chosen by the Church and therefore seems not sufficient to inferr a necessary perpetual rule of such election especially other passages shewing the Constituting or Ordaining of Elders without mentioning of any such election as Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 And though the original and use of the word were from the custom mentioned and did in popular Elections signifie Election by suffrages yet as in other words so in this use hath enlarged its sense apples it to other creating than by such suffrage as is manifest by the use of it even in the same book Acts· 10.41 where the Apostle are termed Witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chosen before of God who did not choose by suffrages of others and by Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on Act. 14.23 is shewed to be used in like manner in Philo Judaeus and other Authors besides Christians as the same with Electing Ordaining or Constituting without Suffrages of others and must be so understood in this very place because none are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stretch out their hand but Paul and Barnabas and it is said they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be well translated any other than Ordaining by laying on their hands on the Elders not by bare stretching out or lifting up their hands as was wont to be in Suffrages and it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to or for them manifestly distinguishing the Disciples from the Electors or Ordainers by stretching out or laying on of hands So that this place doth not prove Power solely delegated to a particular Church instituted for the electing of their own Officers and therefore if all were true which is added by this Author These men as it s known have no such authority pretend not to it have it in derision come barely with a presentation from a Patron and Ordination Institution and Induction from a Lord-Bishop things forraign to the Scripture and impose themselves upon the people whether they will or no. Yet they may be Ministers of the Gospel and heard as such notwithstanding this Argument Yet I add that it will be hard for this Author to prove that the Parish Churches in England are not particular Instituted Churches of Christ or that the Ministers are imposed on the People whether they will or no the contrary is true of many places especially in London concerning the Incumbents and Lecturers Nor is the Ordination of a Lord-Bishop such a forraign thing to the Scripture as this Author would insinuate the Bishop not Ordaining without other Elders joyning with him and giving him no other authority than to Preach the word of God and to Minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto To shut up the Answer to this Argument As the Text Joh. 10.16 is abused by Hart to prove the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ as Dr. Rainold sheweth in his Conference Ch. 6 divis 1. it being meant only of the Lord Christ and the Quakers abuse Joh. 10.12 to cry down Preachers as Hirelings because they receive Wages though it be according to Christs own determination Luke 10.7 the Lords Ordinance I Cor. 9.14 St. Pauls practice sometime 2 Cor. 11.8 and his Precept Gal. 6.6 and his Approbation 1 Tim. 5.17 18. The word Hireling Joh. 10.12 being not used as making it a sin for a Minister to receive hire but to distinguish Christ from other Shepherds who was not as Hirelings whose Sheep are not their own but was a singular Pastor owner of the Sheep of whom he was Pastor and those abuse Joh. 10.5 who urge it against the hearing of any Preachers but those of their own Church or way calling them Strangers whereas the strangers there are such as were Usurpers of Christs Office and were enemies to the Sheep not feeding them but perverting them So this Author abuseâ—â— John 10.1 9. by saying the present Ministers of England are Thieves and Robbers because they come not into their Ministry by the door that is by any authority to them from Christ that is not by election of a particular Instituted Church when this is but from an expression in a parable in which is not the scope or Doctrin intended by it and therefore not argumentative and neither is it certain that the door v. 1. is the same with the door v. 9. nor if it were is the door that whereby there is entrance into the Ministery but the Church nor the entrance by right election of others but by the persons true faith nor is the not entring in by the door brought as the reason or form denominating them Thieves and Robbers but only as some description of them from a concomitant nor are any meant there to be Thieves and Robbers who do direct to Christ or receive him for defect of regular calling but such only as obtruded themselves as the Messiah on the people with intent to make a prey of them Sect. 4. The present Ministers may be heard as Gifted Brethren There is yet more of the like stuff 2. Saith he 'T is not lawful to hear them as Gifted Brethren 1. The most of them are not Gifted Brethren Nor 2. Brethren being Canonical Drunkards Swearers Gamesters c. Answ. That any of them are such it is to be bewailed and in a Christian way the persons that are guilty are to be rebuked Levit. 19.17 not to be thus charged in Print in a Book vented in the dark tending not to amend them but to make them odious even with them that are too much inclined to censuring and reviling of those that dissent from them or are of an opposite party But how it appears that the most of the present Ministers of England are such as he stigmatizeth them I know not and I hope it is not true However if it were so it proves not that others better qualified might not be heard nor that these men may not bethren yea if he follow St. Pauls rule 2 Thess. 3.15 alledged a little after he is not to account them as enemies but to admonish them as Brethren and were all this and more true yet they might be heard preach the Gospel as Brethren Gifted as Judas was to be heard though declared by Christ to be a Devil Joh. 6.70 But what saith he of the rest 3. The best of them cannot by Saints in respect of Gospel Communion be so accounted For 1. There was never any giving up of our selves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example whence such a Brotherhood doth result Answ. By Saints I doubt not he means such as are members of a particular Instituted Church Congregational distinct from Parish Churches either under Episcopal or Presbyterial Government For such only are accounted Saints by him as give up themselves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example and by Gospel Communion no doubt he means hearing of them preach praying with
the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but to be separated from but the present Ministers of England act in the Holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling Therefore The major is evident For 1. The Power Office and Calling of Antichrist is opposite and contrary unto the Power Office and Calling of Christ not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office-power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ. Answ. The ambiguity that is in the termes of this argument is that which makes this Argument seem to many well-meaning people to be of some force which will appear to be a meer fallacie when the terms are clearly opened Concerning which that which is chiefly to be explained is who is the Antichrist here meant and what is meant by Antichristian which hath been so strangely abused especially of late years that every thing that hath been mâ—sliked by an opposite party is branded with the name of Antichrist and mark of the Beast and made a sufficient cause of utter separation from such as own any thing so called and of almost Vatinian hatred The word Antichrist I find not in any place in the Bible but in the Epistles of St. John 1 Joh. 2.18 As ye have heard that Antichrist should come even now are there many Antichrists whereby we know that it is the last time v. 22. He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son ch 4.3 And every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and this is that Spirit of Antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the World 2 John 7. For many deceivers are entered into the World who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an Antichrist or the Deceiver and the Antichrist In which passages I observe 1. That Antichrist is described as a Deceiver as one that opposeth the grand truth of the Gospel and therefore the word in the Scripture use is not applied to persecuting Princes and Emperours as the great Turk but to false Teachers 2. That the opposition is by denying not by making himself Christ but by denying Jesus to be the Christ and therefore the term Antichrist is not one that sets up himself as if he were Christ they are expressed by another word Pseudo-Christs Mat. 24.24 but one that is against Christ by teaching contrary to him 3. That the term Antichrist is applied to many false Teachers who were in St. Johns time 4. That yet there was one Antichrist more notable than the rest to come into the World About whom hath been variety of opinions of old and of late much controversie whether he should be a single person or a state or rank of persons succeeding one after another whether the Antichrist be already come or is yet to come whether the Popes of Rome for some generations have been the Antichrist or they and some other The opinions of the Fathers were various as conceiving of Antichrist by conjectures after the Popes of Rome began to be so haughty as to usurp dominion over Emperours and Kings and to be tyrannous in cruel persecutions of them that opposed the Papal corruptions many pious and learned men stuck not to stigmatize the Popes of Rome as Antichrists and since the Reformation begun by Luther it hath been the common tenent of Protestants that the later Popes of Rome have been the man of sin foretold 2 Thess. 2.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. the City of Rome the Whore of Babylon and the Papacy or Popes the Beast described Rev. 17. which is taken for a Prophesie of Antichrist And though some have endeavoured to apply these Prophesies to Caligula Simon Magus Domitian Mahomet the Turkish Sultans yet generally not only the French and German Protestants but also the English the most esteemed for learning even of the Order of Prelates such as Downham Robert Abbot Usher Bedel Prideaux together with King James and his Defendant Andrews and many more have applied the Prophesies in the Revelation and 2 Thess. 2. to the Roman Popes as the Antichrist that was to come Whence every thing that is retained in the Protestant Churches not taught or exemplified in the Scriptures according to the use of the Church of Rome is usually termed Antichristian as coming from Rome and the mark and image of the Beast in which sense I conceive this Author useth the term Antichristian as being against Christ and by power Antichristian he means Authority and Rule Prelatical by Office-Antichristian the Office of Preaching reading the Common-Prayer Administration of Sacraments and Discipline according to the Church of England by Calling Antichristian he means Ordination by a Bishop Now out of this may be gathered an answer to the Argument If by Antichristian Power Office and Calling be meant the Papal Power Office and Calling and the acting in Holy things be by preaching the Doctrine of the Trent Council in the points determined therein against Protestants by administring Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and Discipline according to the Canon Law of the Popes in which Papal power is established the major is granted and the minor denied For though I deny not that a person Ordained by a Popish Bishop if he forsake Popish Doctrine and preach the Truth taught by Protestants may be heard preach the Gospel though he do not renounce his Ordination yet while he holds that Doctrine he is not to be heard as being an Antichristian Deceiver But if by an Antichristian Power Office or Calling be meant by vertue of Ministry according to the Liturgie Articles of Religion and Homilies of the Church of England from the Ordination and License of the Bishops which this Author terms Antichristian the major is denied and to the Arguments to prove it I answer that that which he calls Antichristian is not truly such but only miscalled such by him and therefore till he proves that Power-Office and Calling which he calls such and means in his major proposition is such his major is denied and it is denied that what he calls Antichristian is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and Calling of Christ or not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ until he proves such acting to be really so And this answer might suffice to invalidate all the other Arguments he brings for his major they all moving upon this unproved Supposition That what he calls Antichristian and standing by and pleading for Antichrist is in truth such But because there are some things to be examined in the other Arguments also I shall survey them also 2. Saith he It 's unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by
often shewed to be so impertinently alleadged against the actions of Protestants which are done in opposition to Popery that it is a wonder that men pretending tenderness of conscience should be so impudent as still to accuse Protestants as receiving the mark of the beast and staying in Babylon even for that for which the holy Martyrs died in opposition to Popery But if it be true which Mr. Paget hath in his Arrow p. 29. Mr. Robinson was not constant to this opinion As for what this Authour saith The Common-prayer-book-worship is proved by him to be false worship it hath been shewed not to be true in the answer to all he saith here Yet were there some superstition in the worship prescribed in the Common Prayer Book it is not sufficient to make the places in which the present Ministers and people meet places or assemblies of false worship every corruption in Gods worship not making the place or assembly to be a place or assembly of false worship as is manifest both in the case of the sin of Hophni 1 Sam. 2.17 of the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11.20 21 22. 14.26 Nor if the places and assemblies were for some corruption yet were it necessary to go out of them except they were idolatrous For so were the going up to Gilgal Bethaven or Bethel forbidden Hos. 4.15 Amos 4.4 to offer sacrifice to the calves set up by Jeroboam which therefore prove not going to a place of false worship to be forbidden except it be idolatrous and to joyn in that worship and therefore the antecedent of this Authours argument is denied if it be meant of false worship that is not idolatrous Gods people were required to go to the temple at Jerusalem after it had been defiled with Idolatry and the Idol removed and even then when corpuptions of buying and selling there and will-worship was in sundry things continued there yet our Lord Christ himself went up to the Temple at Jerusalem The consequence also is denied it being false that we cannot go to hear the present Ministers of England without we go to their places and assemblies of false worship To which I add That this is contrary to our Saviours doctrine John 4.21 22 23. to tie men to worship onely in the place and assembly of the separated Churches and contrary to S. Pauls doctrine 1 Tim. 2.8 to forbid any to worship God in any place and therefore herein this Authour and such separatists as are of his mind are guilty of Judaizing But he goeth on thus Sect. 8. There is ground to expect a blessing in hearing the present Ministers Argument 11. That upon the doing whereof Saints have no promise of a blessing nor any ground to expect it is not lawful for them to do But in the hearing of these men the Saints have no promise of a blessing nor ground to expect it Therefore The major or first proposition will not be denied As for the minor or second proposition That the Saints have no promise of a blessing from God nor ground to expect it in the hearing of the present Ministers of England may many ways be demonstrated If there be any promise of a blessing upon them from God in their so doing let it be produced and we shall willingly confess there is no weight in this argument But this we conceive to be no easie task for any to discharge and that for these reasons 1. The blessing of the Lord is upon Sion Psal. 87.2 78.68 there he dwells Psal. 9.11 74.2 Jer. 8.19 Isa. 8.18 Joel 3.17.21 The presence of Christ is in the midst of the golden Candlesticks Rev. 1.12 13. 2.1 't is his garden in which he feedeth and dwells Cant. 6.2 8.13 and we are not surer of any thing nor will it be denied by our conforming brethren many of them thaâ— we are of this That the assemblies of England in their present constitution are so far from being the Sion of God his candlestick his garden that they are a very wilderness and that Babel out of which the Lord commands his people to hasten their escape Revel 18.4 2. God never promiseth a blessing to a people waiting upon him in that way which is polluted and not of his appointment as we have proved the worship of England to be 3 The Lord hath expresly said concerning such as run before they are sent That they shall not profit the people Jer. 23.32 4. The Lord protesteth that such as refuse to obey his calls to come out of Babylon shall partake of her plagues Revel 18.4 5. Where the Lord is not in respect of his special presence and grace there is no ground to expect any blessing but God is not so in the midst of the Parochial assemblies of England Where are the souls that are converted comforted strengthened stablished that are waiting at theâ— doors of their house Though many will not see it yet aâ— sad spirit of withering and visible decaies is to be found upon many that are waiting upon the teachings of the Ministers of this day And we hope the Lord will in mercy cause those that are indeed his to see it that they may remember from whence they have fallen repent do their first works and watch to strengthen the things that remain that are ready to die for God hath not found their works perfect before him Answ. Blessings are of many sorts Any good in general yea any immunity or freedom from evil is a blessing in a large sense But in a strict sense that onely is called a blessing which is the conferring of some special good whether temporal or eternal corporal or spiritual In the former sense the major is true It is not lawful for the Saints to do that which there is no promise of good to them upon doing it nor ground to expect that the person shall not be punished for it But if it be meant of good as of long life to the honouring of parents eternal life to believing on Christ there are many things the Saints have no promise of special good to be conferred on them for doing them nor ground to expect any such blessing but what is common to all men and yet the thing is lawful to be done by them as eating and drinking for their sustenance buying and selling planting building c. common to other men with them and in this strict sense in which this Authour takes it the major is not true Ezekiel Preached lawfully when he was told Israel would not hearken Ezek. 3.2 7. and Jonah when he thought Nineveh would not repent Jonah 4.2 But to wave this exception the minor is not true I assert the Saints have a promise of spiritual blessing by hearing these men while they Preach the Gospel as much as any Preachers in the Congregational Churches Isa. 55.3 Hear and your soul shall live Luke 11.28 Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it are promises made to them that hear the
either of these speak truth The Devils we are to have no communion with God having put an utter enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman 3. If the present Ministers of England preach truth but by halves it is lawful to hear them preach those halfs The Bishops allow them to preach all truths needful to salvation all that is contained in the Creed Lords Prayer and Ten Commandments in the 39 Articles the two Tomes of Homilies nor are men inhibited in Schools or Convocations or at some times in books published in Latine to discover any truths of God so it be done without disturbance or other evil consequence That some truths needful to be known are not permitted to be published to the vulgar auditories may have the same reason as Christ had for not acquainting his disciples with many things he had to say to them because they could not then bear them John 16.12 Some things may seem very clearly revealed in the Scriptures to some and be owned by them which are pernicious as that the Saints have all right to government that they are to smite the civil powers as part of the fourth Monarchy that justified persons are not under the command of the moral Law some disputable as about the thousand years reign That God cannot forgive sins without satisfaction to his justice Church-constitution Covenant Government and many more which it is agreeable to the Apostles rule Rom. 14.1 their practice Acts 15.28 not to vent in all sorts of auditories and if the Bishops do restrain Preachers especially those that are young raw injudicious but violent and apt to cause division they do agreeably to the Apostles rule to the example of all Churches where Government is not popular which breeds confusion yea I think the Separatists have found by experience some restraint necessary and that the universal liberty of Conscience or of prophesying as it is termed is intolerable and if Bishops who are men and may be more rigid then they should hold the reins in too hard yet there is no reason why the people should refuse to hear that truth which is necessary and sufficient to salvation because they cannot hear every truth which perhaps out of faction or a childish inconstancy or having itching ears they desire to know As for what is said about the Ministers contradicting their preaching by their practice it is answered before in the Answer to the 5 th Chapter And yet were it granted their personal evils are not sufficient to make the hearing of the truth unlawful to the hearers As for the errours they are said to mingle with the truths they teach they are not such as overthrow the foundation if they were errours and taught by them and therefore this is no sufficient reason why they may not be heard preaching necessary truths Yet to shew the futility of this allegation I shall consider each of the supposed errours The first I doubt not they will deny and require this Authour to prove it For the second it is not for ought I know preached by any of the Ministers That the Apocryphal books which have in them errours may be used in the publick worship of God nor do I think if they should so do could it well consist with their subscription to the sixth Article of the Confession of the Church of England which excludes them out of the Canon of holy Scriptures which contain all things necessary to salvation and saith The Church as Hierome saith doth read them for example of life and instructions of manners but yet doth it not apply them to stablish any doctrine And what Dr. Rainold the Bishop of Durham that now is with many of the English Protestant and conforming Divines have written about the Apocryphal Books is sufficient to clear the present Ministers from suspicion of complying with the Papists who according to the Decree of the Trent Council ses quarta put most of them though they leave out some of them into the Catalogue of sacred Books containing that truth and discipline of the Gospel which is saving and to be preached to every creature and receive and venerate them with equal affection of piety and reverence as other books of holy scripture And although the passages alleaged by this Authour are liable to exception nor do I think it fit for me to justifie or excuse them yet this I say to shew there is not a sufficient reason to withdraw from hearing the present Ministers preaching or praying 1. Some of the books are not appointed to be read at all 2. Some of those that are appointed to be read are capable of an easier censure and better construction then is put upon them by this Authour 3. That those which are not so capable of excuse yet are appointed to be read on such days and in such places as those that alleadge this for a reason of not hearing the present Ministers need not be present 4. That it was once resolved as lawful by Dr. George Abbot after Archbishop of Canterbury in his answer to Dr. Hill the Papist p. 317. from the Preface to the second Tome of the Homilies for the Minister instead of the Apocryphal books to read some other part of the Canonical Scripture of the old Testament Which things being considered there seems not for this to be a sufficient reason of not hearing the present Ministers or charging them as this Authour doth The third errour I conceive they will deny to be their tenent But concerning this and the 4th 5th 6â—â— 8th 9th 11th errours so much hath been said before chiefly in the answer to the 5 th 6 th 7 th chapters of this book that I need not here make a particular answer concerning each of these severally yet I say the things are not matters of the Ministers Doctrine however they be of their practice and therefore cannot be a reason of not hearing their Sermons And they who make this a sufficient reason not to hear or to pray or receive the Lords Supper with a person by reason of some errour he holds or teacheth or some undue practice on Gods worship or conversation with other men go against all rules and examples in holy Scripture and approved Christians and such a one must suppose Preachers infallible every Communicant unblameable or each Christian to have power to excommunicate if the person faulty be not amended upon his reproof that he must know what Tenents his Teacher holds and what is the conversation of each Communicant ere he can warrantably hear the one or communicate with the other Which with sundry other superstitious conceits or unnecessary scruples put an intolerable burden upon mens consciences and will as well prove withdrawing from the Ministers and Churches Congregational necessary as from the Conformists As for the 7th errour it will be denied by them to be their Tenent that there may be Holy days appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist c. For though they
