Supream Head of the Church under Christ 2. Did he account himself the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Power 3. Did he undertake to make and dispense Laws pro libitu according as he saw meet So did H. 8. and his Successors the Kings of England with respect to the Church of England The Title of Supream Head or Governour under Christ is given to them They are the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction it being by Statute Law annexed to the Crown The Bishops Courts ought to be held all Processes to go out in their Name With a Synod of Priests or without sometimes they can make and dispense with Laws for the binding or loosing of the Members of the Church thereof Hear what the learned Rivet saith Explic. Decal Edit 2. p. 203. touching this matter taxing Bishop Gardener for extolling the Kings Primacy For he that did as yet nourish the Doctrine of the Papacy as after it appeared did erect a new Papacy in the person of the King And reverend Mr. Calvin And at this day saith he how many are there in the Papacy that heap upon Kings whatsoever right and power they can possible so that there may not be any Dispute of Religion but this power should be in one King to Decree according to his own pleasure whatsoever he list and that should remain fixed without controversie They that at first so much extolled H. King of England certainly they were inconsiderate men gave unto him Supream power of all things and this grievously wounded me alwayes for they were Blasphemers and yet the present Ministers avow the same when they called him The Supream Head of the Church under Christ Thus he in Amos 7. 13. What this Animadverter saith Hart the Jesuite acknowledgeth of the Pope with respect to the whole Church is for the most part acknowledged by the present Ministers of the King with respect to the Church of England The Power which we mean to the Pope the King and Arch-Bishop by this Title of the Supream Head is that the Government of the whole Church of Christ throughout the World of the Church of England doth depend of him In him doth lie the power of judging and determining causes of Faith of ruling Councils or National Synods as President and ratifying their Decrees of Ordering and Confirming Bishops and Pastors of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the Coasts of the Earth all the parts of the Nation Of reconciling any that are Excommunicate of Excommunicaâ—ing Suspending or inflicting other Censures and Penalties on any that offend Finally all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ of England which whilst the Animadverter goes about to insinuate as not appertaining to the King he advanceth himself against the Royal Prerogatives of his Crown and Dignity Nor doth the Explanation mentioned Artic. 34. and 37. contradict what we have asserted Jurisdiction and Power of exteriour Government is acknowledged to belong to him which comprehends the substance of what we are contending for In what follows we are not in the least concerned we abhor the Primacy of the Papal Antichrist we deny not the Kings Headship and Supremacy over the Church of England by the fundamental Laws of the Nation it appertains to him We only infer from hence 1st That the Church of England is no true Church because Headed by some one else besides Christ 2dly That whilst the present Ministers account it Christ's Church and own another Head over it besides himself they deny his Soveraignty and Kingship they make another King over it and thereâ—y really unking him We add in S. T. as a proof of the Major Proposition If the assertion of another King in Engl. that as the Head thereof hath power of making and giving forth Laws to the free born Subjects therein be a denial of his Kingly authority as no doubt it is the Major cannot be denied If Christ be the alone King of his Church as such he is its alone Head and Lawgiver If he hath not by any Statute-Law established any other Headship in and over his Church to act in the holy things of God from and under him besides himself the assertion of such a Headship carries with it a contempt and denial of his Authority If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ let us know when and were it was Instituted Whether such a Dominion and
of Laws Institutions not of the appointment of Christ contrary thereunto who is the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Church-Politie That Mr. T. sees such a Supream Governour to be agreeable to the Scriptures produced by him must be imputed to that acuteness of his whereby he may be supposed to tâ—anscend the rest of his Neighbours Ille solus sapiens reliqui velut umbra vagantur Of Rom. 13. 1. we have already spoken Though the Church be comprized under every soul yet it doth not follow that Magistrates are the Heads or such Supream Governours of the Church as are invested with power for the establishing and instituting of parts of Worship or commanding them in any thing relating to Worship as such of which the Apostle speaks not a tittle in that place Civil subjection as subjects of the Empire is the utmost can rationally from thence be argued for Those that were then Rulers and Governours were such as Nero Domitian who persecuted the Church design'd to root the Worship of Christ out of the world were Idolaters establisheâ— by force and violence an Heathenish Idolatrous Worship whom Christ never intended to intrust with any such power which is a sufficient answer to 1 Pet. 2. 13. which is exponed by our Annotat. Of Civil Government 1 Tim. 2. 2. is impertinently cited That because the Apostle there exhorts that Prayers be made for Kings therefore they have Ecclesiastical Power and Soveraignty committed to them over the Churches of Christ is a consequence that the very reciting of is confutation sufficient When I ascribe as he talks as much power to the Church as he doth to the King and Bishops I know not That I should make the Church the Head of the Church which is downright nonsense is not probable For the present I must crave leave to tell him he is utterly mistaken I ascribe no power of inventing Rites and Ceremonies devising Laws and Constitutions of their own relating to Worship as such to any one Church or Churches in the World I challenge him to make good his assertion I dispute against it as well as I can in S. T. Chap. 5. pag. 41 42. Whatever power I ascribe to the Church 't is only such as Christ hath entrusted her with that this should be as much a denial of Christ's Kingly Office as the ascription of a power over the Churches of Christ to any to whom he hath not committed such a power Mr. T. will not in hast be able to prove We further reply in S. T. 2dly The Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other viz. than a Head-ship under Christ To this Mr. T. 1. I grant the Church of Rome pleads for no other Headship But 2. They usurpe a power in some respects superiour to Christ in their dispensing with the keeping of lawful Oaths allowing of Incestuous Marriages Answ And the same may be said of the Heads of the Church of England I suppose this Animadverter may be yet of the mind that the Oath of the Solemn League and Covenant was a lawful Oath yet that can be dispensed with Marriages prohibited are not seldom allowed of by their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction We add 3dly 'T is not so as is pretended they own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a Law-making and a Law-giving Power touching Institutions of Worship that never came into his heart are flatly against his appointments as hath been proved We add in S. T. 4thly One Head in subordination to another doth as really make the Body a Monster as two Heads conjoyned To this Mr. T. The terms Head and Body being used only Metaphorically there 's no more Monstrosity in making a Head under a Head than in making a Governour under a Governour Answ 1. Should it be granted there were no Monstrosity in the thing it self yet there is in the expression in the Title an argument it was never from the Spirit of the Lord. 2. Bernard is of another mind Thou makest a Monster saith he if removing the hand thou makest the Finger to hang on the Head Thou makest the Body of Christ a Monster if thou placest the Members of his Body otherwise than he hath placed them in the Church Lib. 3. cap. 10. Con. ad Eugen. Much more to take a Beast a Lion or Bear as wicked and graceless men are whom yet Mr. T. seeâ—s to allow for Heads in the Churches of Christ and place them not only as Members in but as Heads over though under Christ the Church of God 3. The making of a Governour under a Governour in the Common-weale hath no Monstrosity in it because agreeable to the Will of God Principles of State-polity which a Head under a Head in the Church hath because dissonant contrary to the Law and Soveraignty of Christ its Supream Independant and alone Head A second Objection is in S. T. thus proposed by us That the Kings of Israel were the Heads succesively of the then Church and therefore a visible Headship over the Churches of Christ in the New Testament is lawful To which we Answer 1. That betwixt the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel there is a vast disproportion many things were of old lawful which now to practice were no less than a denial of Christ come in the flesh 2. The Kings of Israel were Types of Christ which notwithstanding Mr. T. dictates that it is falsly and vainly asserted Sect. 14. till he prove the contrary we take for truths What he speaks with reference to the Kings of Israel and England we are unconcerned in That the Rulers of the Jews or any other Nations had de jure any such Dominion or Power over their Subjects as to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship and compel them by force and violence to subject thereunto Mr. T. hath not proved Isa 44. 