be termed for distinction sake St. Peters day c. yet saith Archbishop Whitgift in his answer to the second Admonition the 3 d. reason The Papists Saints days were appointed for the honouring and worshipping of the Saints by whose names they were called ours be ordained for the honouring of God for publick prayer and edifying the people by reading the Scriptures and Preaching neither are they called by the name of any Saint in any other respect than that the Scriptures which that day are read in the Church be concerning that Saint and contain either his calling preaching persecution martyrdom or such like The like is alleadged by Rainold conference with Hart ch 8. divis 2. Hooker Eccles. Policy l. 5. Sect. 71. yea T. C. the defender of the Admonition confesseth that the Church of England meaneth not that in these holy days the Saints should be honoured and Rivet on Exod. 20. praecept quartum acquits the Church of England from Idolatry by reason of our form of service and our doctrine of worshipping God onely Of which more also may be seen in Zanchius tom 4. in praece quartum loc 1. q. 2. c. As for the 10th errour That Christ descended into hell is in the Creed called the Apostles and is the 3d. Article of the Confession of the Church of England and is deduced by Augustin Epist. ad Evodium 99. from Acts 2.26 27. and how to understand it of other descent then the place of the damned or Limbus Patram which is the Papists tenent may be seen in Archhishop Vshers answer to the Jesuites challenge ch 5. Dr. Pearson his Exposition of the Creed on that Article and others The 12th I think neither the present Ministers nor any of the Bishops will assert The two last let them that hold them answer for themselves I say onely that they are such as hearers are not necessitated to assent to nor such as can justifie separation But it follows Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers Object 5. Judas preached though a wicked man and no doubt 't was lawful yea the duty of Saints to hear him To this we say no doubt it was so But 1. Judas was not a visible wicked man at the time of his preaching but so close an hypocrite that he was not known to be so no not to the disciples but some of the present Ministers of England are visibly wicked and profane 2. Judas was chosen and called by Christ to be an Apostle commissioned by him to preach but the present Ministers of England are not so as hath been proved So that this is not at all to the business in hand I reply It is confessed that the present Ministers are not chosen and called by Christ to Preach as Iudas was and it may be also proved concerning the Ministers of the Congregational Churches whose calling may be questionable as well as theirs being often by a small company of ignorant persons many of them women who challenge power of election without Ordination or other help or giving the right hand of fellowship by Elders of other Churches nor are they all free from visible wickedness and prophaness And this may be somewhat to the business by allaying the vehemency of this Authours spirit against others But the chief use of this objection is to answer one exception of this Authour ch 2. That the present Ministers are not to be heard as gifted brethren because they walk disorderly For Iudas did walk disorderly and yet might be heard 'T is true Iudas was not so apparently a thief as others that are openly vitious yet Christ knew him to be a thief and a traitour when he appointed him to preach and forbade none to hear him preach the Gospel and therefore allowed hearing of evil men preach truth which is denyed by the Author of Prelatical preachers none of Christs teachers p. 43 44. and is frequently the reason of many people 's not hearing them that preach truth It is to be added that Christ had given some intimation of Judas his wickedness John 6.70 71. He goes on Sect. 10. It is a sin not to encourage good men in their Ministry Object 6. But there are some good men amongst them and such as belong to God may we not hear good men To which briefly Answ. 1. That there are some among the present preachers of this day that are good men we shall not stand to deny Yet 2. We crave leave to say That they are all of them such as are sadly polluted and defiled by their complyance in respect of their standing in the Ministry Antichristian whose teachings Saints have no warrant to attend upon 3. The greater hopes we have of their goodness the more cautelous should we be of encouraging them in a false way that they by our relinquishment of them and separating from them after we have discharged all other duties we are satisfied are incumbent upon us to perform towards them may come to see their sin repent and do their first works that God and we may again receive them 4. Yet the goodness of any as to the main is no warrant for any to hold communion with them or attend upon their teachâ—ngs There are brethren that walk disorderly whom 't is the duty of Saints to separate from that the very best of the Ministers of England do so will not be denyed The incestuous person 1 Cor. 5. was as to the main for ought I know a good man yet were not the Saints at Corinth to hold communion with him till upon his repentance he was again received 2 Cor. 2 6. 5. 'T is utterly unlawfull to communicate with a devised Ministry upon what pretext soever 6. So is it for any to partake in other mens sins as hath been proved but every usurped Ministry is the sin of him though never so holy a person that exerciseth it I reply this objection being an argument ad hominem against this Author who hath represented all the present Ministers as walking disorderly deniers of Christs offices Antichristian Idolaters Scandalous even the best of them which what face he can say of them and yet acknowledge them good men is not easily conceivable they seem to me inconsistent speeches That their Ministry is Antichristian when they minister the word of God is also in my understanding oppositum in apposito a contradiction That they stand in that Ministry which they had by Episcopal ordination is so far from being their defilement that it seems to me their vertue and wisdome it being alwayes judged by me a great sin to renounce that ministry sith it is no other then of the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church and Realm hath received the same according to the Commandements of God which for any to disclaim is to go back from the service of Christ and if the present Ministers do stand in this Ministry the Saints are
own soul must judge impartially and without prejudice weighing what is said on both sides As for my aims and spirit in writing this thing having found so little equity in mens censures of me about former writings I can the less trust to any sort of mens good or bad of one or other opinion or judgement of me My care I hope shall be to approve my self to God and to sollicite him by prayers for his blessing upon my labours in this thing To which I shall add as over-measure these ensuing Arguments for hearing the present Ministers as now the case is Sect. 15. An Appendix containing fourty additional Reasons against denying the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers First I argue for the lawfulness of hearing them Preach the Doctrine of the Gospel as it is professed in the Church of England from the definition of sin which is a transgression of the Law 1 John 3.4 whence the Apostle Rom. 4.13 Where no law is that is no law prohibiting that which is done there is no transgression Whence I argue That is lawful in which is no sin in the hearing of the present Ministers Preach the doctrine of the Gospel as it is professed in the Church of England is no sin therefore it is lawful The major is undoubted that being unlawful onely in which is sin according to the notion of the terms The minor is proved because it is no breach of the Law there being neither any law of nature nor any written law of the Old or New Testament moral or positive in express terms or by good consequence against it Which is sufficiently proved by the answer to such Arguments as are here brought to prove a prohibition of such hearing and by requiring those that condemn it as unlawful to produce the law which forbids it which yet is not done that we know If it be said as it is by many of the people who scruple the doing of many things used in the publick worship as now it is that in Gods worship it is not enough that there is no law against what we do but there must be also a command to do it else it is will-worship Besides what I have answered in the examination of the first Chapter of this Treatise I add 1. That the alleadging of a command is not necessary to prove a thing lawful but to prove it a necessary duty it is sufficient to prove my present conclusion That no Law forbidding the hearing the present Ministers can be produced 2. That as express command may be shewed for hearing the present Ministers as for hearing the congregational Ministers at least those of them that are Separatist against whom there are more just exceptions then against the present Conforming Ministers of England why they should not be heard Which leads me to a second Argument for the lawfulness of hearing them which I thus form 2. Those Ministers may lawfully be heard against the hearing of whom by no exceptions but such as are extrinsecal to the duty of hearing as it is a part of Gods worship But so it is concerning the hearing of the present Ministers Therefore they may be heard The duty of hearing as it is a part of Gods worship consists in this That we apply our selves to learn the mind of God by which we come to know and obey him It is extrinsecal to this that it be delivered to us by a good or a bad man a man in Church-covenant or not our proper Pastour chosen by our selves or imposed upon us and therefore such personal exceptions against the deliverer are extrinsecal to the duty of hearing or nonâ—hearing if he declare Gods mind to us we may worship God in hearing though the Preacher sin in his conversation or entrance on his Ministery or be otherwise faulty if he be faithful in delivering the truth of God to us though other things make one mans teaching more desirable or more delightful or useful to us yet the defect of them makes not our hearing his teaching unlawful who teacheth the word of God truly because we may thereby learn Gods mind in applying our selves whereto is his worship by hearing 3. This is further proved in that where there are any prohibitions which restrain us from hearing any Teachers it is because of their Doctrine Which is an argument That in hearing others that teach true Doctrine or the truth of Gods word we are at liberty to hear them and consequently the present Ministers supposed to do so The antecedent is verified by inspection of these Deut. 13.3 Matt. 7.15 Mark 4.24 and such other Texts as cautionate men from hearing Teachers Whence may be inferred That 's not unlawful for us from which Gods cautions restrain us not But from hearing the present Ministers supposed to teach the truth of Gods word Gods cautions restrain us not therefore it is not unlawful to hear them 4. It is the character or property of one that is of God or is a sheep of Christ to hear Gods word or Christs voice without limiting it to some persons John 8.47 He that is of God heareth Gods word John 10.27 My sheep hear my voice Whence I argue That is not unlawful which may be a duty and a characteristical property of one that is of God or Christs sheep But to hear the present Ministers being supposed to teach the word of God and the voice of Christ may be a duty and a characteristical property of one that is of God or Christs sheep Therefore it is not unlawful to hear them being supposed to teach the word of God and the voice of Christ. 5. From the same Scriptures it may be argued thus That may be unlawful which may be a sign of one that is not of God nor of Christs sheep but not to hear the present Ministers when they teach the word of God and the voice of Christ may be a sign of one that is not of God for Christ saith John 8.47 Ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God nor a sheep of Christ who saith John 10.26 But ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep as I said unto you Therefore it may be unlawful not to hear the present Ministers and consequently lawfull to hear them 6. To refuse to hear the word of God though delivered by the present Ministers is profaneness such as is condemned in Esau. Heb. 12.16 For it is the rejecting or neglecting of a holy thing as it is termed by our Lord Christ Matth. 7.6 therefore it may be unlawful to shun hearing them and consequently lawful to hear them 7. The word of God is a pearl of great price Matt. 7.6 such as a merchant man should sell all he hath to buy Matth. 13.46 a great treasure v. 44. therefore to be heard and received by whomsoever held forth and consequently it is folly and sin to shun hearing it because of personal exceptions against the bringer as it would be folly to refuse a
Christ in the Scripture Sect. 7. The Office of Lord Bishops not from the Papacy Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters Chap. 4. Arg. 4. Sect. 1. They that deny not Christs Offices doctrinally may be heard Sect. 2. Every not hearkening to Christs Order is not a denial of his Office Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Sovereign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the will of Christ by not joyning in the separation pleaded for Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church are not Christs Institution Sect. 6. No contempt of the Authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment Sects 8. Prophecying is not opposed by the Ministers Sect. 9. Ministers service may be Divine and Spiritual in the use of the Liturgy Sect. 10. Things objected against the Ministers are not such as justifie separation Chap. 5. Sect. 1. All owning of orders different from or contrary to Christs proves not a denial of his Offices Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured Sect. 3. Making Canons in things undetermined and subjection to them agrees with Scripture Sect. 4. It s no derogation from Scripture or Christ that such Canons are made and obeyed Sect. 5. All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred are not determined in Scripture Sect. 6. It s not proved that the Ministers of England own constitutions contrary to the Revelation of Christ. Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 Sect. 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion justifies not separation Sect. 9. Receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of abstaining from appearance of evil 1 Thess. 5.22 Sect. 10. Forbidding to Marry or eat Flesh at certain times are not Characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant Sect. 11. No such headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christs proves not owning another King co-ordinate to him Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ not monstrous Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel Chap. 6. Arg. 5. Sect 1. False Doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard Sect. 2. The Ministers not false Prophets because not sent as Jer. 23.21 Rom. 10.15 is meant Sect. 3. The Ministers not proved to commit Adultery and walk in lyes as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 4. The Ministers are not proved to strengthen the hands of evil doers as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 5. The Ministers are not proved such daubers as those Ezek. 22.28 Sect. 6. Ministers changing of places sadning some mens hearts not characters of a false Prophet Sect. 7. Pressing rigid Conformity no proof of the Ministers being false Prophets Sect. 8. The charge Ezek. 22.26 reacheth not the Ministers of England Sect. 9. The Ministers are not the false Shepheards meant Ezek. 34.4 Sect. 10. The Ministers of England are not the second Beast foretold Rev. 13.11 Chap. 7. Arg 6. Sect 1. All Idolatry is exhibiting Divine Worship to a creature Sect. 2. All will-worship of God is not Idolatry Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his appointment Sect. 5. Common-Prayer Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer Sect. 6. Common-Prayer Book worship is not of pure humane invention Sect. 7. Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the worship of the Reformed Churches Sect. 8. No particularity instituted is a meer circumstance yet particularities undetermined are Sect. 9. Praying in a form may be praying in the Spirit Sect. 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed are not made necessary essential parts of Worship Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God by the Office Power and Modes of Idolaters may be without Idolatry Sect. 12. The English Ministers oppose Popish Idolatry as other Protestants Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by vertue of an Office Power from Idolaters Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry Sect. 15. Kneeling in the receiving the Sacramental Elements is not Idolatry Sect. 16. The crimination of the Ministers as Idolaters is not excusable Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author Chap. 8. Arg. 7. and 8 Sect. 1. Every offence of others makes not sinful that which is otherwise lawful Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty Sect. 3. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers Sect. 4. It is not scandal given but when the offensive action is done blameably Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians by hearing the present Ministers is not the scandalizing threatned Matth. 18.16 Sect. 6. The Separatists give more just cause of offence to godly sober Christians than the Conformists do to them Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers may be without participation with them in sin Chap. 9. Arg 9 10 11 12. Sect. 1. Separation of some from other Christians is no institution of Christ. Sect. 2. Meeting of Christians as a distinct body is not Christs Institution Sect. 3. Separated Congregational Churches in opposition to National are not of Christs Institution Sect. 4. To attend only on the Ministry of Ministers of Congregational Churches is not Christs appointment Sect. 5. Hearing the present Ministers casts no contempt on Christs Institutions Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers hardens none in sin Sect. 7. Gods people are not called out of the Temples in England as places of false Worship Sect. 8. There is ground to expect a blessing in hearing the present Ministers Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostasie Sect. 10. Pollution in one part makes not the whole worship polluted Chap. 10. Fifty Arguments for hearing the present Ministers Sect. 1. Christs direction Matth. 23.2 3. warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses his Chair as Teachers not as Magistrates Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church Officers of Gods appointment Sect. 4. Christ allows hearing the Pharisees while they taught the Law of Moses Sect. 5. Hearing Pharisees teaching Moses Law not attendance on their Ministry as Pastors is allowed by Christ. Sect. 6. Christ and his Apostles going to the Jewish Meetings is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practise Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ of contention warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach warrants the hearing of them Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers Sect. 10. It is a sin not to encourage good men in their Ministry Sect. 11. The example of the learned
on If there be no such thing as a National Church of the institution of Christ as most certain it is there is not then 2. Whether National Ministers are the Ministers of Christ or whether there can be a true Ministry in a false Church as a National Church must be if not of Divine Institution upon what pretence soever it be so denominated Sect. 16. National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ and National Churches true Churches To this Querie I answer 1 That if by National Ministers be meant Ministers for the Nation or such as have inspection over the Nation whether for the maintenance or propagating of true Doctrine or Worship or holiness of life they may be Ministers of Christ though no such thing as a National Church were of the institution of Christ. As for instance I conceive Dr. James Usher when he was alive was a Minister of Christ when he was Primate of Ireland The assertion I prove thus If the Apostles were Ministers of Christ and National Ministers though a National Church were not instituted of Christ than National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ though a National Church be not instituted of Christ But the Apostles were such as for instance Peter had the Apostleship of the Circumcision Paul of the Gentiles Gal. 2.7 8. Rom. 11.13 1 Tim. 2.7 Therefore National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ. 2. Titus was a National Minister of the Cretians For this cause saith St. Paul Tit. 1.5 left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting and ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee and yet a Minister of Christ St. Pauls partner and fellow-helper concerning the Corinthians 2 Cor. 8.23 Ergo 3. They that may be Ministers of Christ though they be Ministers for the Body of Christ and all the Members thereof may be Ministers of Christ though National because the denial of a National Ministry is upon this supposition that a Minister of Christ is only for one particular Congregation but the Pastors and Teachers as well as Apostles Evangelists Prophets are given for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith unto a perfect man Eph. 4.11 12 13. Therefore for all or any and consequently for a Nation and not only for a particular Congregation 4. If any of the Saints as well as one particular Congregation have an interest in all the Ministers of Christ so as that they are truly theirs then Ministers of Christ may be National yea ought to be yea and Oecumenical if they could be serviceable to them in the things of Christ. But 1 Cor. 3.22 23. Paul and Cephas and Apollos were all the Corinthians and all others who were Christs therefore the same may be Ministers of Christ and National Ministers I know not whether this might be an argument ad hominem but this I take to be justifiable that a man may be a Commissioner for approbation of publick Preachers throughout a Nation and so a National Minister or an Itinerant Preacher to the Nation and yet be a Minister of Christ. 2. A National Church denominated so either from the agreement of all the Believers in that Nation in the same profession or from their subjection to some Common Rulers Ecclesiastical or Civil or Convening by Deputies in some National Synod though not of Divine Institution may be a true and not a false Church which I prove thus They may be a true Church who have all things essential to a Church and nothing destructive of its being such But Believers of a Nation or a National Church so denominated any of those wayes may have all things essential to a Church and nothing destructive of its being such Ergo. The Major is taken from the proper notion of the term True Church or its definition For the definition of a Church of Christ or a true Church is and can be no other than a Company or Number of persons believing in Christ or professing the Faith of the Gospel and obedience to God by Christ according unto it not destroying their own profession by any errours concerning the foundation or unholiness of conversation even according to the expression of the Congregational men in their Declaration Octob. 12.1658 ch 26. The Minor is also manifest by Reason and Experience A National Church so denominated may have the Truth of Doctrine of Faith the Truth of Worship the Truth of Holy conversation besides which there is nothing essential to a true Church For the defect of outward order were the order pretended indeed of Christs Institution yet could not nullifie the Church or destroy the Truth of it but only the regularity The Corinthians were a true Church 1 Cor. 1.2 even then when there were disorders in their Meeting 1 Cor. 14.26 in their Discipline 1 Cor. 5.1 2. in their Communion 1 Cor. 11.21 in their Faith 1 Cor. 15.12 in their Conversation 2 Cor. 1.1 and 12 2â— As for the outward form of their Combination by a Church Covenant or their number or their habitation or their descent these and such like things though for convenience they be requisite yet not essential to the Church or its Truth Yea the having of Baptism Organizing by Officers though more necessary and of Divine Institution yet are not essential to a Church or its Truth but that the Church without them may be a true Church though not so regular and well ordered as it should be Nor doth the having of National Rulers Ecclesiastical either single persons or in a Synod or Convocation make a false Church Those of the Congregational way have had Synods and submitted to Courts even in Ecclesiastical things of larger extent than a Congregation of one Town and Churches of a greater number and at greater distance of habitation than could meet in one place every Lords Day for all Ordinances and deny not a Catholick visible Church and therefore should not by reason of the number distance want of Officers of Divine Institution or because modelled by humane prudence call a National Church a false Church The proofs used by those that held that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government Printed in the Year 1645. from the number of the Church at Jerusalem yet one Church Acts 8.1 under one Government besides what is found in the Scripture about the Churches of Corinth Ephesus are sufficient to evince that many Congregations may be one Church and that the unity and truth of Churches is to be taken from agreement and verity of Faith and that a National Church so denominated in respect of the agreement in profession or subjection to Government or convention by Deputies or Messengers in one Synod may be one National Church and a true Church of Christ. But it is objected That the first Church is of Christs Institution and that was of so many as might meet in one Congregation even the Church at Jerusalem that
to my wants sometimes both are joyned 2 Cor. 9.25 the administration of this service or the ministration of this Ministry and the higher powers are termed Rom. 13.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. that is the Minister or Officer of God In ecclesiastical matters both words are used and are applied to Christ who is termed the Minister of the Circumcision Rom. 15.8 a Minister of the Sanctuary Heb 8.2 and to Ministers of Christ Acts. 13.2 2 Cor. 11.23 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oft restrained to the office of a Deacon Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.8 But the Ministry we are enquiring of is neither that of a Servant that waits on his Master nor of a contributor that supplieth anothers wants of outward necessaries nor the performing of the function of a Magistrate by doing acts of publique justice nor the ministry of Christ which was and is peculiar to him nor the Ministry of Angels who are also termed Gods Ministers and Ministring Spirits Heb. 1.7 14. Nor the office of Deacons as their office is termed serving tables distinct from the Ministry of the word Acts. 6.1 2 4. But that Ministry to which Matthias was elected Acts 1.25 and of which it is said 1 Cor. 3.5 who then is Paul and who is Apollos but Ministers by whom ye believed even as the Lord gave to every one and is meant Ephes. 4.11 12. where it is said that Christ gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the work of the Ministry This Ministry was performed by the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists somewhat extraordinarily either in respect of their gifts or their commission which are now ceased That Ministry we now enquire of is that of ordinary Pastors and Teachers as now sent To these sundry Ministries are usually assigned to 〈◊〉 Ministry of the word of Baptism of the Lords supper of confirmation ordination government by admonitions censures and if there be any other work allotted to those whom the Scripture terms Bishops or Elders But our quaerist in this his writing medling only with that part of Ministry in this main question disputed by him which is by Preaching I understand his quaerie to be meant of that part of the Ministry Now this Ministry is usually expressed by the Ministry of the word Acts 6.4 the Ministry of the Gospel of God Rom. 15.16 the Ministry of the New Testament not of the letter but of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 8. of righteousness v. 9. the Ministry of reconciliation 2 Cor. 5.18 Stewards of the Misteris of God 1 Cor. 4.1 and sometimes our Ministery without any other adjunct 2 Cor. 6.3 and an Oeconomy or dispensation 1 Cor. 9.17 more fully Acts 20.24 the Ministery which I have received of the Lord Jesus to testify the Gospel of the grace of God Which shewes the Author of this Ministry whereupon he requires 1 Cor. 4.1 Let a man so account of us as of the Mynisters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Minister Acts 13.5 of Christ and Stewards of the mysteries of God The finis cui or those for whom this Ministry is appointed are the Saints and therefore it is said to be for the perfecting of the Saints or joynting together of them and the edifying of the body of Christ Ephes. 4 12. wherefore St. Paul saith of himself that he was made a Minister of the Church according to the dispensation of God which is given to mee for you to fulfill the word of God Col. 1.24 25. which shewes that he was not a Minister for one particular Church but for any part of it where his lot was to Preach and that he was not Minister of the Church by their election or mission or direction for these were of God and Christ Jesus but for the Church or Saints as the subjects to and for whom he was appointed to fulfill the word of God even the mystery which had been hid from ages and from generations but then was made manifest to his Saints to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles which is Christ in you the hope of glory v. 26 27. to which purpose he speaks also of himself Ephes. 3.6 7 8 9. which yet is not to be restrained so to the Saints but that the Ministry of the Gospel was to be to them that were not Saints I am a debtor saith he Rom. 1.14 both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians both to the wise and to the unwise and 1 Cor. 1.23 We preach Christ unto the Jewes a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness and 2 Cor. 2.14 15. Thanks be to God which alwayes causeth us to triumph in Christ and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved and in them that perish So that the Ministry of the word though it be primarily for the Church and the Saints yet is the preaching of the Gospel the Ministry of Christ even to unbelievers as Ezekiel was a Prophet to the rebellious Nation of Israel when he spake Gods word whether they did hear or forbear Ezek 2.5 And hence I inferre that there may be a true Ministry not only in but also out of a Church of believers Sect. 19. A true Gospel Ministry may be in a false Church so deemed Secondly A Church may be said to be false many wayes 1. Because it was irregularly constituted that is not gathered by consent or Church-covenant or baptism but by humane Laws in forcing men to meet together in one Congregation or more because dwellers in such a Precinct or born or living in such a Countrey In this respect I conceive the Quaerist makes a national Church a false Church 2. Because it is an hypocritical company which doth indeed make them a false Church before God yet quoad nos they are a true visible Church if there be no falsehood in that which is descernible by men 3. Because it is Schismatical so as to break off from other parts of the Catholique Church without a justifiable cause whether out of ambition passion misapprehension or any other such like undue motive 4. Because it is heretical or Heresy is broached and upheld by a party in it Now I confess that it can hardly be that there should be a true Ministry in a Church tainted with Heresy Yet sith our Lord Christ writes to the Church of Pergamos as one of his seven Golden Candlesticks though there were that held the Doctrin of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans Revel 2.14 15. and in like manner the Church of Thyatira or the Angel of it suffered the Woman which called her self a Prophetess to teach and seduce his Servants to commit Fornication and to eat things Sacrificed to Idols I inferre those Angels were true Ministers though in a Church in some sort false that is tainted with
heretical or false doctrin And sith the Church of Corinth was manifestly Schismatical 1 Cor. 1.11 12. Yet Apollos a true Minister to them or who else were their Pastors And sith the Church of Sardis is charged as having a name that it lived but was dead yet the Angel of it one of the seven Stars in Christs right hand then may there be a true Ministry in such false Churches Revel 3.1 that is schismatical or hypocritical not consisting of real Saints And if it be that what is charged on Laodicea Rev. 3.15 16 17. were by reason of defect in Church constitution and disciplin as Mr. Brightman conceived then also a false Church in respect of such irregularity may have a true Ministry But because this is only an argument ad homines to such as concurre with Mr. Brightman in his conceit I will prove that in a National Church or a Church irregular in its constitution or discipline miscalled false may be a true Ministry of Christ. 1. If the truth of the Ministry depend upon the truth of the Church or it's regularity then where is no true regular Church there is no true Ministry But that is false sith there may be a true Ministry where there is no Church at all and therefore no true Church Ergo the truth of the Ministry depends not on the truth of the Church but a true Ministry may be in a false Church 2. If there be a true Ministry though to or in a National visible Church or Catholique then that extent which is conceived to be inconsistent with a true Gospel Church makes not the Ministry false but Peters and Pauls Ministry to the Jews or Gentiles Churches were true Ministries though the Churches were National or Catholique even set by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12.18 Ergo. 3. If Ministry to Churches Hypocritical Schismatical and in some sort Heretical may be true Ministry much more to a Church National irregular in constitution and discipline those being greater degrees of falsehood than this But the antecedent is before proved from the Epistles to the Corinthians to the Churches of Pergamos Thyatira and Sardis Ergo the consequent is true 4. If the regular constitution disciplin of the Church the election of the Church or their sending be extrinsecal or accidental not necessary or essential to the truth of the Ministry then may there be a true Ministry in such a Church as this Author calls false But the antecedent is true sith the Apostles were true Ministers afore the regular constitution and discipline of Churches without their Election or mission therefore the consequent is also true 5. If the denomination of true Ministers be from the truth of their Doctrin and no other form denominating them and there may be a Ministration of true Doctrin in such a supposed false Church then there may be a true Ministry in such a false Church for where the form denominating is there the Subject is rightly denominated from it But the antecedent is true both from all the Texts before alledged which place the truth of Ministry in the Doctrin taught and no other thing and in that the Colossians learned the grace of God in truth from Epaphras he is termed St. Pauls Fellow-Servant and for them a faithfull Minister of Christ Col. 1.6 7. and reason and experience confirms the possibility of preaching true Doctrin in a National mis-called false Church therefore the consequent is also true 6. If false Prophets false Apostles false Brethren be only denominated from their false Doctrin then they are not false Ministers but true who teach the truth of the Gospel notwithstanding their defects or the Churches in which they are But the antecedent is true as may be evinced from 2 Pet. 2.1 2 Cor. 11.13 Gal. 2.4 5. 1 John 2 1â— 21 22 26. 2. John 7. and many more places which denominate them false Prophets false Teachers false Apostles false Brethren Antichrists not Ministers of Christ from their erroneous Doctrin therefore from it and not from defects of Churches or other things are they false Ministers and if they preach true Doctrin true Ministers though in an irregular Church There being nothing offered against this to be answered I pass on to this Authors next Quaerie Sect. 20. Gods love to us is not less in not determining the whole of his Worship to us as to the Jews 3. Saith he Whether God doth not bear as much love to and exercise as much faithfulness over his New Testament Churches as over the National Church of the Jews Answ. No doubt of it yet doth not God shew his love nor exercise his faithfulness over his New Testament Churches in the same way or course of Providence as he did and perhaps will do over the National Church of the Jews He doth not gather the New Testament Churches by a mighty hand and a stretched-out arm as he did when he brought Israel out of Egypt by the hand of Moses but by the calling of his Word and operation of his Spirit Nor doth he make them Conquerours by Arms but they overcome the old Serpent by the blood of the Lamb and by the Word of their Testimony and they love not their lives unto the death Rev. 12.11 Nor doth God now settle his Church in one fruitful Land under one earthly King as he did the Jews under David and Solomon but in all Countries where they are called protects and feeds them by the Great Shepherd of the Sheep the Lord Jesus Christ and his Spirit in that estate and station wherein they are called Nor is it improbable that in the future calling of the Jews God will shew more remarkable Providences for their re-ingraffing into their own Olive than ever he hath yet shewed towards the Churches of the Gentiles It is added If so then 4. Whether he hath not as of old he did with reference unto the then Church determined the whole of the Worship appertaining unto them to whose Institutions without any Humane additions it is the duty of souls solely to conform Answ. The whole of the Worship appertaining to the New Testament Churches is either inward or outward To the New Testament Churches God hath determined the whole of his inward Worship as of old he did with reference unto the then Chuâ—ch or rather he hath more fully determined the Worship of himself by exercise of Faith and hope in Prayer and Thanksgiving having now more 〈◊〉 opened the mystery of his Will in the way of access to him and accepting of our service than he did to the Jews before Christs coming But for the outward Worship though he have set down sufficiently what we are to place his Worship in and wherein he hath determined by Precept or Example that hath the force of a Precept what is to be done by us that alone we are to account his Worship and to conform solely to it as his Institution without any Humane Additions or Alterations yet in respect of
designed by his Son and his Apostles the several Officers and Offices his Wisdom thought sufficient for the management of the affairs of his House that is his Church as they are such First Christ Jesus called his twelve Disciples together and gave them power and authority over all Devils and to cure Diseases and he sent them to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick Luke 9.1 2. After he appointed other seventy also and sent them two and two before his face into every City and place whither he himself would come and these were confined to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Mat. 10.6 To whom he saith only he was sent Mat. 15.24 St. Peter having confessed him Christ tells him Mat. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church which by reason of the repeating of his Name and alluding to it and thereby minding him of it is justly to be thought to imply a promise of a special use of him in the building of his Church not barely as that particular man but as a foundation of it by his Preaching as other Apostles are called Foundations Eph. 2.20 in respect of their Doctrine wherein St. Peter had some work before the other in his Preaching Acts 2. and 3. and 10. And therefore Christ promiseth to give him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 16.19 So as by his preaching to open the Kingdom of Heaven first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles when Cornelius was admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore Act. 15.7 he speaks of it as his preheminence that God made choice among the Disciples that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel and believe he imploying that key of knowledge which the Lawyers had taken away who entered not themselves into the Kingdom of God and them that were entering in they hindered Luke 11.52 To him our Lord Christ assures Mat. 16.19 Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Which Phrase seems by the expressions Mat. 23.4 Rev 2.24 to import that what he should command to be done should be in Heaven ratified as commanded by God as it was Acts 2.38 Acts 3.19 20. Acts 10.48 and what he should untie that is free men from the obligation of that should be untied in Heaven that is God would not require the observation of it which was performed Acts 11.3 14 17 18. Acts 15.10 Which promises though personal to St. Peter and in respect of the first work peculiar to him neither imparted to any other Apostle nor derived from him to any successour yet this last promise was after made to the rest of the Apostles Mat. 18.18 and performed when St. Peter with them decreed about Circumcision Acts 15.24 and the Holy Ghost established it v. 28. Afterwards our Lord Christ being risen from the dead finds his Disciples assembled for fear of the Jews Thomas being absent and saith Peace be unto you as the Father hath sent me even so send I you And when he had said this he breathed on them and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained John 20.19 21 22 23. The words of salutation of mission the breathing on them and imparting the Holy Ghost to them do import that the remission and retaining of sins there promised was a peculiar power given to them on whom he thus breathed though also communicated after to other Apostles who were in like manner sent and received the Holy Ghost as they did Which remission of sins was accomplished when by their preaching persons repented and were Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins Acts 2.39 41. When Aeneas was cured by St Peter Acts 9.33 For healing is by remission of sins Mat. 9.6 James 5.15 John 5.14 Or by taking off the sentence of delivering to Satan by which the Apostles had power to retain sins as appears by that speech of St. Paul 1 Tim. 1.20 That he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander unto Satan that they might be instructed or corrected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as either to be afraid or disabled from blaspheming any more as they had done when Satan should chastise them with bodily punishment St. Paul also had determined by his Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. When the Christians were gathered together that they might be witnesses to deliver him that had his Fathers Wife unto Satan for the destruction of the Flesh that is the wasting of his body that the Spirit or Soul being sensible of his sin and humbled for it might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Which had been his comming to them with a Rod 1 Cor. 4.21 and the retaining his sin had not his after-sorrow caused S. Paul to forgive him in the person of Christ 2 Cor. 2.10 which was the remitting of sin confirmed in Heaven Other instances there are of the retaining of sins by Apostolical power when St. Paul smote Elymas the sorcerer with blindness Acts 13.11 and St. Peter inflicted death upon Ananias and his wife Sapphira for lying to the Holy Ghost and keeping back part of the price of the Land which they had sold Acts 5.3 5 10. After this mission commission and breathing of Christ on the disciples to reestablish St. Peter after his fall Christ injoynes him to feed his Lambs and his Sheep thrice charging him that he might shew his love to him whom he had thrice denied whereby he doth not make him universal Bishop or Monarch of the whole visible Church as Romanists impiously pervert the Text but requires of him diligence in testimony of his love to him by doing that work which is expressed in words which signifie teaching one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not ruling and that Ministry which is common to other Bishops Acts 20.28 and Elders among whom St. Peter termes himself a fellow Elder and Christ the chief Shepherd 1 Peter 5.1 2 4. But then Christ did most design the Officers and Offices he thought requisite for the management of the affairs of his house when being to ascend into Heaven not long after in a mountain of Galilee Jesus spake to them saying all power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations or rather Disciple or make Disciples all Nations or of or in all Nations not the Jewes only as formerly Mark 16.15 Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every creature or to all the creation Baptizing them thus discipled Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved into the name of the the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