28. Is a Prophesie of the Liberty the Jews should obtain under Cyrus to go up to Jerusalem to build the Temple of the fulfilling whereof you have an account Ezra 1. 1 2 3. But not a tittle of his Dominion about things sacred or introducing Constitutions relating to their Worship as such or compelling any to go up to Jerusalem is there mentioned He only removes the Babylonian yoke that was upon them and sets them at liberty to build the Temple of the Lord which the Kings before him would not grant them to do and Worship him according to his own appointments Isa 45. 1. is impertinently alledged relating only to the Victories and Conquests the Lord would afford unto Cyrus over the Cities and Nations of the World Jonah 3. 7 8. gives us an account of a Decree published by order of the King for a solemnization of a Fast and to turn from â—mpiety but this comes short of the proof of the Headship argued for which is an Headship having power of making and giving forth Laws touching Institutions of Worship Orders Rites
pretence out of envy may be heard by the Saints lawfully But the Saints may rejoyce in the present Ministers of England preaching Christ though they should not preach him sincerely but in pretence Therefore Answ 1. We deny his Major I may rejoyce and that lawfully in those mens preaching Christ whom I have no warrant to hear There may be cause of rejoycing as we told Mr. T. in S. T. 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 complied with In what have Christians greater cause of rejoycing than in the death of Christ Yet had it been utterly unlawful to have joyn'd in Counsel with or any wayes abetted or encouraged those wicked persons that crucified or slew him Should the Pope send some Jesuites into any remote parts of Asia to preach the Gospel to the poor Indians there here were upon some accounts ground of rejoycing yet no ground to attend upon a Jesuitical Ministry Nor do his Scriptures in the least prove his Major Isa 52. 7. 〈◊〉 1. 15. being applied by the Apostle to Gospel-Preachers Rom. 10. 15. evince onely thus much That such as act from Gospel-Authority in that work are to be welcomed and heard What Mr. T. replies is not considerable 1st 'T is true preaching Christ is a good thing and to be rejoyced in but preaching Christ by virtue of an Antichristian Call and Office-power is not so nor to be rejoyced in or complied with 2dly That he knows no reason why the Saints may not attend on the Ministry of the Jesuites sent from the Pope to preach the Gospel if they do so is no Argument that there is no reason That they act from an Antichristian Call and Commission is to Christ-loving Saints reason sufficient 2dly We deny his Minor Proposition Saints may not rejoyce in the present Ministers of England preaching Christ Because 1st All preaching of Christ is not to be rejoyced in as the Devils Mar. 1. 24. Luke 4. 34 41. Acts 16. 17 18. The Judaical Preachers preaching Christ with the Ceremonies of the Law Gal. 5. 12. Phil. 3. 2 3. Grievous Wolves Acts 20. 29. Such as hate to be reformed Psal 50. 16 18. as the Author of Prelatical Preachers none of Christ Teachers Argues Which though Mr. T. thinks to put off with this All these Texts are impertinent for as much as these do not preach Christ in which I wish he speak not against his own Conscience yet others will not take this for an answer They all preached Christ and upon other accounts are not to be heard but turned from as the intelligent Reader may inform himself by the perusal of the Scriptures instanced in We shall only infer If the Judaical Teachers were not to be rejoyced in though they preached Christ because they mixed therewith the Doctrine of Mosaical Ceremonies much less is their preaching to be rejoyced in who mix therewith the Doctrine of Antichristian fopperies and manifest themselves to be grievous Wolves in their persecuting the flock of Christ who cannot conform thereunto Because 2dly In propriety and strictness of speech as saith the Author of the forementioned Treatise Christ cannot be said to be preached by a Prelatical Ministry they justifie them who deny Christ to be the sole Lawgiver of his Church and so make him an Idol What the Animadverter hath dictated Chap. 5. in opposition hereunto is there answered by us Nay 3dly In case such a Minister as this that preacheth by the Bishops License should in his Doctrine affirm Jesus Christ to be the sole Law-giver to his Churches yet in and by his very act of Preaching he should deny it Which though Mr. T. makes a dreadful out-cry