of a Church and justly be disrobed of that appellation we justly plead against the Church of Rome pleading that they are the Church built on Peter against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Mat. 16.18 that the promise is not to that or any other particular visible Church but to the invisible Church of Gods elect and we alledg that St. Paul writing to the Church at Rome tells them Rom. 11.20 21. well because of unbelief they were broken off and thou standest by faith be not high minded but fear For if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee But we add that not every nor many corruptions of some kinde do unchurch there being many in faith worship and conversation in the Churches of Corinth and some of the seven Churches of Asia who yet were Golden Candlesticks amidst whom Christ did walk But such general avowed unrepented of errors in faith as overthrow the foundation of Christian faith to wit Christ the only mediator between God and man and salvation by him corruptions of worship by Idolatry in life by evil manners as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched Sect. 24. Every error makes not a false Prophet Our quaerist proceeds Eighthly 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 Answer St. Peter foretold 2 Pet. 2.1 There were false Prophets among the people even as there shall be false Teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them Jude 4. ungodly men turning the grace of our God into Lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ 1 John 4.1 Many false Prophets are gone out into the World 2 John 7. Many deceivers are entred into the World who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an Antichrist 1 John 2.22 who is a lier but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son If any Ecclesiastick and spiritual rulers Governours and Officers of a collapsed Church do in this manner go about to cause the people to forget the name of the Lord or his pure worship they are righteously as of old to be accounted and esteemed as false Prophets But if they hold the foundation that is Jesus Christ and teach the worship of God in the name of Christ without Idolatâ—y in their worship or heresie in their Doctrine though they build upon the foundation layd by the Apostle hay and stubble 1 Cor. 3.12 that is some errours of their own and some additions to the worship of God from unwritten traditions or other supposed power about ceremonies they are not righteously as of old the Prophets of Baal and Balaam and other seducers to 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 I add that if the addition of some humane ceremonies to the pure instituted worship of God and some errours to the sound Doctrin of faith do make the Teachers or Rulers of a Church false Prophets in te ipsum haec cudetur faba neither this Author nor any of the Pastors or Teachers of the Congregational Churches but may be judged false Prophets Sect. 25. Separation by reason of some corruptions unwarrantable It is added 9. Whether separation from such a Collapsed Church in respect of its worship Ministers and Ministry be not only justifiable but as of old the duty of the Lords faithfull Remnant that desire to worship him according to his appointments Answer Separation from a Church somewhat erroneous or corrupt in worship or conversation yet neither Idolatrous in worship nor Heretical in Doctrin nor requiring that to their communion which would be sinful especially if it be total from all parts of worship all attending on Ministers and Ministry at all times is unjustifiable utterly dissonant from any of the rules or examples which either of old the Prophets or holy men or Christ and his Apostles have prescribed is for the most part the fruit of pride or bitter zeal and tends to strife and confusion and every evil work James 3.16 Sect. 26. It is prudence to joyn in worship and hearing where some errours and corruptions remain Yet once more saith the Quaerist Yea 10. whether supposing a Church so called thus dreadfully as aforesaid departed from the pure institutions of Christ never to be according to truth a visible instituted Church of Christ and the Lords poor people living in the Nation never by their free consent members thereof as it is on the pretended Churches part most unheard-of-cruelty to compel them so it be not on the part of the free born Children of God most stupendious folly and disvaluation of the institutions of Christ and ingratitude to God for the light and liberty from the yokes of men received imaginable to joyn affinity with it in worship or attend upon the self invented Ministry that appertains thereunto Many more questions of the like nature and importance might be added Answer Compulsion of men may be cruelty But it is neither pendious folly nor disvaluation of the institutions of Christ nor ingratitude to God but true Christian prudence warranted by the Counsel of St. James and the Elders at Jerusalem by the yielding and practice of St. Paul Acts 21.18 c. Acts 16.3 1 Cor. 9.19 20 21. by Christs example Mat. 17.27 for persons living in a Nation for their peace to joyn in affinity with such a Church which hath some humane inventions in worship and to attend upon that Ministry which appertains to it when they preach the Gospel for the main though not without some mixture of errours and neither require them to practice that which is in it self evil nor binde them to assent unto that which is erroneous What more Questions of the like nature and importance this Quaerist might add I know not I thought it necessary to answer these as being praelusory to the main Question and tending to forestall the reader with unmeer prejudice Having removed these stumbling blocks out of the way I proceed to examine the rest of the writing CHAP. 1. ARG. I. Sect. 1. Some scruples of conscience are of ill consequence AS a preamble to his dispute the Author writes thus This is that which the Lord hath said I will be sanctified in all that draw nigh me and before all the people will I be glorified The great care of Saints in matter of worship is to sanctifie the name of the Lord therein This is the great thing that God looks at the omission whereof
must hear no meer gifted Brethren no Itenerant Preachers though approved by Tryers none but their own Officers and those rightly chosen and consequently they must before they hear them know their Election to be right and the particular Church electing them to be rightly instituted which tends to such dictraction of peoples minds and alienation of them from hearing as can end in nothing but meer Irreligion and make men Seekers or Quakers the mischiefs of which are too too conspicuous But I shall more directly answer this Argument and that so much the rather because the Text John 10. is abused by Papists to prove that they are not right Shepherds who have not authority from the Pope whom they make the One Shepherd v. 16. as Hart in his Conference with Dr. Rainold Chap. 6 from whom all Bishopâ— derive their power and all the Sheep are to hear and by Quakers and others to prove that they are not true Shepherds nor to be heard who receive any maintenance by Tithes or other stipend because they that do so are by them judged Hirelings and not Shepherds v. 12. It is granted that Christ is the door Joh. 10.9 but it may be doubted whether Christ be meant by the door Joh. 10.1 the reason of which is because then Christ should be said to enter by himself and the door to enter by the door To avoid which Maldonate in his Commentary conceives the door v. 1. not to be the same with the door v 9. but the door v. 1. to be the Scriptures of the Prophets whâ—â— foretold of the good Shepherd Ezek. 37.24 34.23 Jerem. 23.5 30.9 Isa. 40.11 by vertue of which Prediction he entred And indeed the whole purport of the Parable doth tend to this that he onely was the good Shepherd that is the Messiah foretold by the Prophets and that all other that pretended to be the Messiah or good Shepherd such as Theudas and Judas of Galilee mentioned Act. 5.36 37. and if there were any other like them were but Thieves and Robbers Strangers Hirelings though they took on them to be Shepherds they were but false Christs such as Christ foretels should arise Mat. 24.24 But let it be granted that the door is the same Joh. 10.1 and 9. the entering in v. 9. cannot be meant of entring into the Ministery lawful election of a particular Instituted Church For then it would follow that every one that enters into the Ministry by by election of a particular Instituted Church shall be saved and go in and out and finde pasture which is manifestly false Therefore entring is meant of every True believer and is by faith in Christ who is the right door by whom that is by his Doctrin men come to be his Sheep and he is their Shepherd But be it that the entring be into the Ministery and that entring be by vertue of Authority derived to them from him how is it proved they are not authorized by Christ immediately who work not Miracles Have not many especially in cases of necessity been Ministers of Christ by immediate inward call who have not wrought Miracles It were hard to conclude of Petrus Waldo and many other Reformers that had no power of working Miracles that they were not Ministers of Christ that I say nothing of gifted Brethren that they were Thieves and Robbers because they had no immediate calling by a particular Instituted Church Sure this would be to offend against the generation of Gods children who in the darkest times of Papal Tyranny took upon them to Preach the Gospel without a praevious election of a particular Instituted Church But how doth he prove that those that receive authority to Preach the Gospel mediately from Christ have it from some particular Instituted Church of Christ He alledgeth no other but this that to a particular instituted Church of Christ power is solely delegated for the electing of their own Officers But what then may not for all this power be given to some others to choose send and ordain Preachers for the unconverted who yet may be Ministers of the Gospel and may be heard as such Yea may not some others ordain Elders for particulâ—â— Instituted Churches Sure when St. Paul left Titus in Crete that he might set in order things that were wanting and ordain Elders in every City as he had appointed him Tit. 1.5 giving him direction whom to ordain he left it to him to choose Preachers for Instituted Churches who were to be heard and this by power delegated by Christ to him and therefore power is not solely delegated to a particular Instituted Church of Christ for the electing of their own Officers but that they may be chosen and ordained by some other for them by vertue of an authority derived tâ— them from Christ. But how proves he the power for electing their own Officers delegated solely to a particular Instituted Church of Christ He saith it is according to the tenour of the ensuing Scriptures whereof one is Acts 6.5 and that relates onely one act of choosing the seven Deacons by the whole multitude of the Disciples at Hierusalem who cannot be well counted such a particular Instituted Church as made up one Congregation to meet every Lords day for all Ordinances they were too numerous to be such nor were they organized under fixed Officers with such constitution as is now made necessary to a particular Instituted Church Nor did they choose the Deacons upon any conceived power delegated from Christ by vertue of any rule established by Christ or his Apostles which should be perpetual in all ages to all Churches but upon advice of the Apostles for their more liberty to attend on other work of more importance and their own liking nor if it were to be a perpetual rule for all Churches in all ages can it be any rule for choosing other Officers besides Deacons there being a peculiar reason why they should choose Deacons whose honesty prudence and mercifulness was to be discerned and not other Officers whose sufficiency to Teach and Orthodoxie were to be considered of which the whole multitude of Disciples then and the major part of a particular Instituted Church are rarely now competent Judges The other text Act 14.23 hath no colour to prove such a delegated power but from one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translation renders when they had ordained Beza after others Per suffragia creâssent Had created by suffrages and because the word arose from a custom among the Greeks of choosing their Officers by Suffrages or Votes signified by the stretching out of the hand conceives that Paul and Barnabas did not create the Elders in the Churches without the Churches election signified by stretching out of their hands to shew their consent to the elected and thence is inferred that so it should be now But this is but one example though it is not to be denied that in after ages which were times of Persecution the Elders were
virtue of a power derived from him Answ. If by teachings of Antichrist be meant the teachings of the present Doctrin of the Church of Rome according to the Trent Council wherein they dissent from Protestants and the power derived from him be meant of the Englâ—sh Bishops Ordination it is denied that the Preachers of England derive their power from Antichrist Pope or Church of Rome and I say that it is meer impudency to say they do who renounce the Popes authority by solemn Oath and separate from the Church of Rome and are persecuted condemned and put to death where the Pope hath power even because they disclaim the Pope and his Doctrin Yet if any should act by virtue of Ordination from the Pope as doubtless many did before the Reformation such as Wickliffe and many others and yet not teach his Doctrin he might be heard teaching the Gospel and in such a case the consequence were not valid and therefore in this sense it may be denied that because it is unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by virtue of a power derived from him 3. Saith he Christ calls and solemnly charges his upon the penalty of most dreadful Judgments to separate from every thing of Antichrist Rev. 18.4 14.9 10 11. Answ. It is true Rev. 18.4 we read thus And I heard another voice from heaven saying Come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues Which may be understood of a local departure fâ—om Babylon or Rome when her judgment of Destruction from the Kings of the earth draws nigh but if it be extended further to a departure by forsaking communion with her in Worship and leaving the subjection which was yielded to her in her Government yet is it not understood of every Doctrin the Pope teacheth not of the Bible or Apostles Creed or any Doctrin or Service agreeable to these nor of relinquishing every Rite and Usage though undue and illegitimate which is observed by them but the Fornication that is Idolatry Heresie and other wickedness mentioned v. 3. Chap. 17.2 Revel 14.9 10. it is said If any man worship the Beast and his image and receive his mark in his forehead or in his hand the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God By the Beast and his image are meant some Empire or State which promotes Idolatry Some conceive it meant of the Pagan Emperors Others and those both more and more accurate Commentators among the Protestants understand by them the Roman Papacy and Latin Empire the worshiping of which is undoubtedly the acknowledging of its power and subjection to their Idolatrous Decrees and Edicts The receiving his mark in the forehead or the hand is allusively to the use of marking Slaves in the forehead and Souldiers in the hand to profess themselves servants to the Popes and ready to fight for them which Mr. Brightman makes to be in the Roman Clergy their indelible character in Ordination in the Emperors their Oath of Protection of the Popes in the Common people their assuming the names of Papists and Roman Catholiques Mr. Mede more exactly in his Comment on Rev. 13.18 thus To receive the mark of the name of the Beast is to subject himself to his authority and to acknowledge him to be his Lord but to receive the number is to imbrace his impiety derived unto him from the Dragon to wit the Idolatry of the Latins whence that happily will not be unworthy consideration although no man can receive the mark of the name of the Beast or be subject to his authority but together also he must receive his number that is be must needs be Partaker of his impiety yet it may be that one may admit the number or impiety of the Beast but yet refuse the mark or name That which now long since is true of the Greeks which doth evince that the worship of the Beast and his Image and receiving his mark in his forehead or in his hand is not retaining of every usage of the Papists no not though it be Corrupt and Superstitious as many zealous persons against Popery but superficially viewing the text conceive much less such customs as are not superstitious in their use but acknowledging the universal Monarchy of the Popes and adoring Images the Host Reliques Crosses invocations of Saints and such like impieties which the present Ministers of England do profess to abhorr and therefore it is without cause that they are charged with receiving the maâ—k of the Beast and people are affrighted with the penalty of the dreadful Judgments Rev. 14.10 unless they separate from them and their Ministry as a thing of Antichrist 4. Saith he There is not a command in the Scripture enioyning Saints to take heed of being deceived to try the Spirits because many Antichrists are gone abroad into the World but is an abundant demonstration of the truth of this Assertion Answ. I grant it if the Assertion were they that act in the holy things as acknowledging the Power teaching the Doctrin owning the Calling of him that is truly Antichrist are not to be heard but to be separated from But being understood of other things which the Separatists call Antichristian it is not true nor proved by the commands in Scripture which forbid only to reject Antichristian Doctrin and Worship not every thing said by any without proof to be a thing of Antichrist The Baptism given in Popery is not by all Separatists rejected as Antichristian there is less reason to call the Ministry of England a thing of Antichrist 5. Saith he The institution of Officers of his own by Christ to be continued in the way appointed by him to the end of the World Ephes. 4.11 Answ. It is true that Christ when he went up into heaven gave gifts to men some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers and that some of these are to be continued to the end of the World and in that way he hath appointed But that there is any particular way of Election Ordination and Mission of ordinary Pastors and Teachers in those words appears not nor how the major is proved those that act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian so called not proved Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but separated from I discern not unless this be the Argument Christ hath appointed these therefore no other are to be heard but to be seperated from which overthrows the hearing of and communion with gifted Brethren whom he would have heard for they are no Officers of Christs institution 6. Saith he That there is not one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry with innumerable things of the like tendency and import that might be produced if needful are such a basis upon which the truth of the major
a special manner as in respect of their Office drawing near to God engaged to offer spiritual sacrifices of Prayer and Praise which the Apostles conceived to belong to them in special manner together with the Ministry of the Word Acts 6.4 and 13.21 yea the Apostle Paul Rom. 15.16 useth this expression that this grace was given to him of God that he should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word applyed to Christ as a Priest Heb. 8.2 and joyned with Sacrifice Phil. 2.17 the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministring as a Priest the Gospel of God that the offering or sacrificing of the Gentiles might be acceptable and therefore in respect of his Office he might have been called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priest though not properly yet allusively and so may Ministers now as the Christian Church is called the Temple of God the Israel of God the heavenly Jerusalem c. And if as some conceive the word Priest be derived from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may be judged the fitter word than Minister which is more apposite to signifie a Deacon than an Elder Selden de Syned vet â—braeo l. 1. c. 14. p. 583. Vocem nostram Priest Teutonum Belgarumque Priester uti Gallorum Prebstre Prestre Italorum Prets a Presbytero deformatam nemo puto non concedit p. 585. Nec pueruli nesciunt voces istas Seniorem Priest Presbyterum Elder ex sui tam naturâ Usuque primario significatione apertissimâ non magis differre quà m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consulem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Regem aut quae alia sic invicem omnino eadem sunt As for that which is added that the present Ministry of England is bounded by men in their Office so as that they must Preach what they would have them and cease when they would have them I think it is not without example in the best ordered Churches I do conceive that in the Churches of the Separatists they would tie their Ministers to Preach according to their Confession and that if any taught otherwise than according to the declaration of the Faith and Order of the Congregational Churches in their meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. they would restrain him or withdraw from him Sure the Apostle would have Timothy to abide at Ephesus that he might charge some that they teach no other Doctrin 1 Tim. 1.3 and Titus to reject an Heretick Tit. 3.10 and 1 Cor. 14.30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by let the first hold his peace v. 28. If there be no Interpreter let him keep silence in the Church Which is sufficient proof that even those that are Gifted extraordinarily may be bounded by Order and they that teach otherwise than they should may be silenced Which if the Prelates or others do when they should not they are accountable to Christ who will judge them for it But it is no proof that their Ministry is not from Christ who submit to the commands of men that have power over them forbidding them to teach some truths and forbearing to teach when it cannot be with safety and fruit to the Church of God themselves and them which are without It is added So is it 3. to their admission into this their office viz. by a Lord-Bishop without the consent of the Congregation in which they are as Officers Answ. In the Answer to the second Chapter of this writing Sest 3. hath been shewed that the praeelection or consent of the Congregation in which a Minister is to act as an Officer is not so necessary to his Office or to the communion with him in it but that he may be owned and act lawfully as their Minister in some cases without it The admission of the present Ministers of England hath not alwayes been by Lord Bishops some have been made by Suffragan Bishops not Lords and instituted I think by Dean and Chapter and if ordained or instituted by a Lord Bishop yet not as Lord but as Bishop which is not alwayes without the election of the Congregation who are in some Parishes Patrons and in others there is supposed in Law an implicit consent in their Ancestors yielding that power to the Patron to present and an after consent by receiving him that is instituted as their Minister In some Peculiars and Donatives there 's no institution from a Lord Bishop required nor alwayes any other than a Licence to preach from the Bishop But whether these usages be right or wrong notwithstanding them yet may the Offices of the present Ministers of England be from Christ though this Author further argue to the contrary thus Sect. 3. The term Priest proves not symbolizing with the Popish Order of Priests The very truth is both in their Names Office and Admission thereunto the present Ministers of England symbolize not with the Ministers of Christ but the Popish Order of Priests so that if these do Act by vertue of an Antichristian Office-power then do they as he that runs may read in the ensuing paralled particulars 1. They are both called and own themselves Priests which though some may make light of light of yet considering that it is 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 in conformity to whom as the Druides of old our Priests wear their white Garment or Surplice or from the Antichristian Church so called of Rome such Idolatrous Superstitious names being commanded by the Lord to be abolished Hos. 2.15 Zâ—ch 13.2 wants not it's sufficient weight the retention whereof being also a sore suspicion of too great a compliance with if not a willingness to return to that from whence they are derived Of the same mind with us herein is Hierom upon the 2. of Hosea the Hebrew Doctors Kimchi and Aben-Ezra the Chaldee Paraphrast Ribera though a Jesuite Zanchi Danaeus Sanchius Polanus River and almost all that write upon the said Scripture The last mentioned viz. Learned Rivet hath these words in his Corollaries from Hos. 2.15 16. There are many names which in themselves are good enough and might be used but God abhorreth the use of them because they have been abused to Idolatry he instanceth indeed in the word Mâ—ss but Priest or Altar being of the same aâ—â—ay upon the same foot of account is to be rejected The reformed Churches in Helvetia in their Harmony of Confessions are of the same mind The Ministry say they and the Priesthood are things far different the one from the other he himself viz. Christ remaineth only Priest for ever and we do not communicate the name Priest to any Minister least we should detract something from Christ. Answ. Every one saith Mr. Selden de Syn. Ebrae l. 1. c. 14. p.
bounded with such terms as make it not intolerable sure it is nothing like that which is required of Papists according to the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth supra forma juramenti professionis fidei To the twelfth The practice of leaving Benefices is not strange to any Churches even from New England some have come into Old England leaving their places there nor are there wanting like instances of Congregational men at home perhaps for greater benefit without consent of the people The practices are not on any side justifiable in all yet we read in Scripture of removals of Ministers from one place to another upon urgent occasions To the thirteenth The person Ordained hath authority committed to him by the Bishop to preach the Word of God in the Congregation where he should be lawfully appointed that is by License which is thought needful to be added besides Ordination because all persons are not alike fitted for all Congregations the Voice and other abilities not serving for one Congregation which will for another To the fourteenth Silencing Suspending and Degrading may be necessary in some cases Tit. 1.11 and 3.10 if the Laws intrust the Prelates with it so it hath been in other Churches besides the Popish The abuse of it is justifiable in none To the fifteenth Inequality is judged to have been in the Elders of the Primitive Churches by the inscription of the seven Epistles of Christ to the seven Angels of the seven Churches of Asia and hath been in some sort in all Churches which have been well ordered and too much experience shews that by reason of the inequality of parts and minds it is necessary to settled order What is undue in the Popish or Protestant Churches should be charged on the Authors not on the Ministry it self To the sixteenth The Vestments of English Priests are not all the same with Popish those that are it 's denied to have the same use and therefore not to be charged with the same superstition To the seventeenth Even the late Assembly of Westminster prescribed a Directory for Worship and Ministration The Common-prayer Book that now is urged should not be judged the worse in those prayers or portions of Scripture which are holy and good because they were in the Popes Porluis no more than the acknowledgment of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God is the worse because the Devil used it Mark 5.7 And therefore King Edward the 6. his plea for it was good and the thing not to be misliked because used in the Roman Church who though they have many great corruptions in their Doctrine and Worship yet have they retained the Bible Apostles Creed many prayers from ancient Fathers and some Popes who were holy men and Martyrs in the first Ages which are not to be rejected because continued by later vicious and Antichristian Popes That which is insinuated as if the Common-prayer Book now in use were little different from the Popes Portuis or Missal is very untruly and unjustly suggested He that shall impartially and without prejudice compare the one with the other shall find a vast difference in the things liable to exception I have made some view of the Roman Missal of Pius the 5. and Clement the 8. and Breviary of Pius the 5. and Urban the 8. and though I deny not sundry Collects Prayers Hymns Lessons Psalms Epistles and Gospels are the same in the Common-prayer Book in English with those in Latine as being either parts of Holy Scripture or agreeable to it yet there are so many differences in fundamentals of Doctrine substantials of Worship and in Rituals as the invocation of Saints and the opinions of Merit sacrifice for Quick and Dead adoration of the Host vertue of the Cross half Communion and many more things material that I cannot but judge that either much ignorance or much malice it is that makes any traduce the English Common-Prayer Book as if it were the Popish Mass Book or as bad as it and to deterr men from joyning with those Prayers and Services therein which are good as if it were joyning with Antichrist the Pope or receiving the mark of the Beast when they can hardly be ignorant that the Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes were burnt for it is impudent falshood By the parallel particulars and such other as might be alledged cannot be inferred an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England In many particulars might there be shewn a parallelism between Ministers of the Congregational Churches and Presbyterial and the Popish yet an exact symmetrie would not thence be demonstrated Few of these particulars alledged are unjustifiable those that are if not excusable yet are far from that which is the main thing charged on the Papists and disputed against learnedly by Mr. Francis Mason against Champney that they Ordain Priests to offer the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass for Quick and Dead which is abhorred by the English Prelates and Ministers and they are not to be charged to symbolize in Office with the Popish Order of Priests for which this Author hath produced nothing though it were the chief thing to be proved and therefore the minor of his Syllogism is denied and it is manifestly false which he saith he hath abundantly demonstrated it he having said nothing to prove it in the main Sect. 5. The Office of Bishops is not proved to be Antichristian but may be found in Scripture It follows Secondly Those that receive their Power Office and Calling from a Lord Bishop and act in the Holy things of God by virtue of that Power Office or Calling act in the Holy things of God by virtue of an Anâ—ichristian Power Office and Calling But the present Ministers of England receive their Power Office and Calling from a Lord Bishop and act in the Holy things of God by virtue of that Power Office and Calling Therefore The consequence of the major or first proposition is manifest the Office of a Lord Bishop is Antichristian therefore those that act by virtue of a Power Office or Calling received from them act by virtue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling That the Office of Lord Bishops is Antichristian one would wonder should be denied in such a day as this after so full a demonstration thereof by many witnesses of Christ who have wrote so clearly in this matter as if they carried the Sun-beams in their right hand especially that it should be denied by persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles if indeed any of them do deny it To prosecute this matter to the uttermost is not our present intendment the intelligent Reader knows where to find it done already to our hand and if after all that hath been said any through self love or fear of persecution will herein be ignorant we might say Let them be ignorant Answ. The Office Power and Calling received from a Lord Bishop is all one with the Office Power and Calling
the present Ministers of England what we have mentioned are either the appointments of Christ or they are not if they are as hath been proved the present Ministers conform to them or they do not if they do not as nothing more sure they conform not to the Orders and Ordinances Christ hath left his people to walk by which is the thing in debate and therefore really deny his Kingly and Prophetical Office Answ. By whom this Objection is made I know not I think it of use to abate the rigour of the separation and the sharpness of the Censure that this Author passeth on the present Ministers of England For sure if these matters excepted against be small matters and good men differ therein they are not fundamentals of Faith or Practice but that notwithstanding defects errours or differences about them Churches their Members and Ministers may be true Churches Christians and Ministers nor should there be separation for these things but mutual toleration of one another according to the doctrine of St. Paul Rom. 14.1 3 10. and 15.1 2. Philip. 3.15 16. nor Ministers disclaimed while they hold the foundation much less so heavily judged as this Author doth contrary to St. Pauls Doctrine 1 Cor. 3.15 nor should there be such rents and breaches in the Church of God for them as there are Though nothing commanded by God is small yet some are comparatively small Mat. 23.23 that they are part of Gods Instituted Worship appointments of Christ which he chargeth the Ministers of England to oppose needs better proof than is yet made that they overturn the true worship of God is not demonstrated nor that they are the grounds of the late controversies of God or that therein the Ministers sin as Uzziah Corah Dathan Abiram Uzzah and therefore the judgments of God which fell on them may be rashly threatened to the Ministers especially considering that many of them if they sin may be charitably deemed to sin out of ignorance not affected or such weakness as is incident to one truly godly which how far he grants may be perceived by that which follows As for what is added that good men differ among themselves in this matter it 's of no more weight than what went before For 1. 'T is not at all to the business in hand 2. 'T is possible good men may for a while do that which really enwraps in the bowels of it a denial of the Offices of Christ. We shall not deny but some of the Ministers of England may be so in the account of God 3. That good men differ is an argument of their ignorance and darkness which though in some cases it excuses à tanto yet not à toto it may alter the degree never the nature of the sin 4. 'T is false that good men pressing after reformation and the restâ—tution of the Worship of God according to the Primitive pattern do differ touching the substance of the things instanced in were but the pride and passion of mens spirits a little more allaid and they disentangled more from their selfish interests a greater harmony would appear amongst them in these matters But 5. As was said The particulars instanced in are commanded by Christ or they are not if they are as hath been proved doth it in the least discharge persons that conform not to them from the charge they are impleaded as guilty viz Non-conformity to the Laws of Christ that good men differ in these matters i. e. some good men transgress the Laws of Christ which is sure no part of their goodness nor any warrant to justifie me in the doing of what may strengthen their hands in such a Non-conformity Answ. 1. How far this branch of the Objection is to the business in hand is before shewed 2. That good men may do that which may be by consequence a denial of Christs Office is granted it being no more than that they may err and sin That he grants some of the Ministers of England may be good men in the account of God should have made him afraid to censure them so deeply as he doth and to disswade men from hearing them or joyning with them in Gods Worship as being such as walk disorderly even the best of them as symbolizing with Antichrist really denying Christs Kingly and Prophetical Office 3. If there be darkness in others that dissent from this Author so there may be in this Author and considering the many learned Non-conformists who have opposed the separation such as Bradshaw Hildersham Ames Paget Ball and others there is as much reason that this Author should ascribe darkness to himself as to them 4. If the difference among the good men pressing after Reformation be not in the substance of the things instanced in but in circumstances the more to blame is this Author for widening the Breach and urging separation by reason of them Pride passion self-interests we may more safely charge our selves with than others especially such as it cannot be denied but that they may be in Gods account good men 5. 'T is true the main matter to be discussed is the thing it self whether it be sin or no which I have therefore endeavoured to examine impartially and do conclude that in this Chapter it is not proved unlawful to hear the present Ministers of England Let us consider the rest of his Arguments CHAP. 5. Sect. 1. All owning of Orders different from or contrary to Christs proves not a denial of his Offices THus he proceeds That the Ministers of England deny the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ and therefore are not to be beard but separated from hath been asserted and by one argument proved in the foregoing Chapter To the further evidence whereof a few things more are to be offered in this Argum 2. Those who own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances which not only are not of Christs revealing but contrary thereunto do really deny and oppose the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ But the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not only not of Christs revealing but contrary thereunto Therefore The major or first Proposition is beyond exception If an owning submitting and subscribing to Orders and Ordinances that are not only not of Christs revealing but contrary thereunto be not a denial of his Kingly and Prophetical Office I must profess I know not what is Suppose the chief Magistrate or Magistrates of a Nation should give forth a Declaration of their Will touching this or that concern were not persons Non-conformity thereunto supposing it to be what lies within the verge of their Authority and power to command and may righteously be exacted of them whose Conformity is thereunto required a silent opposition of their Authority but should any presume to give forth Laws of their own without the least stamp of Authority upon them yea contrary unto the Statute and Declarations of their Governours would not all
Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ when or where were they instituted by him I might answer by cross Interrogations Are the Church-Covenant gathering of Churches in the Congregational way by severing choice Members from the rest requiring an account of the manner of their Conversion making Election by the common Suffrage of the Members essential to a Minister imposition of hands tied to the Eldership of that Church maintenance by Collection every Lords day Excommunication by the major part of the Members with many more of the Orders of Congregational Churches Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ when and where were they instituted by him It is not I presume altogether forgotten that such questions have been propounded to them by Mr. Ball Apollonius and many others and their answers judged insufficient And if they cannot shew Christs appointment for their Orders which they require why do they charge so deeply the Ministers of England as denying and opposing the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ for submitting to Orders which as well may be said to be of Christs appointment as their own or at least when they themselves may by the same reason be concluded to deny or oppose the same Offices But for a direct answer I grant they are not Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ and yet judge they may be submitted and conformed to and required of Governours while they are regulated by Laws of Ecclesiastical Policy and do think that Mr. Hooker in his three first Books of Ecclesiastical Policy hath evinced thus much IV. To what is said that these are Posts set by the Lords Posts and thresholds by his thresholds of which the Lord complains Ezek. 43.8 who sees not I answer Diodate his Annot. on Ezek. 43.8 is this Their threshold that is to say they set their Idols and perform their service in my Temple in places and Chappels near to the places which are consecrated to my service See 2 King 16 14. and 21.7 Jer. 11.15 Ezek. 8.3 and 23.39 and 44.7 All the Interpreters I meet with and the words themselves shew that the thing complained of was another thing than making Orders and Constitutions without revelation and appointment of Christ for Ecclesiastical Rule such as those Constitutions in the Canons of the Church of England are which in Christian Churches have in like sort been made in the best times yea and some in the Jewish Church without reproof to wit Idolatrous practices by their Kings such as Ahaz and Manasseh were called Whoredoms v. 7 9. and abominations which they committed and defiled Gods holy Name and for which be consumed them in his anger and therefore tell this Author that I see not those Ordinances he mentions to be Posts set by the Lords Posts and Thresholds by his Thresholds complained of Ezek 43.8 but rather think him in a dream or phrensie that saith he sees it Yea further if it were granted that the complaint were against their Act as adding inventions of men to Gods Ordinances yet this cannot be understood but of such as are made Gods Worship or wherein that which God hath appointed is altered or corrupted And therefore I conclude that it is no small abuse of this Text which occurrs in sundry printed Sermons and other Books to make every Order of men about Gods Worship or the Governing of the Church to be thus branded and out of all infer that what he saith he hath evidently evinced is but a vain brag of this Author Let 's proceed in viewing what follows Sect. 3. Making Canons in things undetermined and subjection to them agrees with Scripture Object If it be said 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 't is 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 without questioning its authority Answ. Though I assert not that the Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical of the Church of England may be rationally deduced from Scripture and therefore make not the Objection as here it is framed yet I assert that Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Divine Worship and Church Covernment may be made by Governours if they be 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 and that the Members of the Churches under their Governours should submit to and yield obedience to them as to other humane Laws not conceiving the things commanded obligatory of their Consciences as things appointed by Divine Authority so as that it should be sin to disobey or omit them in any case But by virtue of the general Precept of Obedience Heb. 13.17 and in Order to the ends of their rule without any Contempt of their Authority or refractariness they should be either actively or passively obeyed though the things themselves be only indifferent and not of themselves or directly binding the Conscience And this I conceive to be proved 1. From Reason because without such regulations Church Societies can no more be continued by reason of the difference of minds and capacities than other Societies which is proved true by experience 2. From the practise of all sorts of Churches who have in process of time found it necessary to have Synods to this end 3. From the course God hath taken with the Christian Churches to whom he hath delivered the Doctrine of Faith and necessaries of Worship in the Scriptures but hath left many accidentals about Worship and Church Government undetermined therefore left them partly to each one 's own light in things concerning himself only partly to the Rulers Domestical National Civil Ecclesiastical in things that concern the several Communities 4. From the Texts 1 Cor. 14.40 Heb. 13.17 and other places For in that after all his discourse about ordering the use of their gifts he ends with this general rule he thereby shews that more things were to be ordered by that rule either by each one himself or by their Governours as he himself did resolve 1 Cor. 11.34 and appointed Titus and Timothy in the Epistles to them and enjoyned obedience Heb. 13.17 Now let us consider what is answered hereto He saith Sect. 4. It 's no derogation from Scripture or Christ that such Canons are made and obeyed Answ. That there is any thing of moment in this Objection though their Achilles in this matter and that which they are upon every turn producing is easily demonstrated The whole of it being built upon as uncertain principles yea upon as notoriously false
making good their ground herein who sees not that their Plea hitherto impleaded sinks of it self Sith I neither plead for the Constitutions of the Church of England in particular nor is it my supposition that only the Constitutions of a constituted Church of Christ bind in things of Divine Worship and Church Rule and therefore my Answer and position need not sink for want of making good this plea. And accordingly might put him off to others to answer his impertinent questions What is it then they mean by the Church whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are without disputing to subject to is it the National Church of England But where find they any National Church of the Institution of Christ in the Oeconomie of the Gospel How prove they that the Church of England is so Nevertheless I may say I know not any that hold concerning the Church of England that its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper opinions are to be subjected to without dispute though the Romanists hold it of the Church of Râ—me and for a National Church I refer him to what is before in answer to his Preface sect 15. But there are more questions behind Yet should this also be granted where are the Constitutions and Laws of this Church that we may pay the homage to them as is meet Which Question he might answer himself who in this Chapter cites so many of the Canons of the Church of England But he yet enquires When was it assembled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place together in its several members freely to debate 1 Cor. 11.20 and 14 23. and in the Margin Maccovius in loc com append de Adi p. 861. Things indifferent he tells you ought not to be introduced into the Church but by the common consent thereof according to Acts 15. determine what Laws and Constitutions were fit to be observed by them To which I answer The Church of England was assembled at London Anno 1603. in its several members by deputation freely to debate things as was the usage in the Synods of ancient and later times and even in New England at Cambridge there about the Antinomian opinions in Mr. Welds History in England in the Assembly at Westminster of the Congregational Churches by their Elders and Messengers in their Meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. which kind of Meeting must be allowed as the Meeting of the whole Church which they represent there being no other way in which orderly many particular Churches throughout a Nation can convene and debate freely either points of Doctrine or Discipline than by such Deputies and therefore as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod Nor is there any thing against this in 1 Cor. 11.20 or 1 Cor. 14.23 unless it be supposed that all those must meet to debate matters of Doctrine and Discipline who did then meet for worship which is not to be said For then in such things women also must have a voice contrary to the Apostles resolution 1 Cor. 14.34 and the practice of all the Churches As for Act. 15. the Synod was about a point of Doctrine and though it be said ver 22. that it pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send some to Antioch yet the whole Church is not likely to be meant of every particular member but as Acts 6.2 5. Acts 21.20 22. and elsewhere by the multitude or whole Church is meant a great part or indefinite number However those from Antioch mentioned Acts 15.2 were not many and therefore if that Synod be a pattern for after times yet it cannot be a rule in respect of the number of persons convening when Churches are so increased or so far distant one from another as that they cannot commodiously meet in their multitudes or debate orderly but must of necessity act by Deputies and their Constitutions are to be taken as the Constitutions of the whole Church for whom they appear But this Author excepts If it be said that this is not requisite it is enough that it be assembled in its several Officers or such as shall be chosen by their Officers whose laws every member is bound to be obedient to We answer But these Officers are the Church or they are not if they are not as there is nothing more sure I owe no subjection to their Laws or Constitutions it being pleaded that 't is the Church that hath only power in this matter if they are the Church let them by one Scripture prove they are so or where the true Officers of a true Church are so called and as Nonius saith out of Nâ—vius to them Dum vivebo fidelis ero Yet except this also be yielded them there is nothing of moment in the Objection produced Answ. The Objection as it is by me made is not the Plea as here is supposed The power in this matter is by me ascribed to Rulers and Texts requiring obedience to them have been produced and notwithstanding this Authors exceptions there is something of moment in the Objection and the speech is not made good That the present Ministers of England submit own and subscribe to Laws and Constitutions that are not in any sense of Christ revealing nor if it were doth it follow Therefore they oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. Sect. 6. It 's not proved that the Ministers of England own Constitutions contrary to the revelation of Christ. He goes on thus But this is not all 2ly The present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Laws Constitutions and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ whence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ may rationally be concluded This also by the induction of a few particular instances will be evinced beyond exception Answ. Four things are here undertaken 1. That the particular instances stand by Laws and Constitutions 2. That these Laws Constitutions and Ordinances are contrary to the revelation of Christ. 3. That the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to them 4. That from thence an opposition to the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ may rationally be concluded In which how he hath failed will be apparent by the view of what he alledgeth They own saith he and acknowledge 1. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself which is contrary to 1 Pet. 5.3 1 Cor. 12.5 Ephes. 4.5 Heb. 3.1 Luke 22.25 26. Answ. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England but not in the sense in which Christ is called the chief Shepherd 1 Pet. 5.4 or the same Lord 1 Cor. 12.5 or one Lord Ephes. 4.5 or the Apostle and High Priest of our prosession Heb. 3.1 or Lordship is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3 Luke 22.25 26. they are