against spitting the fire of his passion on the face of his Antagonist an Argument that he hath nothing soberly to reply is evidently true For 1st Thereby he doth own an Officer no where of the Institution of Christ in the Scripture 2dly He makes the Biship a Law-giver to himself by whose License he preacheth and not otherwise What Mr. T. would rejoyce in I am not concerned to take notice of there are some men who dare rejoyce in a thing of naught Arg. 2. He adds That preaching of Christ that is no other than Paul rejoyced in the Saints now may rejoyce in But such is the preaching of the present Ministers Therefore Answ 1. To wave the general exception we have against the Argument which proves not what it is produced to prove viz. The lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers which we find not in the Conclusion nor is it deducible from the Premises We answer 2dly The Minor is most notoriously false and untrue There is other exception taken against hearing the present Ministers than against the persons mentioned by Paul And we told this Animadverter so in S. T. 1. It cannot be proved as it hath been with respect to the Ministers of England that those mentioned by Paul were not true Gospel-Ministers 2. Their preaching Christ out of envy doth not evince it the Object whereof was not Christ but Paul notwithstanding which they might be real Saints and true Gospel-Ministers To which he only opposeth his Dictates without proof which we are not concern'd to take notice of There might be in them at the root Brotherly-love to Paul though under the power of temptation they preached Christ out of envy to him We say in S. T. 4thly Here is not in this Scripture the least word requiring Christians to hear them That because Paul rejoyceth 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 To which he speaks not the least word that may be called a Reply he attempts not at all to manifest the validity of the consequence which he should have done if he would have reinforced this Argument What he cites out of Mr. Robinson in his Justification of the Separation p. 307. we are not concerned to take notice of it Had he not cited it by halves the Reader would soon have perceived his cause smitten by it through the fifth Rib. Sect. 3. The answer to the fourth Objection vindicated All that preach truth are not to be heard proved The Ministers of England preach truth but by halves as the Bishop is pleased to allow them Many of the truths they preach they contradict in their practice With them they mingle many errors Particular Instances in the most remarkable Heads of Divinity hereof produced THE fourth Objection proposed in S. T. is The Ministers of England preach Truth and is it not lawful to hear Truth preached To which we answer 1. That 't is lawful to hear Truth preached but this must be done lawfully and in the way of Christs appointment Which the hearing the present Ministers we have proved is not 2. All that preach Truth are not to be heard nor will our
injury or offence committed against his Brother that is not a sin against God but in this sense we deny the offence here to be private and had Mr. T. by one Argument endeavoured to have evinced it he had done something a failure wherein renders the ensuing fabrick liable to sink with its own weight 1. Sins against our Brother are sins against God Psal 51. 4. Against thee only have I sinned saith David touching the wickedness he had wrought in the matter of Uriah 2. The word rendred trespass against thee Mat. 18. 15. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies properly to erre from the prefixed mark metaphorically to sin a sin or to do that which is contrary to the Law of God Alsted in Lex Theol. which though by it we are injured as a sin is properly against God As all Indictments in criminal pleas are stiled against the King his Crown and Dignity Nor can the Animadverter give one instance throughout the whole New-Testament of the use of the word for such a private offence or scandal committed against a Brother as is not a sin and transgression against God What he adds 2dly That the Brother against whom the trespass is committed might remit or forgive it is 1. more than the Scripture will justifie him in asserting Must be received cum grano Salis with caution or 't is plainly atheological 1. If he mean he might remit or forgive it so far as it was an injury to him 't is granted in â—ome cases he might but it is also a sin against God which he must not suffer to rest upon his Brother Levit. 19. 17. 