that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations Finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either Preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ. Which his practice sheweth to be such as to dispense with the Laws of God as by legitimating incestuous Marriages releasing of lawful Oaths granting Indulgences releasing out of Purgatory Canonizing of Saints Consecrating of things for the expulsion of Devils with many more and iâ— it be true which is related in a Book lately printed to have been asserted by the party of Jesuites in the Colledge of Clermont in France that the Pope is not only infallible in matters of Faith but also in matters of Fact he is elevated to that height as to accomplish the prophesie which is 2 Thess. 2.4 But the present Ministers of England do abhorr the giving such power to the King Bishops or Convocation yea it is disclaimed by the King Bishops and Convocation as blasphemous and that power they ascribe to the Church is set down in the 34. Article of Religion Every particular or National Church hath authority to Ordain Change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying And that which they acknowledge belonging to the King as the only Supreme Governour of the Realm of England and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as temporal is thus explained Artic. 37. We give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers Which is so far from being no other than the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome as this Author saith p. 47. that to shew the calumny of it I need use no other words than those of Dr. John Owen in his answer to a Popish Book entituled Fiat Lux ch 13. p. 271. The Declaration made in the dayes of King Henry the 8. that he was Head of the Church of England intended no more but that there was no other person in the World from whom any Jurisdiction to be exercised in this Church over his Subjects might be derived the Supream Authority for all exteriour Government being vested in him alone that this should be so the Word of God the Nature of the Kingly Office and the ancient Laws of this Realm do require And I challenge our Author to produce any one testimony of Scripture or any one word out of any general Council or any one Catholick Father or Writer to give the least Countenance to his assertion of two Heads of the Church in his sense an Head of Influence which is Jesus himself and an Head of Government which is the Pope in whom all the sacred Hierarchy ends This taking of one half of Christs Rule and Headship out of his hand and giving it to the Pope will not be salved by that expression thrust in by the way under him For the Headship of Influence is distinctly ascribed unto Christ and that of Government to the Pope which evidently asserts that he is not in the same manner Head unto his Church in both senses but he in the one and the Pope in the other I add that Mr. Philip Nye in his Book of the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy and power of the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical affairs and subordination of Churches thereunto Printed 1662. though not published hath these words p. 46. For Persons and Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical that are properly and indeed such as first Table-duties which contain matters of Faith and Holiness and what conduceth to the eternal welfare of mens souls an interest and duty there is in the Civil Magistrate more suâ— to give Commands and exercise Lawful Jurisdiction about things of that nature And for Persons there is no man for his graces so spiritual or in respect of his gâ—fts and Office so eminent but he is under the Government of the Civil Powers in the place where he lives as much in all respects as any other subject Yea in the Apology of the Brownists Printed 1604. these words are alledged for their common defence out of the Letter of Henry Barrow to a Lady 1593. p. 92. I have every where in my writings acknowledged all duty and obedience to her Majesties government as to the sacred Ordinance of God the Supreme Power he hath set over all causes and persons whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within her Dominions Out of these things I infer that asserting the Kings Supremacy or the power of making Laws owned by the Ministers of England is not making another King besides Christ over his Church nor ascribing such a Headship to the King or Governours of the Church as is pleaded for by the Church of Rome and that for the Kings Supremacy those that dissent about Ceremonies and Church Government do acknowledge it as it is meant in the Oath taken by the Ministers Concerning which Supremacy if what I have written in the little Treatise Printed 1660. intituled A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremncy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions be not sufficient to produce from the Scripture the institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto methinks Dr. Rainold his argument which convinced Hart in the conference with him ch 10. div 1. and such other writings as have been written by Bilson Mason Bramhall and many more should have prevented this calumny of making thereby another head besides Christ equivalent to a denial of his Kingly Office And to his Objections I answer 1. to the first That we use not the title of Head but Supreme Governour yet when it was used it meaning the same it might be used as it was given to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 though not as it it is given to Christ Ephes. 1.22 and 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 Nor is the title of Head so appropriate to Christ but that it is given to the Man over the Woman 1 Cor. 11.3 to the Husband over the Wife Ephes. 5.23 and may in a qualified sense in respect of Government be given to the King over the Church in his Dominions as to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 to the chief of Families as Parents or others of greatest authority or esteem as the heads of houses Exod. 6.14 in which sense Parliament men Judges Ecclesiastical Governours may be termed Heads of the Church or State they represent
other may be said to be Idolaters the hearts of the best men 〈◊〉 too often going forth too farr in desires after and secret dependence upon things beneath the Lord which yet they are watching and warring against waiting and longing for the day in which they shall be câ—mpleatly swallowed up in the will of God T is in respect of the sâ—cond particular before instanc'd in that we assert the present Ministers of England to be Idolaters To the proof whereof we now addâ—ess ourselves Answ. The Conclusion is not the same with that which at first Ch. 1. was undertaken to be defended That it is not lawful for the Saints to hear the present Ministers of England nor doth it necessarily follow that if we may not have communion with persons nor own them as our teachers but separate from them That we may not hear them preach the Gospel An excommunicate person I am not to have communion with nor to own the Teachers of forreign Churches as suppose the Lutheran as my teachers yea I may be bound to separate from such as suppose a Popish Priest as Jansenist preaching the doctrine of original sin of efficacious grace or the Gospel concerning redemption by the blood of Christ whom yet I may lawfully hear handling those truths according to the received doctrine of St. Augustin Nor is the maâ—or true if the Idolatry be in that way which he here calls Idolatry the worshipping of God in any other way than what he hath prescribed nor if the Idolatry be secret and not open nor though it be open if by infirmity he fall into it and repents or be not censured as such or teacheth nor such Idolatry nor requires any communion with him in his Idolatry Nor do the Texts prove his maâ—or 1 Cor. 5 11. forbids no oâ—her communion than eating and that eating which might be with Idolaters of this wâ—â—ld v. 10 and therefore not eating the Lords Supper Nor doth it any moâ—e forbid eating with a Bâ—other called an 〈◊〉 than with a Brother called a fornicatour or covetous 〈…〉 or an extortioner and therefore if this Text prove a necessity of separation from such in holy exercises as Prayer or the Lords Supper it forbids doing these things with a covetous person or railer and then a Christian Brother must have cognizance of such sins and be a Judge of every one he communicates with which were absurd and therefore it can be meant of no other than arbitrary familiar converse as in eating where I am at liberty to eat or not to eat and of private judgement of discretion which each one is to exercise in the choice of his company But nothing to the owning of a Teacher or shunning to hear him For here the person is considered only as a Brother not a Teacher in Office 1 Cor. 10 14. is less to the purpose for it requires only to flee from Idolatry not from Teachers that are any way Idolatrous so as not to hear them 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16 17 18. requires not to be yoaked with Infidels not to have part with them not to agree with Idols to come out from among Infidels to be separate not to touch the unclean thing that is the Idol which may be done and yet a person some way guilty of Idolatry may be heard yea owned as our Teacher and we may have some communion with him in holy things as in Prayer and the Lords Supper and praising God which are not Idolatrous That which is premised by this Author before his confirmation of the minor requires some Animadversions upon it The definition of Idolatry which hitherto hath been received by all Protestants that I know of is that which Dr. John Rainold hath delivered in his 2 d. Book de Idololatria Ecclesiae Romanae c. 1. that it is the exhibiting of Divine Worship to a Creature and hath proved it from Rom. 1.25 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be read instead of the Creatour as explained by the Authors of the writing of the Constitutions of Clemens by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is cited by Grotius in his Annot. or Praeterito Creatore the Creatour being forsaken or neglected as Beza after Hilarius or besides the Creatour as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides that which is laid 1 Cor. 3 11. or as the Vulgar Potius quam Creatori rather than to the Creatour or as ours more than the Creatour shews that there is a worship and service proper to the Creatour and herein was the Idolatry of the Gentiles and all other that they worshipped and served the creature with that which was due only to the Creatour And therefore I conceive it not to be Idolatry where Divine Worship is not exhibited to a creature that is directed to some person or thing substance or accident real or imagined which is not the Creatour of all things It is true that Heathen-Idolaters did many of them make the Creatour of all the utmost bound or terminus of their Image-worship as the Apostle saith Acts 17.23 that the Athenians did ignorantly worship the unknown God and yet were Idolaters because their worship was first of the Image as the next terminus or object to which it was exhibited And the same is true of the Israelites worshipping of the calf though they worshipped God in it Exod. 32.5 because though they did not worship the Calf terminatively that is so as to intend to direct their worship to it as the utmost bound of it or last or chief object yet it was the molten Image which they worshipped Psal. 106.19 Exod. 32.8 It is indeed most gross and absurd Idolatry when the creature is worshipped terminatively and therefore the worship of Baal is accounted worse than the worship of the golden calves at Dan and Bethel 1 Kings 16.31 because it was terminated lastly to the Sun or to the Devil who was worshipped by Molech to whom they sacrificed their Sons and Daughters Psal. 106.37 38. And this Idolatry was the Idolatry of the Canaanites and a great part of the world and of the Jewes at last as St. Stephen chargeth them with Acts 7.41 42 43. Nor do I think it true which this Author here and p. 63. saith that there are few or none that worship the creature Terminative sith not only of old the host of Heaven was worshipped by most of the Idolaters as may be gathered out of the Scriptures and is largely demonstrated by Mâ— Selden in his Syntagma de Diis Syris but also at this day the Devil himself is worshipped in the East and West-Indies in some Northern Countries and Southern if the relation of Travellers Historians and Chorographers be true It is granted that it is somewhat more refined Idolatry when we offer up any worship or homage proper and due to God only before any creature as the medium or representative of God For then the worship is directed to it as Gods Deputy to receive it for him and so the
may Not forbidding to pray for other things or in other words than are there set down And blessed be the Almighty that yet Ministers have liberty at all times to express themselves in prayer and preaching as fully as there is need that the Kings Majesty invites to fasting and prayer That notwithstanding it is to be bewailed that the Worship of God is no better performed than it is and that the intemperate abuses of some have caused more severe restraint on others than were to be wished Yet there is so much purity of Worship and Doctrine as that Separation is unnecessary And this Author as if he imitated the Gloss in the Canon Law Non satis discretus esset c. writes causelesly if not blasphemously that Folly may righteously be imputed to Christ if the Common-Prayer Book worship be a Worship of his appointment He goes on thus Sect. 6. Common-Prayer Book Worship is not of pure humane invention But 3ly The Common-Prayer Book woâ—ship is a Worship of which we find no footsteps in the Scripture nor in some centuries of years after Christ as hath already been demonstrated Whence it follows That 't is a Worship of pure humane invention which is not only not of Christs appointment but contrary to the very nature of instituted Woâ—ship as is proved in our first Argument and to very many precepts of the Lord in thâ— Scripture Exod. 20.4 5 Deut. 4 2. and 12.32 Prov. 30 16. Jer. 7 31. Matth. 15.9 13. Mark 7.7 8. Rev. 22.18 The mind of God in which Scriptures we have exemplified Lev. 10.1 2 3 4. Josh. 22.10 c. Judg. 8 2. 2 Kings 16 11. 1 Chron 15.13 Answ This Author runs on in his gross mistakes as if the form of words in the Common-Prayer Book were the Worship that it were a several sort of Worship from the prayers made by a Preacher of his own conception and that such prayers were worship of Christs institution and not the other Which mistakes are shewed before And what he saith here is answered either in this chapter sect 4. or chapt 1. sect 3. The Common-Prayer Book worship is no more a pure humane invention than Preachers conceived-prayers Nor is it any Idol forbidden Exod. 20.4 5. Nor any Prophecy added to the Book of the Revelation forbidden Revel 22.18 Nor such an Ephod as Gideon made Judg. 8.24 Nor such a not seeking God after the due order as was the carrying of the Ark in a cart and Uzzah 's putting his hand to it 1 Chron. 15.13 Nor such an invention forbidden as was the Altar of Damascus imitated by Uriah 2 Kings 16 11. And therefore it is sufficient to deny what is here said without forming of an Argument As for Josh 22 10. c. it makes for the Common-Prayer-Book not against it sith that Altar was allowed of though it were for religious signification and yet not by Divine institution and therefore proves that all inventions of men whereby our Worship of God is signified are not unlawful if they be not made necessary nor the Worship of God placed in the things so invented or their use It follows Sect. 7. Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the Worship of the Reformed Churches 4. That Worship which is not necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Vnity of the Gospel is not of the institution of Christ But such is the worship of the Common-Prayer Book Therefore The major or first Proposition will not be denied The Lord Jesus having freeed his Disciples from all obligations to the ceremonies of the Law institutes nothing de novo but what he knâ—w to be necessary at least would be so by vertuâ— of his institution for the ends assigned which was the great Aim in all Gospel administrations Ephes 4.7 to 15. Col. 2.19 Acts 9.31 Rom. 14.14 15. 1 Cor. 10.23 and 14.3 4 5 12 26. 2 Cor 12 10. 1 Tim 1.4 That the Common-Prayer Book wâ—â—shâ—p is nâ—t necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Vnity of the Gâ—spel what ever is pretended by its admirers might many wayes be demonstrated Take one pâ—â—grant instance instead of all that will make it exceeding manâ—fest The Churches of Christ for the first four centuries of years and more after his Ascension knew not any thing of such a Worshâ—p as hath been already demonstrated not to mention the reformed Churches at this day to whom it is as a polluted accuâ—sed abominable thing yet than those first and purer Churches for light consolation truth of Doctrine and Gospel-Vnion hitherto there hath not been any extant in the world more famous or excellent no nor by many degrees comparable to them But we shall not further prosecute this Argument enough hath been said to demonstrate That the Common Prayer Book worshâ—p is not of the appointment of the Lord Therefore such as worship him in the way thereof worship him in a way that is not of his prescription If the former notwithstanding all that hath been said be scrupled by any we referr him to Tracts written by Smectymnuus V. Powel to a Treatise entituled A Discourse concerning the Interest of Words in Prayer by H. D. M. A. The Common-Prayer Book Unmask'd as also to a Treatise lately published by a learned but nameless Author entituled A Discourse concerning Liturgies and their Imposition In which that matter is industriously and laâ—gely debatâ—d Aâ—sw This Author still continues his confounding of the Worship of the Common-Prayer Book with the form of it that is the method and phraâ—e and manner of it which no man that speaks distinctly calls the Common-Prayer Book Worship The Common-Prayer Book Worship is no other than the prayers praises lessons ministration of the Sacraments And these are of Christs institution and are necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel and accordingly the miâ—or Proposition is false which denies it But sith this Author by Worship understands the forms and modes of it though they be not prescribed or determined in Scripture or the kind of Woâ—ship in respect of those forms meaning that the Worship for example pâ—ayer praiâ—e and the like which are expressed or performed by forms or modes not prescribed by Christ though the kind or soâ—t of Worship be of Christs institution yet because it is performed in such forms or modes as are not necessary for the ediâ—ication comfort or pâ—eservation of the Saints in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel it is so adulteraeâ—d thereby that it is not of the institution of Christ. In which sense the majâ—â— Proposition is to be denied and the Argument may be 〈◊〉 thus That Worship which in respect of the mode or form of performing is not necessary for the edifâ—cation comfort or pâ—eservation of the Saints in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel is not of the institution of Christ But such is the
which when they have proved that ever the Lord Jesus did intrust an Assembly of the greatest Murderers Adulterers and Idolaters in the world with any power for the sending forth Officers to act in the holy things of God to and for the Church his Spouse will be admitted but that they shall never be able to do so hugely importunate are some of them herein that they are not ashamed to ask us VVhy Ordination may not be received from the Church so called of Rome as well as the Scripture To which we shall only say That when it is proved that we received the Scripture from that Apostate Church by vertue of any Authority thereof as such somewhat of moment may be admitted in that enquiry but this will never be done T is true the Bible was kept among the people in those parts where the Pope prevaileth yet followeth it not from hence that we received it from their Authority as Ordination is received If we did why did we not keep it as delivered from them to us in the Vulgar Latine So that of these things there is not the same reason It will not then be denied but the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office power received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters that Church being eminently so as hath been proved Answ. This Objection though it be but a slight thing and of no real force to nullifie or invalidate the Calling of the present Ministers yet because the well-affected Protestants are zealous against Popery as having learned the Pope to be Antichrist and that terrible threanings are in the Revelation against any communion with any thing that is suggested to them by those to whom they adhere to come from Rome or the Pope as being Antichristian it is needful that this thing should be cleared for rectifying the mistakes of people that their unadvised zeal against some things as Popish which are not may not occasion unnecessary Schism and such other evils into which persons perhaps otherwise of honest hearts cast themselves to their ruine It is known to those that study Controversies between Protestants and Papists that this hath been one grand Objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches that their Ministers are not rightly Ordained and therefore they have no succession which by Bellarmine in his Book de Notis Ecclesiae c. 8. is made a Note of the Church and therefore they are not a true Church but schismatical The Answers given to this Objection are 1. For the truth of the Reformed Churches the succession in them of true Doctrine is sufficient to demonstrate them true Churches as I have asserted in my Romanism discussed against the Manuel of H. T. Art 2. 2. That Ministers may be sent of God who teach the Doctrine of God though they have not Ordination according to Church-Canons as was the case at the first beginning of the Reformation in which there was something extraordinary by reason of the long tyranny of Popes and the great corruptions in the Latine Churches 3. That their Ministers were at first ordained by the Popish Bishops and though they did after renounce the offering Sacrifice for quick and dead yet even by the Papists own Canons and resolutions of their Casuists their power to administer the Word and Sacraments according to the Word of God continued still 4. That those who had been thus ordained had power to ordain others for which the French and other Protestants of the Presbyterial Government allege That Presbyters may Ordain even by the confession of the Romanists and that Bishops though they be hereticks in their account yet they lose not the power of Ordaining no not when degraded of which more may be seen in Rivet sum Controv. tract 2. q. 1. Alsted suppl ad Chamier panstrat de memb Eccl. milit c. 8. Ames Bellar. Enerv. tom 2. l. 3. de clericis c. 2 sect 10. and many more who have still pleaded That notwithstanding the impurity of the Church of Rome yet the Calling which Luther Zuinglius and others had from Popish Bishops was sufficient without any other Ordination for an ordinary calling to the Office of a Minister and that those who have succeeded them have been true Pastours in their Churches The English Protestants who have had Bishops above Presbyters have advantage above other Protestants to plead for the regularity of the Ordination of their Ministers because they have been ordained by Bishops and those Bishops consecrated by other Bishops according to the â—anons of the Ancients in a succession continued from Bishops acknowledged by the Papists themselves To evacuate this plea saith Dr. Prideaux Orat. 8. de Vocatione Ministrorum The Papists would fain find a defect in the succession of the English Bâ—shâ—ps from the preceding Bâ—shops and in the solemnity of their consecration And being beaten off from the denial of Cranmers consecration by the producing of the Popes acknowledging of him Arch-bishop and the register of his consecration as also of other Bishops in King Edwards dayes After Christophorus à sacrâ—bâ—sco or Father Halywood of Dublin in Ireland Anthony Champney and James Wadsworth say That Arch bishop Parker Bishop Jewel and those others which were made Bishops in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth though theâ—e were an attempt of their consecration at a Tavern at the Nags-head in Cheapside yet could not they procure an old Catholick Bishop to joyn with them and therefoâ—e their consecration was disappointed To shew the falshood of this fable and to make evident the compleat solemnity of Paâ—kers and others consecration and the truth of the Ordination of the English Ministers even by the Canons of the Papists Bishop Bâ—del in his Answer to Wadsworth ch 11. and Mr. Francis Mason in his Vindication of the English Ministry have fully proved the solemnity of the consecration out of the Aâ—ch-bishops Begister to have been â—ight and the succession to have been legitimate even according to the Canon Law and the Ministers Ordination to have been good though not ordained sacrificing Priests for quick and dead against the exceptions of Bellarmine 〈◊〉 and such other of the Papists ' as have denied Protestant Ministers true Pastours and their Churches true Churches It is not unlikely that some of the Prelaâ—ical party have vented in writings and conference such expressions as carry a shew of their disclaiming the Churches which have not Bishops and extolling the Popish Churches Government and avouching their Ordination from Rome which hath caused a great aveâ—seness in many zealous persons from Bishops and the conforming Ministers and is taken hold of by this Author and other promoters of Separation as an engine sutable to that end But as those learned men Bedel Mason Prideaux and others have pleaded the succession of Bishops from the Popish Bishops and the Ordination of Ministers by them there is no cause given of that out-cry that is made of the Bishops
Antichristianism declining to Popery or of Separation for that reason the Presbyâ—erian Churches making the like plea for themselves That the first Reformers had ordinary calling even according to the Papists own Canons and the Episcopal Divines pleading only the same thing more fully Yet it is not true which this Author saith That either the one or other make the succession from Popish Bishâ—ps one of the best pleas they have for the justâ—fication of their ministâ—y For though they plead this succession against the clamorous and violent actings of the Popish party which Petrus Molinaeus in his 3 d. Epistle to Bishop Andrews mentions to have been in France by Arnola the Jesuite and the writings of Champney Wadsworth and others shew to have been in England yet they have justified their ministry without it as may be seen in Amos Alsâ—ed Bâ—del and others And for the present Ministers of England I conceive they will deny that they act by vertue of an Office-power from the Combination and Assembly of Idolaters in the Church of Rome their Office-power being not such as Priests are ordained to in the Church of Rome to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead but to preach the Gospel administer Sacraments and Discipline according to Christs institution And in the solemnity of their Ordination the Româ—sts rites being relinquished by the Ordainers who are not a Combination or Assembly of Idolaters but professors of the true Faith and haters of popish Idolatry though some succession of their Predecessors from Idolaters be alleged to stop the mouths of Papists who pervert their proselytes by impuâ—ation of novelty to the reformed Churches and their Ministers rather than by proving their Doctrine out of Scripture As for that which is obâ—ected That Christ would never entrust such to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God for his Church it is without reason objected sith many of them might be and in charity we are to conceive were the servants of God who abode in the communion of the Roman Church Dr. Ames himself in his Animadversions on the Remonstrants Scripta Synodalia Artic. 5. c. 7. saith We believe there were and yet are many who have not so farr separated themselves from the Papists but that they are polluted with their manifold Idolatry who yet have their part in the Kingdom of God Even in the dayes of King Henry the 8 th and Q Mary all the Bishops were not like Gardiner Bonner and such as were inhumane persecutors Why Christ should not entrust Cranmer Tonstall and such like to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God as well as Judas to be an Apostle I find not cause The baptism received in the Church of Rome the Brownists in their Apology p. 112. acknowledge to be so farr valid as not to need rebaptization and why not then the Ordination by their Bishops Bishops and Ministers though they be evil men and unduly get into power yet as it is with other Officers their actings are valid as Caiaphas Ananias and such like persons who by bribes unjustly and irregularly usurped the High-Priests Office yet their sentence and ministration were not therefore disannulled He who said We received the Bible from the Church of Rome it is not likely meant it to have been received by vertue of their authority but their ministry Preachers having been sent by the Pope to instruct the Saxons in the Faith But whatever was meant by that speech this we may safely say That if the Office-power of the present Ministers had been as it is not received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters yet being no other Office-power than what hath been instituted by Christ it no more proves the present Ministers Idolaters than the receiving of baptism or the Scriptures by the ministry of men in that Church It is further added Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry 3. Nor can it be denied but they offer up to God a VVorship meerly of humane composition as the Common-Prayer Book worship hath been proved to be once abused to Idolatry with the mâ—â—es â—nd rites of Idolaters That the Commonâ—Prayer Book worship is a worship that was once abused to Idolatry being the worship of that Church whose worship at least in the complex thereof is so cannot with the least pretence of reason be denied That the whole of it is derived from and taken out of the Popes Portuis as are the Common-prayers out of the Breviary The administration of the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual or Book of Rites The Consecration of the Lords Supper Collects Epistles Gospels out of the Mass Book The Ordination of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests out of the Roman Pontifical hath been aâ—â—erted and proved by many VVhich might be evidenced if needful beyond exception not only by comparing the one with the other but also from the offer was made by Pope Pius the 4th and Gregory the 13th to Q. Elizabeth to confirm the English Liturgy which did it not symbolize with the service of the Church of Rome they would not have done Yea when the said Queen was interdicted by the Popes Bull Secretary Walsingham procures two Intelligencers from the Pope who seeing the service of London and Canterbury in the pomp thereof wonder that their Lord the Pope should be so unadvised as to interdict a Prince whose service and ceremonies did so symbolize with his own VVhen they come to Rome they satisfie the Pope That they saw no service ceremonies or orders in England but might very well serve in Rome upon which the Bull was recalled Not to mention what we have already minded viz. the testimomy of King Edward the 6th and his Council witnessing the English service to be the same and no other but the old the self-same words in English that were in Latine which was the worship of England and Rome in Queen Maries dayes it is evident That the present Minsters of England offer up a worship to God once abused to Idolatry That they do this with the rites ceremonies and modes of Idolaters viz. such as are in use in that Idolatrous Church of Rome needs not many words to demonstrate What else is the Priests change of voice posture and place of worship enjoyned them Not to mention their holy Vestments Bowings Cringings Candles Altars c. all which as it s known owe their original unto the appointments thereof In the margin Maccovius loc com append de adiaph p. 860. saith Non licet mutuari aut retinere res aus ritus sacros Idololatrarum sive Ethnicorum sife Pontificiorum c. etsi in se res fuerint adiaphorae quia vitandam esse omnem consormitatem cum Idololatris docemur Lev. 19.4.27 and 21.5 Deut. 14 1 It remaineth That the present Mâ—nisters of England acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offering
that every person be in such a particular instituted church and that is the fiâ—st seat of Ecclesiastical power alleging Matth. 16.18 18.17 to that purpose and build thereupon their Separation Yet I never judged either the allegation of those Texts to be pertinent to that they produce them for or that such conclusions as they gather from them about the constitution and power of a congregational church or the necessity of being a member in such a church so formed are rightly deduced But of this I need say no more than what is said in Answer to the Preface of this Book sect 15. and else-where Sect. 4. To attend only on the ministry of Ministers of Congregational Churches is not of Christs appointment Fâ—uâ—thly Saith this Author That Christ hath appointed Officers of his own to act in the holy things of God in and over thâ—se Assemblies whom he furnisheth with gifts every way suiting their employment to whom without turning aside to the voice of strangers or attending upon the ministry of such as are not of his appointment it s the duty of Saints to hearken is very conspiâ—uous in the ensuing Scriptures Ephes. 4.11 Heb. 13.7 13 Mat. 24.4 5.23.24 1 Joh. 2.18 4.1 2 Joh 10 Acts 20.29 30 31. Revel 2.14 15 16. Which exactly agrees with what was practised by primitive believers who it seems received none without the testimony of some Brethren of known integrity in the Churches 1 Cor. 16.3 Acts 9.26 Answ. It is true That Christ hath appointed officers of his own to act in the holy things of God in and over the Churches and that he furnished them with gifts every way suiting their imployment when he ascended up on high and this may be proved from Ephes. 4.11 and that such officers as may gather and perfect his Churches are of his appointment and that we are to follow and obey them Heb. 13.7.17 and that we are not to hear or attend upon the Ministry of such strangers as are deceivers false teachers Antichrists that bring not the same doctrine with the Apostles that are false prophets speak perverse things Nicolaitans that teach the doctrine of Balaam as the Texts alleadged do import and that S. Paul sent alms to Jerusalem by such messengers as the Corinthians approved that S. Paul was not at first admitted into society with the disciples till Barnabas brought him to the Apostles and informed them of his conversion But that Christ hath appointed Officers onely in and over particular Congregational Churches or that they onely who are chosen by such a Church are his Officers or that they are furnished by Christ with gifts every way suiting their imployment as when he ascended up on high or that all other Ministers or Preachers are strangers not of Christs appointment or that the Saints are not to attend on their Ministry or that hearing them is turning aside to the voice of strangers or that none is to be admitted to Preach or to Communion in a Congregational Church or to be heard Preach but such as have had testimony of some brethren of known integrity in the gathered Churches are not in the Texts alleadged nor in any other part of the holy Seripture But these Tenents and Rules of the Congregational Churches although the things may be observed in many cases as agreeing with the state of Churches at some times and in prudence may be commended yet to make them Institutions of Christ necessary to be observed at all times and no other Orders different from these lawful but rather Antichristian is an humane invention and no better then superstition which this Authour and other Separatists do so much inveigh against And indeed to injoyn Christians Members of a Congregational Church or other Christians to hear onely such Officers is both against the doctrine and practise approved in the Scripture against the practise of the Congregational Churches themselves and if it be urged rigidly according to this principle of this Authour puts such a yoke of bondage on the consciences of Christians as is intolerable and pernicious For 1. The Ministers of the Gospel are according to Christs design for the benefit of all Christians not appropriate to this or that particular number of men so as not to act as Ministers of his appointment but in particular gathered Churches It may be requisite perhaps for good order and government to assign particular places to them and this is of Divine and Apostolical institution that in particular Churches there should be Pastors and Elders and that they should be bound to be resident with them and to feed them But that no other then such should be Officers of Christ is not proved If there be not Apostles Prophets or Evangelists now as were in the Primitive times yet I presume none will deny that men may be Officers of Christ that are assigned to no particular Charge as Lecturers Catechists Readers in the Universities Members of Synods Commissioners for setling Churches in Discipline for Approbation of Preachers and the like and they being for the benefit of the Church of God either in common or more specially for some place may be heard or else the end of Christ in giving them should be frustrate This I gather partly from the expressions 1 Cor. 12.28 That not onely Apostles and Prophets but also Teachers are set by God in the Church indefinitely not in this or that definite Church and Pastors and Teachers as well as Apostles Prophets and Evangelists are given by Christ Ephes. 4.12 for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ without the determinate assignation of some Saints or some part of the body but making them his gift to any Saints or any part of the body which his providence shall order partly and chiefly in that S. Paul counts it sinful glorying in men to appropriate this or that Teacher as peculiar to some and that because Paul and Apollos and Cephas and by the same reason every Minister was every Christians in that every Christian was Christs and he Gods 1 Cor. 3.22 So that however every of them cannot be every Christians in use so as that he should have jus in re yet every Christian hath a title to every Minister or jus ad rem and therefore to say none are Christs Officers but such as are in the Coâ—gâ—egational Churches and over them and to attend on the Ministry of others is to turn aside to the voice of strangers is to deprive Christians of the right God gives them to all the Ministers and tends to that gloâ—ying in men whch the Apostle condemns 2. We find that Apollos said to be a Minister by whom the Corinthians believed whom Paul planted and Apollos watered 1 Cor. 3.5 6. was a diligent Teacher of the things of the Lord at Ephesus and he disdained not to be instructed in the way of the Lord more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla Acts 18.25 26. who are
as a wine-bibber and gluttonous person in his miracles as one that wrought them by the Devil who are therefore condemned by Christ as guilty of the very sin of blasphemy against the holy Ghost Matth. 12.31 is known as being what is frequently remarked in the Scripture 4. We no where find the disciples attending upon the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees notwithstanding this supposed command or permission of Christ. Nay 5 We cannot but think the supposition hereof not onely inconsistent with and opposite to that expression concerning Christ Mar. 6.34 And Jesus when he saw much people was moved with compassion towards them because they were as sheep not having a shepherd what without a shepherd and yet the Scribes and Pharisees whose feeding they might lawfully attend upon doth Christ pity them in this desperate state and not give them one word of direction to wait upon these profound and worthy Doctors but also contrary to that solemn command given forth from the Lord Acts 2.40 Save your selves from this untoward generation and the practice of the disciples who continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer Acts 2.42 6. Were that the intendment of Christ as is suggested and the argument of our brethren valid a lawfulness to hear the veriest blasphemer in the world that denies that Christ is the Messiah affirms that he was a deluder of the people a gluttonous person a winebibber one that did miracles by Belzebub the prince of Devils that persecutes even to death Christ in his people might by a like parity of reason be deduced Christ commanded or at least permitted his disciples to hear the Pharisees who were such as hath been proved therefore 't is lawful to hear persons with the same characters upon them But God forbid any such injurious dealing should be offered to Christ or that any who pretend to fear God and I hope do so in reality should stand by a cause which hath no better arguments to defend it than what may be as righteously every way made use of for the attending upon the Ministry of the greatest blasphemer or opposer of Christ in the world Evident then it is notwithstanding the great flourish that many make with this Scripture for the abetting their attendance upon the present Ministers of England that it refuses to admit the least sanctuary thereunto The Scribes and Pharisees mentioned Matth. 23.1 2. may for ought we know be Magistrates not Ministers if Ministers they were as hath been proved lawfully so Christ says concerning them Whatever they bid you observe and do that observe and do Therefore 't is lawful to attend upon the Ministers of England whose lawful calling to their office cannot be proved yea though there is not the least intimation of a command from Christ or so much as a permission to his disciples to hear the Scribes aad Pharisees Nugae tricae siculae If this be to dispute a man need not fear but to be able to multiply arguments at an easie rate for whatever he hath a mind to undertake the defence of Yet this is supposed by many to be of greatest moment in this controversie I reply If by attendance on the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees be meant a constant and ordinary hearing of them as their ordinary shepherds as this Authous words seem to import doubtless neither Christ did command nor permit his disciples such an attendance both for the reasons given by this Authour and specially because he asserts himself as their onely Master or Doctour Matth 23.8.10 yet the mention of their sitting in Moses his chair or seat notes more then their discourse upon particular occasional meeting to wit their ordinary expounding the Law of Moses in their Schools where our Lord Christ permitted his disciples and the multitude to hear them with this limitation and proviso in and as they taught the Law which hearing he did not forbid them but allow them with such caveats as are there given in that Chapter And against such hearing none of the reasons of this Authour are of force Not the first for though such personal evils were sufficient motives to keep back people either from following their example or private counsels yet not to keep them back from hearing Gods Law expounded by them The same answer is for the second reason The permission of Christ is not to hear the Pharisees teach all the Doctrines of their Sect he had before warned them of receiving their traditions Matth. 15.14 the leaven of their doctrine Matth. 16.12 In which no doubt they understood the doctrine about justification by the works of the Law to be comprehended But the permission of hearing them is onely as they sate in Moses his seat that is as they taught them the duties of Moses his Law which he said Matt. 5.17 He came not to destroy but to fulfil which is manifest from the illative particle therefore v. 2. because they sit in Moses seat and bid you observe what Moses did you are to observe what they bid you observe and consequently may hear them so teaching The third reason hath the same answer with this overplus That to prevent any conceit of allowing the hearing of them in their blaphemy he avoucheth himself to be their Master and Teacher v. 8.10 To the fourth it is but from a testimony negatively and so of no force We read not that they used the Lords Prayer yet none will say they did not less that they might not we read not of their alms or fasting yet they might do both To the fifth it was but a limited permission of hearing them as they taught Moses Law not as allowing constant attendance on them as their shepherds Christ did conceive the people to be without a shepherd notwithstanding the Pharisees teaching the duties of the Law because though that doctrine were right and to be observed yet it was not sufficient to feed them to eternal life Acts 2.40 St. Peter did well to exhort his auditors to save themselves from that untoward generation of opposers of Christ as his Master before would have him and all his disciples do not doing after their works nor following their perverse doctrine and the Church did rightly practice in continuing in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer yet he neither did nor was to disswade them from hearing or practising the Pharisees doctrine of the observing the duties of Moses his Law which they were obliged to observe To the sixht I grant it lawful to hear any man teach truth which is Gods and may be heard from the mouth of any man with whom God allows us converse and communion as they are men though we are to hold no communion with them in wickedness nor willingly hear their blasphemies That the Pharisees as such were not Magistrates nor lawful Ministers nor considered as such is shewed before Neither do we say that Christ permitted attendance on the Ministry