2. If he mean that upon an acknowledgment of the offence and manifestation of sorrow and repentance so far as he is able to discern unfeigned he be bound to own and receive him as formerly without acquainting any others or the Church with it 't is undoubtedly true He hath attained the utmost end aimed at in the whole process viz. the conviction and bringing the offender to repentance and therefore need not advance one step further to do so were frivilous ridiculous irregular sinful an open breach upon all the rules of charity enjoyned by Christ But yet it follows not that by Church is not meant a particular Congregation but select Arbitrators When Mr. T. proves the consequence of this proposition The offended Brother may forgive the Offender upon his confession of and sorrow for his trespass committed so as to own him for a Brother without publishing his fault that was only known to them two to any other therefore by Church to whom without such acknowledgment and repentance he was to have communicated it we are to understand select Arbitrators I will be his convert In what he adds that there is no act ascribed to the Church save an Admonition to the injurious Brother to do right to him whom he hath wronged this Animadverter is evidently mistaken For 1st Here is a Juridicial Sentence ascribed to the Church vers 18. Verily I say unto you the Church whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth c. 2dly The issue or consequence of this Juridicial Sentence is That hâ— is to the Church for what one is lawfully to a part of the Body he is to the whole as a Heathen or Publican i. e. shut out of their Communion or Fellowship But Mr. T. is sure he tells us the Publicans were not excluded a sacris Answ 1. If by sacra he means those Ordinances that peculiarly related to them as members of the Judaical Church and by Publicans unproselyted uncircumcised Publicans 't is most false that such were not excluded a sacris They might not partake of the Passover with them to instance in no more particulars Exod. 12. 48. And Maimonides in Korban Pesach Cap. 5. Sect. 5. tells us That as the Circumcision of himself omitted debarreth him from keeping the Passover so doth the circumcision of his Sons and his Servants c. if omitted And if he kill it before he do circumcise them it is unlawful Of which R. Menacheâ— renders a reason on Exod. 12. Whilest the power of uncleanness and the superfluous foreskin is upon him c. he is unfit to be united with the divine Majesty c. 2. If by sacra he mean coming to their Synagogueâ— to hear them Preach or Expound the Law he speaks nothing to the purpose an Excommunicated person may come to the Church-Assemblies and hear and see what is done there as may an Heathen The Scripture instanc't in affords not the least sanctuary to his Assertion First 'T is a Parable and so it may be a supposition of what never was Secondly 'T is spoken it seems of a broken converted Publican He looked down smote upon his Breast cried out The Lord be merciful to me a sinner Thirdly 'T is not said that he joyned with the Jewish Church in any act of Worship That he went up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Holy the whole building of the Temple consisting of an inward and outward Court is so called to pray is Parabolically said of him as of the Pharisee but both the one and the other prayed by themselves severally and apart vers 11. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word for word standing to himself or apart from the Publican he prayed these things O God I thank thee c. vers 13. And the Publican 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 standing a far off viz. in the first Court of the Temple where all sorts of People Publicans and Sinners might come 1 Kings 8. 41. Fourthly 'T is most certain and the Animadverter cannot be ignorant hereof That the Publicans were excluded not only a sacris which they were but also from Civil Communion so far as possibly they could insomuch as it was a great crime charged upon Christ by them That heate and drank with Publicans and Sinners and that more than once Matth. 9. 11. and 11. 19. Mark 2. 16. Luke 5. 30. and 7. 34. Accordingly upon this sentence of the Church upon the Offender the Members of the Society are to carry it towards him not only as towards a Heathen with whom they might have civil Commerce but as towards a Publican with whom they at that day had none 1 Cor. 5. 11. 2 Thes 3. 14. And he that should have seen the Publican Luke 18. if there was ever such a thing done praying in one Court and the Pharisee in another or if in the same Court one at one Corner and the other at the other apart by themselves would scarce have concluded that they held Communion together or inferred therefore the Publicans were not excluded a sacris Which Consequence Mr. T. will take time to make good usque ad Graecas Calendas It remains That forasmuch as by Church Mat. 18. 17. is not meant the Jâ—â—ish Synedrium nor the Lord Bishop and his Consistory nor the Civil Magistrate nor the Presbyterie nor Mr. T. his Select