preaching of the Gospel though 't was preached out of envy Phil. 1.15 16. To which briefly 1. There may be cause of rejoycing in respect of the issue and event of things by the wise providence of God though the means used for their production be evil and not to be abetted or complyed with In what have Christians greater cause of rejoycing than in the death of Christ yet had it been utterly unlawfull to have joyn'd in counsel with or any wayes abetted or encouraged those wicked persons that Crucified and slew him Should the Pope send some Jesuits into any remote parts of Africa to preach the Gospel to the poor Indians there here were upon some accounts ground of rejoycing yet no ground for Saints to attend upon a Jesuitical Ministry But 2ly It appears not that these Paul speaks of were not true Gospel Ministers and so it reacheth not the case in hand This being that we have proved the Ministers of England guilty of viz. and acting in the holy things of God without any commission from Christ which when our dissenting brethren prove they have we shall easily acknowledge the lawfullness of attending upon their Ministry 3ly It follows not in the least that these the Apostle speaks of were either not real Saints or not true Ministers of Christ because they are said to preach him out of envy the object whereof was not Christ for had they envyed him they would never have preached him but Paul thinking sayes he to add afflictions to my bonds which is consistent with grace and a lawfull mission to the preaching of the Gospel Yet 4ly Here is not in this Scripture the least word requiring Christians to hear them That because Paul rejoyces at their preaching therefore 't is the duty of Saints to attend upon their Ministry is such a non-sequitur as will never be made good I reply nor needs it the lawfulness to hear the present Ministers of England not the duty of the Saints to attend upon their Ministers being the thing in question and therefore it is sufficient for my purpose if I prove hence the lawfulness of hearing them though I should not prove it the Saints duty to attend on their Ministry Which I conceive may be done by this argument They in whose preaching of Christ we may rejoyce though they should not preach Christ sincerely but in pretence out of envy not good will out of contention thinking to add affliction to other Ministers bonds may be heard by the Saints lawfully But the Saints may rejoyce in the present Ministers of England their preaching of Christ though they should not preach Christ sincerely but in pretence out of envy not good will out of contention thinking to add affliction to other Ministers bonds Therefore the Saints may hear the present Ministers of England lawfully The major is grounded on this that the thing we may rejoyce in is good for which we may thank God and consequently hear which is agreeable to that of the Prophets Esai 52.7 Nahum 1.15 applyed by the Apostle Rom. 10.15 to the preaching of the Gospel who he supposeth are to be welcomed and heard The minor is proved from the Apostles example Phil. 1.15 16 17.18 That preaching of Christ that is no other then St. Paul rejoyced in and professed he would rejoyce in the Saints now may rejoyce in though it be not sincerely but in pretence out of envy not good will out of contention to add affliction to other Ministers bonds But such is the preaching Christ by the present Ministers ergo the Saints may rejoyce in it The major is not to be denyed unless it be shewed that the Apostle did evil in so rejoycing The minor is manifest in that no other exception is taken against their preaching then such as with as great reason might have nullified the joy of St. Paul in that which moved him to rejoyce In a word though personal defects and miscarriages were in the preaching of Christ yet the thing it self being good and occasioning the magnifying of Christ it is and should be matter of joy to all that love Christ. To this Argument I find the Author of the Pamphlet intituled prelatical preachers none of Christs teachers p. 45. answering thus that preaching of Christ is not to be rejoyced in without limitation because of these texts Mark 1.24 25. Luke 4.34 35.41 Acts 16.18 Acts 15.1 Gal. 5.2 4.12 Phil. 3.2 3. Acts 20.29 Psal. 50.16.18 But he sets not down the limitation he would gather thence only it may seâ—m by the texts that we are not to rejoyce in the confession of Christ or his servants by the Devils when the necessity of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses for justification is taught when hypocrites take Gods law into their mouths by professing or declaring of it but hate to be reformed Which we grant but say all these texts and the limitation thence deducible are impertinent to the present argument for as much as these do not preach Christ. Nor saith that Author in propriety and strictness of speech can Christ be said to be preached by a prelatical Ministry they justifie them that deny Christ to be the sole law-giver of his Church and so make him an Idol Which to be false is shewed in the answer to the 5th chapter of this treatise Yet saith that Author p. 46. In case such a Minister as this that preacheth by the Bishops licence should in his Doctrine or Sermon affirm Jesus Christ to be the sole law-giver unto his Churches yet in and by his very act of preaching he should deny it should the Apostle rejoyce in that preaching of Christ which is a denying him An horrible speech of monstrous absurdity and impudent malice I should not say so much of such preaching though it were by the Popes licence or the Devils instigation For though I should not rejoyce in the motive or impulsive cause by which it is done yet I would not so censure the thing it self as a denying of Christ. But how the receiving of a license from a Protestant Bishop to preach the Gospel within his Diocess and preaching there by vertue of it according to the order established by the law of the land should be a denying of Christs legislative power is to me incomprehensible and to use that Authors phrasifying the first born of absurdities I should rejoyce and bless God to obtain such power upon justifiable conditions But to our Author His First answer is not to the purpose For rejoycing in the Ministers preaching of Christ or those that preached out of envy is not a rejoycing in the good event by evil means but in a good event by good means the preaching Christ is a good thing in which the Apostle and we rejoyce and the effect is good although the motive and end of the preachers be evil The putting of Christ to death was in it self evil and not to be rejoyced in though the effect of it be good and to be
warranted and engaged to attend upon it The greater hopes we have of their goodness the more are all that love the Lord Jesus bound to encourage them in this way as being the the true way of Christ and to relinquish them and separate from them for this cause is very sinfull sith it is to separate from them for doing their duty To hold them as excommunicate to reprove to urge them to repentance not to receive them to conceive of them as brethren walking disorderly is uncharitableness and injustice That the incestuous person was a good man before he repented cannot be well conceived sith he committed such a sin as was not named among the Gentiles it was the sin of the Corinthians that they were puffed up and had not rather mourned that he that had done that deed might be taken away from among them it is no sin that the Saints do not mourn that the present Ministers who are confessedly good men may be taken away from among them it is their great sin if they do not bless God for them and pray for their establishment and good success in their Ministry That the Ministry is devised by any other than God is not shewed they that talk and write ignorantly not ever reading the book of Ordination which shews what their Ministry is make invectives against them and wildly wander from them upon false suggestions often to their perdition That to hear them is not to partake with them in sin is shewed in answer to this Authors 8 th argument chap. 8 th That their Ministry is usurped is not proved if it were it might be a true Ministry which if it be though it were usurped it is not the sin but may be the duty of him that exerciseth it It follows Sect. 11. The example of the learned godly Nonconformists is some inducement to hear the present Ministers Object 7. But many learned and good men and such as in Conscience could not conform to the Ceremonies of the Church of England have in dayes past and do now hear the present Ministers thereof To which we answer 1. That the greatest Scholars and most accomplished for humane wisdom parts yea visible holiness have not been alwayes on the Lords side following him in paths of his own appointment but many times have been found the greatest persecutors and opposers of Christ the most stupendiously ignorant of the will of God in respect of the truth and work of their generation of any persons in the world witness the Scribes and Pharisees the learned Rabbies and profound Doctors of that day with what virulency did they oppose Christ and the doctrine of the Gospel preached by him 2. That persons of as great holiness and renown for learning and all manner of accomplishments as learned Ainsworth Cotton c. have been and are of the same apprehension with us in this matter not to mention the reformed Churches who generally renounce the Ministry of the Church of England not admitting any by vertue of it to the charge of Souls as they speak But 3. To the Law and to the Testimony Isa. 8.20 if they speak not according to this rule though Angels for knowledge and holiness they are not to be received or heeded one word from the Lord is of more weight to hearts made truly tender than the example of an hundred professors can be 't is possible these may err be yea and nay but so cannot the truth of God which is alwayes the same and will abide so for ever 4. The Apostle hath long since determined this case 1 Cor. 11.1 Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ so far as Saints follow Christ I may and ought to follow them but no further so that the learning parts or holiness of any that attend upon the present Ministers of England is no warrant for me so to do nor will ever be a satisfactory answer to that enquiry who hath required these things at your hands I reply It is not denied that the most learned and zealous of the law such as St. Paul among the Jews the most excellent Moralists among the Gentiles have been great enemies to the Gospel afore their calling to the faith of Christ but the objection is of learned and good men among Christians who are never found the greatest persecutors and opposers of Christ. Possibly it may fall out yea and it hath fallen out that among Christians the greatest Scholars and most acâ—ompâ—â—shed for humane parts wisdoms yea for visible holiness have not been alwayes on the Lords side following him in paths of his own appointment but have been stupendiously ignorant of the will of God in respect of the truth and work of their generation I think â—ardinal Caietan was one of the greatest Scholars of his time yet saw not what Luther saw about justification by faith and Luther though he did much in that point yet saw not so much as Calvin in the point of the reâ—l presence in the Eucharist and therefore like well the 3 d. and 4 â—h answer here that we should adhere only to the Law and to the Testimony and be followers of the learned as they are of Christ. Yet I conceive that it is a wicked course which is taken by some so to disparage learning as if it were of no necessity Universities as of no use but rather Seminaries of ungodliness to say that men that have humane learning are the unlearned and unstable which do wrest the Scriptures 2 Pet. 3.16 as How the Cobler a much followed Preacher a great while ago in London vented in print that learned Scholars do make the Scriptures as a nose of wax are but Juglers and deceivers which are too too often insinuated into the minds of well meaning but weak minds whereby they are more addicted to such as How Tillinghast and other popular Orators and their injudicious discourses if stuffed with fained words and earnest affections then to the most solid proofs of the most learned whose interpretations of Scripture and handling of Controversies have cleared the truth and restored purity of Doctrine to the great benefit of the Church of God which these people understand not But it hapneth according to the saying Scientia nâ—minem habâ—â— inimicum nisi ignorantem And sure though I would have no Christian enslave his judgement to any man it were that Anthropolatria or sin of glorying in men forbidden 1 Cor. 3.21 against which I printed a little treatise in the the year 1645 foreseeing it would be the means of dividing Christians into parties nor would I have that which is propounded by men of none or lesser learning rejected because it is from them one Paphâ—utius may see that truth which a whole Council though such as the first Nâ—cene without him did not discern it was an evil spirit in Matthaeus Langius that made him disdain to be taught by Luther as is related in the History of thâ— Council of â—rent God doth out of the
27. The Schism in the Church of Corinth did arise from the affecting of and addicting themselves to some teachers with relinquishment if not disclaiming of others as appears by that which is said 1 Cor. 1.12 Every one of you saith I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas and I of Christ whereupon there were among them envying and strife and division 1 Cor. 3.3 and they sorted themselves into companies severed from others as may be gathered from 1 Cor. 11.17 18. and that about the Lords Supper v. 21.33 Now the not hearing of the present Ministers and the separation from the Churches that hear them and adhering only to their own teachers and Churches according to the principles of the Separatists is either the same or very like the Schism or division among the Corinthians or tends to it and hath begotten and is like to beget the same if not worse effects among the Christians in England as were in the Church of Corinth and therefore it is to be censured to be alike evil as the Schism among the Corinthians and is reckoned Gal. 5.20 21. among the works of the flesh excluding out of the Kingdom of God What is alledged by this Authour to justifie such separation is answered before That which Dr. John Owen hath in his book of Schism tending to acquit such separation from the crime of Schism or to difference it from that which was the evil among the Corinthians hath been examined by Mr. Daniel Cawdrey That notion which is appropriated to the Corinthian Schism as if it were onely division in the same particular Church and not separation from others not joyned in the same particular Congregation or such congregational Church is not agreeable with what the Apostle delivers 1 Cor. 10.17 and 12.12 13. Rom. 12.4 5. Ephes. 4.4 Ephes. 5.30 31 32. Ephes. 1.23 Col. 3.11.15 whereby every Christian believer where-ever is counted of the same body to which they should be joyned in love peace mutual affection and correspondent endeavours for their good and if the Apostle 1 Cor. 12.25 expresly count it a Schism in the body when any Christian doth neglect another and not take care of another much more is it Schism when Christians separate wiâ—hout necessary cause from communion with others and more specially when they disclaim them that are teachers of the Word of God as if Christ were divided as St. Paul speaks 1 Cor. 1.13.23 St. James in his Epistle ch 2.1 writes thus My brethren have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory with respect of persons and he expresseth himself by instance that they preferred the rich before the poor in placing them in their Assemblies and taxeth them therefore as partial in themselves and judges of evil thoughts Now to hear one that preacheth the faith of Christ because he is of our particular Society or by reason of particular interest or agreement in opinion or any other then the unity of faith in the Lord Jesus and to disclaim hearing another that hath the same faith preacheth it and holds communion with them that embrace it and to separate from such to despise or oppose such is to have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons for other reasons then their faith and therefore is condemned by St. James as evil 24. St. Paul Rom. 16 17. writes thus Now I beseech you brethren maâ—k them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine which ye have learned and avoyd them But those who teach men not to hear their Ministers which preach to them the truth of Gods Word because they are not in a congregational Church or not elected or ordained according to the rules of such Churches or because they conform to some things conceived unwarrantable which are made the reasons of unlawfulness to hear the present Ministers who preach the Gospel do cause offences and divisions contrary to the Doctrine Rom. 12.4.5 Rom. 14.1 c. Rom. 15.1 c. therefore their Doctrine is to be avoyded 25. The Apostle 1 Cor. 14.36 speaks thus What came the Word of God out from you or came it unto you only Which seems to reprehend the conceits whether schismatical or arrogant as if the Word of God were from them as the onely right teachers or confined to them as the only persons to whom it was communicated and from whom it might be received and so condemns such supposed inclosures by any Church or company of teachers But such conceits and inclosures they have and make who deny the present Ministers are to be heard conceiving the separated Churches and Ministers the only right Churches and Ministers to be heard 26. The Apostle Philip. 3 15 16. writes thus Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded and if in any thâ—ng ye be otherwise minded God shâ—ll reveal even this unto you thaâ— is as many of you as are well instructed in the Christian Doctrine for so the word is used 1 Cor. 2.6 1 Coâ— 14.20 Hâ—b 5 14. being opposed to Children and Babes that is wâ—ak in thâ— faith Rom. 14.1 Lâ—t them be minded as I am which he had expressed before in the chapter from v. 4. to v. 15. and if any through weakness â—n faith be otherwise minded as those Rom. 14 2.5 that thought Mosaical Laws were yet obligatory God would in time reveal this to be their liberty whicâ— I now judge to be mine Nevertheless saith he whereto ye have already attained let us walk by the same rule let us mind the same things Which requires Christian communion without separation notwithstâ—nding such difference and consequently condemns separation from Ministerâ— or Christians by reason of diversity of judgement about Church Government and Liturgy and different practise about Conformity or Non-conformity to them which are of less moment than those differences about meats and dayes and therefore notwithstanding them there should be walking together in preaching hearing praying and other duties of Christian communion 27. The Holy Ghost hath recorded the Prophesie of â—alaam Numb 24.3 4. c. of Caiaphas John 1â— 51 52. yea the sayings of Greek Infidel Idolatrous Poets cited by St. Paul as the words of Aratus Acts 17.28 of Menander 1 Cor. 15.33 of Epimâ—nides Titus 1.12 which shews the lawfulness of reading hearing and making use of true sayings of any though neither true Ministers of Christ nor believers but Idolaters and wicked enemies to the faith much more may the books be read and the Sermons heard of such learned men or preachers as clear and deliver the word of God notwithstanding dissent or disconformity to others about Liturgy and Church Discipline 28. The Apostle 1 Thess. 5.20 21. requires Christians not to despise prophesyings but to prove all things to hold fast that which is good St. John 1 Epist. chap. 4. Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God they make it not sin meerly to hear them
truths into others it is seldom without somewhat that alienates them from others and engageth them to their own society with diminution of love to others if not worse dispositions and practices Whence many remain in ignorance profaneness and errours being hardned in opposition to the present Ministers whom I deny not may give too much occasion by their loose walking and negligent Preaching in which they are not to be excused yet is not the opinion of not hearing them while they Preach the Gospel thereby justified but both to be blamed as guilty of hindring the good of mens souls and Christs kingdom and so in some sort Antichristian 39. Nor are the effects of this opinion onely pernicious to them who are without but evil also to them within whether Ministers or people To Ministers in that by the neglect of hearing them and such esteem as is due to them for their work sake they are disheartened and by this wrangling opposition disquietness they meet with disabled in a great measure from doing that good which otherwise might be done Yea by this opinion their Ministery though they Preach the Gospel is disanulled and accounted as accursed So the people in that they are divided become unpeaceable some for not hearing being unnecessarily cast on the danger of the Laws deprived of Estates and Liberty in many places growing empty of fruitful knowledge exposed to the attempts of Seducers who lie in wait to deceive filled with bitterness of spirit towards others though profuse towards those that agree with them and in a word there is a sad breach between Christians of the same profession of faith which is most contrary to the union which they should have in Christ by the same spirit and I wish it were not true that it is fulfilled now which was foretold 2 Tim. 4.3 4. That men heap to themselves Teachers after their own lusts 40. The many absurdities which are consequent on the opinion should disswade us from entertaining it For if it be true That it is unlawful to hear the present Ministers then it is not lawfull for us to invite them to Preach or to exhort them to it or to rejoyce in it or to pray to God that they may or to praise God for their Preaching Then it is better that Quakerism Ranting Barbarism Rudeness should be spread among the people then they be urged to hear the publick Preachers That Magistrates do ill to command people to go to hear them That they countenance or maintain them then it is good at Sermon time to stay at home idle or to lie in an Ale-house rather then to go to hear them the non-preaching Readers are as tolerable as Preaching Ministers their forbearing to Preach is avoiding of sin the less they Preach and the less they are heard Preach there is the less sin their silencing is no evil not they to be blamed for not Preaching for it can be no evil for them to forbear Preaching if it be a sin for others to hear them they ought rather to forbear Preaching then to draw others to sin And yet so wild is this opinion that many of them that refuse to hear and condemn as this Authour doth the hearing of them do yet except against non-preaching Ministers blame the Ministers for not Preaching more frequently and those that hinder their Preaching Whereas if the hearing them were unlawful it were good counsel to perswade men not to hear their Sermons nor to Preach them which would introduce Irreligion or some pernicious Errour as the state of things now stands in this Nation Sect. 16. Some passages in the writings of Mr. John Goodwin opposite to thâ— Book Intituled Prelatical Preachers none of Christs Teachers For a conclusion whereas the Book mentioned in my Epistle to the Reader Intituled Pâ—elatical Preachers none of Christs Teacher shewed to me as that which did make men Separatists and the book was written not in a Logick form and therefore not answered by me yet the Authour being supposed the same with him who Printed in the year 1653. two books against some that about baptism left his Communion I have here added some passages with animadversions which shew how his separation in this latter book crosseth his sayings in the former In his 40. Quaeries Qu. 10. I read thus When men may separate that which is precious from that which is vile and enjoy it thus separated and apart without suffering any inconvenience by that which is vile is it a point of wisdome in them to deprive themselves of the enjoyment of what is precious because there is somewhat which they suppose to be vile near to it Why then doth lie dissuade from hearing the present Ministers who preach precious Doctrine because of some things conceived vile in them yet may be separated from that which is precious Qu. 14. The experience of many years in the reformed Churches abroad and of some years amongst our selves at home hath abundantly taught and informed us that the said question hath yielded little other fruit unto those that have set their hearts to it yea and to others also but Contention Strife Emulations evil Surmizings Distractions Confusions Alienations of mind and Affections amongst Christian Brethren evill Speakings Vilifyings Revilings needless and wastfull Expence of time loss of many precious opportunities for matters of greatest consequence unprofitable disturbings and turmoylings of weak Consciences shatterings scatterings rendings and tearings such of Churches and Christian Societies who till this root of bitterness sprang up amongst them walked in love and with the light of Gods countenance shining on them holding the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace edifying one another in their most holy faith c. These things were not the fruit of that question but of that separation which was made by occasion of it and are as true of the separation this Authour maintained in his later book Qu. 23. Whether ought not the law of edification 1 Cor. 14.26 to over-rule all Laws and Precept concerning Spiritual and Church Administrations as the law of Salus populi ought to umpire and over-rule all politique laws and constitutions in their respective executions If so the supposed laws of outward calling of Ministers should not be urged so as to hinder people from hearing Ministers because of some defect supposed therein when they may be heard to edification of the hearers In his Water-dipping Consideration 17. Is it not then presumption in the highest and an assuming of an Antichristian power to impose Laws upon Christian societies which the Lord Christ never imposed yea and to cesure and scandalize them with the odious and reproachful terms of Antichristian and unclean onely for the transgression of their own Laws What doth he less who forbids to hear in his latter Book the present Ministers Consideration 22. Whereas Antichrist himself is not more Antichristian then in claiming and exercising such a dominion over the faiths of his Proselytes and Disciples by vertue